Photographer's Interview: Ciaran Whyte

Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:15 am

Keith: It's a great pleasure to interview Ciaran Whyte here on PT. Ciaran has been a member here for less than a year but has dazzled us with his informal black & white portraits. He has also contributed excellent advice for beginners, especially in the people / black & white areas of PT. Welcome Ciaran!

Ciaran Whyte: Thanks Keith and believe me the pleasure is all mine. It's an honour to be asked to do the interview, especially considering the pedigree of the photographers that have been interviewed in the past.

KW: Well your photos speak for themselves, you are certainly a very well respected portraiteer here on PT. By the way, how should we pronounce your name, is it Ciaran with an "s" or with a "sh"?

CW: Funnily enough, it's not with either :) My name is from the Irish language and poses problems for so many people. It's actually pronounced "Key"-"Wron(g)" just drop the g at the end of wrong. I've spent quite some time in the past working in France and in the US that I now answer to anything that sounds remotely like my name.

KW: Ah good, glad we got that cleared up! Now what's that you have there, a digital? I would have sworn you shot black & white film for a living!

CW: Shooting for a living, let alone shooting film? I wish! I'm a pure digital man and up until a very recent experiment with a borrowed Canon 3000V and some Ilford HP5+ 400, I've never shot film before in my life. My first SLR was the Nikon D70 back in April 2004 and now I shoot on the D2X, so it's been digital all the way for me. As for the reasons for B&W rather than colour, there are a few. Firstly, when I was trying to learn about exposure I practised a lot with the Ansel Adams Zone system. While I know it applies equally to colour as it does B&W I got into the habit early on of looking at tones rather than colours. But primarily I find that B&W strips away a bit a reality and requires the viewer to try and interpret what's in the picture more so than just recognise it. Does that make sense?

KW: Uh... sure! Actually I think everyone can benefit by shooting b&w for a while, learning how to focus on shapes and tones and such; let's get back to that in a minute and focus first on content. I remember noticing right from your first few posts on PT that much of your work combines a clear social consciousness with street-like informality. How did you begin? How did this social aspect of your photography come about?

CW: It was definitely a gradual progression more so than a conscious decision. At the start and to a lesser degree now, I would shoot everything and anything but as time has progressed, portraiture and people have interested me more and more. In 2005 I did a lot of model photography (focusing on portraiture), which is really great for learning and developing your photography because you can take your time at each shot, trying to nail exposure and composition. But as I moved into 2006, I started to shoot a lot more on the streets, both candids and portraiture. Who knows what 2007 will bring :)

KW: Let's dive into your portfolio, which is exhibited at the website http://thewonderoflight.com. Very nice site, by the way! Here is a striking example, I think, of a thoroughly modern street scene. On one hand, this fellow looks like the kid next door, but his clothing is a cue that something is out of the ordinary, and his eyes seem so sombre. So the scene strikes me as a thoroughly modern paradox. Can you tell us how you found this scene and what story it tells?

CW: Thanks :) This shot was taken on one of the rare occassions that I had some time off work and I walked around Dublin on my own. On the day, I set myself a goal of shooting people but rather than putting on a long lens and standing way back from the subjects, I wanted to try some shots up close. So, I knew that it meant I was going to have to engage with the people I was shooting. This young lad was begging on a side street just off one of Dublin's most prosperous streets and although most people passing by him did a really good job of it, it was near impossible to not see him. Normally I'd be tempted to shoot him from afar, but that day I went up and sat on the ground beside him and talked to him for a while. The scary thing is he could quite easily be the kid next door, just that some twists in his life meant that he's now living rough on the streets of Dublin. I'm not sure what story the photo tells, but for me it's all about the sadness in his eyes.

KW: Do you try to stay journalistically detached from your subjects, or do you find yourself relating to them, and perhaps chatting or conversing?

CW: I like to think I'm a people person. People in general interest me. When I'm walking down a street, even without my camera, I find myself looking into people's faces, fascinated by their eyes or the lines on their forheads, always wondering what their stories are. Every time I shoot a portrait, I converse and chat with the person. Obviously it depends on the situation, but the conversation could last anything from 5 seconds to 5 hours. I've seen photographers shoot people and ask for a particular "look". This can work great if the subject has some good acting skills, but more often than not it ends up with a portrait that looks forced and unnatural. However, if you can take your time and find out a little about the person you're shooting, engage with them and steer them on to thinking about or talking about a real event in their life, then it's easier to capture that real emotion in a photo.

KW: Those are very good tips; too often I think we see photographers projecting (imposing?) their own interpretation onto a subject; definitely there is a fine line between being too detached or too controlling. The balance you strike seems very effective to me.

