Mumbai-based photographer David de Souza has been given the epithet, “the anti-fashion, fashion photographer” because of his novel take on fashion photography. In fact, it isn’t just fashion photography but all forms of art that he enjoys trying to redefine.

He also has a love of capturing “stories that spill out onto the street”, which is taken a step further in his latest book, “Itinerants, the nomads of Mumbai”. In this book, he and his wife Charmayne capture stories which belong to the street – those of the many itinerants who inhabit Mumbai– in photography and poetry. 

In this Fotoflock interview, David discusses “Itinerants” and the photography scene in India and offers tips on subjects ranging from nude photography to printing!

You were a bio-chemist before turning to photography – what prompted this move?

In those years, (thirty years ago) there were fewer options for young people; if you were a guy you did science, a girl, arts, and a Gujarati, commerce, so that left the options clear. But in 1977, after nine months of haggling with a lady from Santa Cruz, I finally owned my first second hand SLR. It was a Minolta SRT 101 and at that juncture if you had told me that I would be a professional photographer, I would never have believed you. But when I look back at what is now a long tryst with photography, it seems that the camera, like a magic talisman, had a destiny, a karma, a purpose and an orientation for me. It seemed to decide that I should take to it professionally one day, not too long after.

To answer this question, there was a point in time when I thought that I might be good enough to earn my living at photography.

Does your knowledge of science help in your photography?

Of course yes; the idea of gamma, or contrast index or noise or grain, and the physics of optics, depth of field, colour temperature and Shiempflug were all friends; not abstract philosophies to battle with. Chemistry was also terribly useful in developing (in those days) b/w, colour and printing and, these days, laser or inkjets.

You call yourself an “anti-fashion, fashion photographer” – can you elaborate on this?

That title is by default; I had no access to models, designers, make-up artists and stylists and all the accoutrements of 'fashion' which led me to define what fashion means for myself. I figured that I could create fashion without using any of those things that are conventionally used. For example, if my subjects, who were never models, wore junk and created a story themselves then I would be anti-fashion, but using the syntax of fashion. So the epithet of anti-fashion, fashion photography came to be a convenient way to describe myself. It also sounded a bit subversive and I liked that.

In fact, I am interested in the avant-garde and Dada and any form of art that tries to re-define the basic tenets or premises of art and, for that matter, language itself. I am not anti-fashion; far from it, I love fashion, but I think I am opposed to a lot of what is perceived as fashion. Much of it is catalogue photography or 'textile' photography that masquerades under the grandiose title of fashion.

What are your thoughts on the photography scene in India?

I think the photography scene is India is a mixed bag. More youngsters than ever now want to be photographers, which has to be a good sign, but the entire food chain to produce photographers and their markets is not in place. For example, the glaring lacunae is basic, high-quality, photo education i.e. exposure to its history,  its future and to contemporary photography the world over, whether it is photojournalism, editorial, travel, lifestyle, fashion, fine art or the specialised forms like medical, astro, aerial, underwater and technical. Where are the libraries? Where are the schools for art critique and curators, galleries etc? So, while everyone wants to be a fashion photographer, the moment the going gets tough they gravitate towards fine art and so on. This is all for the good eventually, but it’s too ad hoc and random with no attempt at putting in a structure that will eventually only help photographers.

You do not see photographers gathering the way artists, sculptors and painters gather; this tells you of insecurities and petty egos. You dare not criticise the self-styled bastions of Indian photography. So it’s very much the prerogative of a fiefdom, and people guarding their markets and reputations vehemently. There is very little, if any, public debate and even less sharing of information which is anyway available easily. So it’s not a terribly healthy environment for photographers and while equipment is available more easily than twenty years ago, the forums, the intellectual and aesthetic and the peer support is severely lacking.

Many of your shots are taken in Mumbai - what is special about Mumbai from a photographer’s point of view?

Mumbai is an Indian city and one thing that is wonderful about most Indian cities is the abundance of stories all spilling out onto the street. There are some other stories behind closed doors too, but the most common stories that photojournalists the world over come to India for are easily accessible. The city, but for the bureaucracy, is open to being photographed. These days there is an increased scepticism and edginess about photographers and photography in the streets, but that will also subside hopefully. Most Indians love being photographed and if you have a good bedside manner then they will embrace you and become your friend for life. The city has colour, texture and an openness and diversity that is wonderful. The monsoon has never been depicted well and that is always a surprise. I think you can point the camera anywhere and get a shot that has some flavour and rassa.

You have shot all over the world – from Burma to New York. Which destinations would you still love to visit?

