Hi Phil,
My biggest photographic passion is black and white documentary; it is the genre that without doubt has taught most people in the 20th century what the world is really like. And even now, there are photographers out there who are doing the genre proud.
What marks good documentary photography is its power to tell stories… big, deep, meaningful stories. And to do that you need to bring into the picture the same sorts of elements that you would bring into a written story, including a sense of place, context and narrative; the who, what, when, where, and why.
If you have a look at the work of the great documentary photographers you will often notice that the lenses they used to make their photographs are not telephotos, but wide-angles. There are a few reasons for this. One of the most obvious is that wide-angle lenses reveal more of the environment. Rather than viewing a scene through a rolled up piece of paper, the wide-angle lenses lets us see the world through a large picture frame. That broad vision lets us see what else is happening about the subject, it creates a sense of place and context.
Another big advantage in using a wide-angle lens is that it has inherently more depth-of-field. Even at wide apertures you can usually get a subject and background into focus enough to have a good understanding of the scene. Wide-angle lenses also have another advantage; because you can handhold them at lower shutter speeds, they are also better for working in low light, although my feeling was that this was not a problem for you on this day.
Now, there is one challenge that most people have in working with wide-angles lenses, and that is to get the most out of them… you really need to get closer to the subject.
With this photo you used a telephoto lens, and while it has created a reasonable portrait, it has not told the whole story you were trying to convey. Now, if you had used a wide lens, you would have captured more of this scene and potentially told a far greater story.
As for how much closer you can get… here is a useful rule of thumb. If you were to halve the focal length of the lens you were using, you can then go ahead and halve the distance you are from the subject.
I have a hunch you were using a lens that was more than 100mm in length, possibly from a distance of five metres; if you were to have used a lens that was closer to 35mm, and come to within a couple of metres of this boy we would not only have the boy appearing about the same size in the picture, but we would have seen more skulls. Because of the increased depth-of-field, the skulls would also have been more in focus.
Of course, getting close to people you have never met before is not that easy. As a suggestion though, the next time you travel, try quietly engaging with people. Don’t rush in with cameras blazing. Just start with a 'hello', and if they do not run away, just gesture with your hand for them to pause a moment and raise the camera up. If everyone is still comfortable, take the photo. That’s my preferred approach!
I hope this is a help.
Cheers,
Anthony