Now, one prominent feature in many of your photographs is extreme isolation of the subject, using wide open apertures. I think this aspect is what really sets your work apart from what I have seen, especially here at PT. It's a bit contrary to the general approach of journalism in which one treats the subject more clinically, usually stopped down to show the context. How did you arrive at your style- are there any photographers who shaped your thinking?

CW: Since I started shooting back in April '04 I have contacted numerous online photographers, some to just pass on my admiration of their work, but others to tap them for information and tips. More often than not these people have been very gracious in replying to my questions and helping me develop my photography skills. One photographer in particular, Simon Young from the UK has been a massive influence on my photography. Initially Simon helped me enormously by answering copious amount of questions via email, but subsequent to that I've flown him to Ireland and flown myself to the UK for one to one tutorials and mentoring sessions. Simon's work in my opinion is exceptional and I'm a huge fan.

At the start, apart from the obvious technical/quality difference in our work, my photos strongly imitated Simon's style. But since then, I like to think I've evolved my own, of which shooting wide open would be a feature. It's not something I've dwelled on too much being honest, but I think by shooting wide open I can ensure that I'm focusing the viewers attention to what I want really want them to see. One tip I got on composition when I was starting out, was to keep things simple and I think by having as little as possible in focus, helps remove clutter from the scene and keeps my photos as simple as possible.

KW: Indeed many if your shots do have an elegant simplicity, especially the portraits of women, which we'll discuss in a second. First let's look at another photo, this is one that many of would be too afraid to try!

This fellow sports quite a few, uh, accessories, and in spite of what might intimidate most of us, you've managed to capture a very sincere gaze. Can you share some tips for approaching a subject on the street? First, how do you select a subject, and second, do you follow the subject for a while, or do you approach directly?

CW: I'm not sure I can give tips on selecting a subject because this is very subjective. As I mentioned already, even without my camera, I'm always on the look out for shots, always looking at people, their faces, their demeanour, their surroundings. Sometimes it could be a beautiful woman with amazing eyes, or an elderly gentelman with a face weathered by age and hardship, that makes me want to shoot them. Other times it could be a guy covered in tattoos and piercings who is virtually screaming out "photograph me please!"

I definitely wouldn't recommend following people for a while unless you can be 10000% sure they're not going to be aware of your presence. The last thing you want to appear is as a stalker or in anyway sleazy/hidden. Be polite and confident. I find the best approach is to simply go over to the person with a nice smile and ask straight out. If you're not intimidating, are polite, confident (not stumbling over your words or fumbling around) and are genuine, more often than not people will oblige. The next key tip is to be equally polite when they say no.. a "thank you anyway" is really important too!

If they do agree to be shot, you have to be familiar with your camera (metering/exposure/setup) in case they're not willing to stand around for a while. I spotted the guy with the tattoos going into a shop, so I just waited outside until he came out. I had everything setup on the camera in case I only got one chance for one shot. When he came out, I excused myself for interrupting him, commented on his tattoo's and asked could I shoot him. Before and during the first shot, I continuously talked to him, putting him at ease and also finding out about him, how long he's been tattooing himself etc. In the end I spent about 5 minutes with him, took 10 or so shots and I've even been invited back to spend some time shooting in the tattoo gallery that he worked in.

KW: You have previously mentioned on PT your belief in some special proportions that help you frame a shot, particularly the portraits. Here's an example that you showed us in the photography tips forum. I don't mean to ask you to repeat your post here, but can you briefly explain what got you started thinking this way- how does it differ from the rule of thirds? Has this way of thinking become a part of the way you frame each shot? Gorgeous shots, by the way.

CW: Thanks again :) As a portrait photographer, our task of producing pleasing shots is made so much easier if the people we shoot are attractive. Luckily I've had the opportunity to shoot with some really beautiful models from both the UK and Ireland.

But after the content, you then have composition. I think everyone starting out in photography reads a little bit on composition and the thing we come across the most is the rule of thirds. I'm still amazed at how effective this rule of composition is.

The magic ratio composition rule is very closely aligned to the rule of thirds and is something knocking around since the Greeks "invented" it. For the rule of thirds, people put points of interest on a line 0.666 (1/3) of the way into a shot (from the top or bottom, or from the right or left). The magic ratio is very close, in that the point of interest is 0.618 rather than 0.666. For all intents and purposes they're the same thing - who's going to measure or notice a difference of 0.048?? I guess the thing I do differently is in the crop in that I usually stray away from the standard print or capture sizes and and crop to 1:1.618. These are subtle difference but I do genuinely believe they make a difference.

As for framing every shot like it.. most likely I do, but it's a subconscious thing now more than a conscious decision. The times I do stray from framing shots this way, I tend to be making a very deliberate decision to break the rule.