My heart is set on Russia, Japan and China. Let’s see how that works out.

You have shot some beautiful nude photography – a genre which many photographers do not dare to venture into. Any tips on shooting nude photography?

I think most photographers do venture into 'nude' photography; even students at their annual shows invariably or PSI type shows always have some sort of nude photography, but most of it, at least to my eyes, looks sleazy and/or old fashioned. Raghu Rai's work, for example, should never have been shot, let alone shown; they were a complete disaster and brought down the man’s stature enormously. So I think for a nude to begin to be a good nude, it would depend a lot on the intentions of the photographer. How those intentions translate is another matter.

The only tip I can think of is to remember that the nude in front of the camera is a real person who chooses to make him/herself vulnerable. So treat your subject with respect and dignity and not as an object. The other thing is that by shooting nude photography you can also make yourself vulnerable as the laws in this country are Victorian and arbitrary.

You say that, “I discovered women only in 2000 and wonder what took me so long”. How did you discover women and what are the advantages of shooting women?

A beautiful woman who was interviewing me for MTV news many years ago wanted some 'portfolio' photos and asked if my assistant would do them. I thought her attractive so volunteered myself. From that day, others who saw those photos wanted to be photographed, and that led to more women being photographed. I wouldn’t use the word “advantage” but the beauty of photographing women for me is that I am attracted to women and not to men, so that makes it desirable rather than an exercise. Women are also less narcissistic or rather conceal their narcissism better; men are always preening and, more often than not, 'posing' and so they look stiffer and more aware of the camera. Women can get so into it that that 'flirtation' with the camera looks almost like self-portraits. That, to me, is the high point of any photography – when the photographer disappears.

What did you hope to achieve through your book, “Itinerants, the Nomads of Mumbai”?

It didn’t start out as a book but as a series of portraits of interesting people whom I would not normally engage with. But the large 4x5 transparencies started talking back and miraculously arranged themselves towards a book; I, like a puppet at the end of a ventriloquist's arm, merely obliged. But in that obligation is a document maybe of vanishing professions and a disappearance of a certain kind of life. It is homage to the people in the book and, in an indirect way, to Richard Avedon and Irving Penn and hundreds of others who left monographs behind and created a tradition of isolating the subject from their environment to enhance their personalities.

What was also happening was that my work was starting to get copied by younger photographers who had seen it in my studio and had shamelessly copied it and passed it off as their own, so it seemed appropriate to get it out into the public domain. This indicates to me yet another Indian trait – unoriginality and plagiarism.

How important is printing to the overall process of photography? Which printing equipment do you use?

Printing is crucial to the process; it is the final result. You may have made a fabulous photo but if the print is crappy then what would be the use? So the kind of print one makes is very important. I used to do all my own analogue printing, even cibachromes, via a large beautiful 4x5 dichroic Durst enlarger. But I sold that some time ago when the world was going digital. I still feel there is nothing that compared to an optical print that no digital Lamda or LED printers can match. In the West they have a digital dichroic head where you can put a digital file through an optical enlarger. That, it seems to me, would be the best way to go about it. But most convenient these days would be to print either archival Inkjet or an archival C print. I prefer the latter. But for common usage and the most cost effective I get most prints up to 18 inches done on an LED machine that prints on metallic bromide emulsions. It is important to have a 'relationship' with your printer to make sure you get optimal quality each time. It’s easier with digital but things like colour calibration and the science of photography are not understood too well.

Offset printing, as in a book form, is another ballgame all together. I am fastidious about printing and take out a lupe each time to check dot gain and other such obscure things when it comes to offset. There are many variables when it comes to offset; each paper comes with its own profile. 16 bit files and RGB are alien terms to most processing houses, who all try and avoid them, but that is the way to go, the photographer first needs to know why 16 bit and RGB. I am ecstatic about the print quality in our book “Itinerants”; it surpasses international quality and is a wonderful product that can hold its own anywhere in the world. My obsession has been towards making the local global.

What are you working on now?

I am working on several projects simultaneously but I would prefer to be a little mysterious only to protect myself from being copied yet again. I hate to sound paranoid, but the truth is that photographers have very little imagination and are so completely open to the idea of being unethical, that I have to think twice before saying what would be the most natural and obvious thing to say. Suffice to say that each new project, and there are at least five, is completely different from the others, all exciting, in the realm of fine-art, but my obsession again is towards very high quality monographs. Another should be out by the end of this year.

All photos are © David de Souza 2009 and no photos can be reproduced or used in any shape or form without the permission of the photographer.

David de Souza's Website | More photos by David de Souza | Fotoflock Gallery