KW: Now, last but not least, the fantasy question! You have been given an assignment by your favourite magazine (you pick) and you are given free reign to spend a few days with any subject(s) you wish. What will be the magazine, and what will be the subject?

CW: I have pretty humble ambitions, simply getting published would be a dream come true for me. But if we're talking about fantasy, I guess it would probably be Time News. As for subjects, definitely nobody famous... they tend to get enough coverage :) It would probably be real life portraits of soldiers on the front line of some conflict (there's enough of them to pick nowadays) followed by portraits of civilians living in those conflict areas. Gritty, real life, emotional portraits of real people.

KW: Well I am quite sure that you can and will get such an assignment soon enough!

Now let's open up the phone lines to other Phototakers members, who may have questions.

Everyone, please remember the rule, try to leave one question up for Ciaran at a time! And pronounce his name correctly ;)

Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:21 pm

CW - how do you go about approaching your subjects. Do you shoot from a distance or ask first?

Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:53 pm

The majority of my portraits are all shot with the full knowledge and permission of the subjects. Usually I just ask them and more often than not they'll oblige.

However, it is very much subject dependent. If I saw a person on the street, with their head in their hands crying, the scene itself dictates that you would have to shoot from a distance.

All in all, candid shots make up a very small proportion of the stuff I shoot.

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:23 pm

What's your goal with respect to photography? Do you want to work for a magazine? Do you want sell/show your prints in a gallery? You don't seem like the type to get into baby photos and weddings.

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:32 pm

My first goal is to improve :)

But after that, I don't have any aspirations to commercialise my photography. Luckily I have my own business which I set up with a partner back in 2002, which has grown from strength to strength. We're now up to a staff of close on 20 people. Ideally, I'd love to be in a position where I'd be able to retire when I'm 40 at which stage I would definitely like to devote a lot more time to photography than I can at the moment.

But you're right, the idea of taking on commissions, especially weddings definitely wouldn't suit me at all. I'd love to have my own large gallery and studio and be able to sell the odd print here and there, but not be under pressure to have to in order to pay bills. I have nothing but admiration for the hard working professional wedding (and maternity) photographers out there, but it's not for me.

Joined: 02 Feb 2006 Posts: 254 Location: Ireland

Hi Ciaran

Looking at your photographs I imagined that you'd been into photography for alot longer than you have, you've achieved alot in a very short time, but obviously there is talent at the root of what you do...

What has been the biggest challenge in terms of your photography so far, both technically and personally speaking? And what advice would you have for beginners and people starting out ..

Lorraine

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:12 am

I think everyone is their own worst critic and when I look at my photos, I'm no different. I'm still not satisfied at a lot of the shots I produce, so there's still loads of room for improvement. But that said, when I look back at shots from the early days and indeed last year, I do think I've gotten better, which is satisfying.

I've seen a question asked before about photography - is it art or craft? I personally think it's both. The craft aspect can be taught/learned but the art aspect people are either gifted with naturally or develop very slowly over time. My advice to people getting into photography is to focus on the craft. Learn everything you can technically about photography. Understand exposure, the effects of wide and narrow apertures, slow and fast shutter speeds. Understand how different lenses can be used and how the effect a scene.

For me I set myself a goal at the very start to learn one new thing about photography each day. It sounds corny, but thats what I did. I'd read about an aspect of photography and then study, study, study followed by practice, practice, practice. At the start, there is so much to learn and it can be a bit daunting, so a good piece of advice is to focus on one single element. Read as much about it as you can, but then get your camera out and practice it. Eventually the craft (technical) aspect starts to make sense and it's at this stage that you can really start to focus on the art.

Oh and it helps too if you're both addicted to and obsessive about photography :)

Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:11 pm

I also followed that route- learned as much of the technical side as I could and then tryed to learn the 'art' side by using my point and shoot digital. I think it hass worked well because I'm now very quick with technical decisions while still finding composition I like.
Also good advice there about simple photos working well.

Anyways, a very good interview. Thanks for doing it Keith and thanks Ciaran for answering to Keith =)

I'll take the next question,
With street photography- how do you think the physical appearance of your camera affects the chance from going unnoticed- or in cases where you have permission being taken more serious than just a sleaze?
I know a lot of people say rangefinders like leicas range are the best options because they are small and light, but then I see a lot of people happily shootiung candids of people on pretty noticeable cameras (d2x 80-200 for example)
And a short one- do you ever use flash in your candid work or always rely on natural light?

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:40 am

lazarus219 wrote:

I also followed that route- learned as much of the technical side as I could and then tryed to learn the 'art' side by using my point and shoot digital. I think it hass worked well because I'm now very quick with technical decisions while still finding composition I like.
Also good advice there about simple photos working well.

Anyways, a very good interview. Thanks for doing it Keith and thanks Ciaran for answering to Keith =)

Thanks :)

lazarus219 wrote:

I'll take the next question,
With street photography- how do you think the physical appearance of your camera affects the chance from going unnoticed- or in cases where you have permission being taken more serious than just a sleaze?
I know a lot of people say rangefinders like leicas range are the best options because they are small and light, but then I see a lot of people happily shootiung candids of people on pretty noticeable cameras (d2x 80-200 for example)

It's funny, but when you approach someone and ask can you take their photo, size tends to matter. It could be that I'm more brazen or more confident now, but with my new camera (D2X), I tend to get fewer rejections than I did on my old D70. People seem to take you seriously and believe you're genuine when you have a big camera around your neck. I never pretend to be a professional photographer, or work for the press (well hardly ever) but when people see a big camera with a big piece of glass attached, they put you into that category automatically I think. But on the flip side of the coin, the size is certainly a disadvantage with candids. It's very difficult to stay unnoticed with a huge camera attached to your eye. One of the things I read about in Sheila's interview which she uses - the angle viewer, is on my shopping list.

lazarus219 wrote:

And a short one- do you ever use flash in your candid work or always rely on natural light?

It varies quite a bit. Putting the flash on the camera really makes the camera stand out in terms of size, so it makes candid's even more difficult. In most of my portraiture I would nearly always use a squirt of flash (never direct and down around -1.7ev) just to lift shadows and give some catchlights, but in candids I'd use it less often.

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:35 am

There are many things to admire in your work, but I'd like to ask about your black and white conversions. I suppose you vary your approach a little for each subject, but can you give a general description of the process you use, with a few specifics about the things you think are especially important to your final product? Thanks, Colin

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:45 am

Thanks Colin. My conversion for portraiture is pretty much the same for every shot - so now all I have to do is hit F12 and it's done :). From shot to shot, I'd obviously vary contrast, burn and dodge certain parts, but apart from that it's an automatic thing. I try not to vary too much as I like to have all my portrait/people shots to have the same feel. My landscape shots are a completely different matter :)

Conversion is done as follows:

1. Convert to LAB colour mode
2. Use the lightness/luminosity channel as the conversion. Click on the channels tab, select "lightness" and then click "Image->Mode->Greyscale"
3. Convert back to RGB
4. Levels/Curves for contrast
5. I also add a hint of sepia detail to the shadows via the channel mixer

That's pretty much it. If people would like the photoshop action itself or a more detailed description, then feel free to email me.

As for what I feel is important... it has to be contrast. I love to see a nice range of tones in a shot. For portraits, the whites of the eyes should be white (not blown and not grey) as should teeth, so thats a good indicator of the white point.

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:56 am

Thanks for the reply Ciaran,

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:04 pm

Let me start off by saying thanks to yourself and Keith for this great interview and that I enjoy your work a great deal.

My question is, have you ever had a bad experience when asking someone if you can photograph them on the street? If so how did that experience effect the way you approached people in the future and how did you overcome it?
The reason I ask is because the first few times I approached people I was met with negativity and it seems to have put me in a place where I am shy or standoffish now.

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:36 am

Thanks Savone :)

Luckily, so far I haven't had any bad experiences asking people can I shoot them. That's not to say I haven't been turned down, rejected and met with some negativity. But I use these negative occassions to give me more resolve for the next person I need to ask.

Confidence has so much to do with it. If you stumble over your words or are nervous, people don't warm to you easily. It's no different than chatting to a stranger in a bar. If you go across, confident, with a smile then they're more likely to respond than if you go over mumbling, looking down or looking nervous. It is difficult at the start, but with practice it does get easier. I have been turned down LOADS of times and being honest it has helped a lot! Once you get used to being turned down, it's no longer a big deal and it helps you approach people because you don't fear failure.

I know it's easy to say, but try to be brave :)

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:03 pm

What is your mindset when you go out to shoot? Do you go out with a destination in mind? Or are you looking for a type of photo to take? Or do you just go about your business and have your camera handy?

What is your mental approach to a day's shooting? For the longest time I have shot only when contracted. Now that I am retired I find it harder to go out to shoot. Tips are appreciated.

Also, are you aware how alike your approach to portraiture is to Yousef Karsh's? He would live with a subject for a full week before taking the first image. He had to get to know the subject in order to render a portrait?

Karsh wrote, "Within every man and woman a secret is hidden, and as a photographer it is my task to reveal it if I can. The revelation, if it comes at all, will come in a small fraction of a second with an unconscious gesture, a gleam of the eye, a brief lifting of the mask that all humans wear to conceal their innermost selves from the world. In that fleeting interval of opportunity the photographer must act or lose his prize."

I must say you've gotten a good share of those prizes.