[Leica] I like what I like, but...

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

In all the discussion about what are good photos, and what we are allowed
to say about them, one point has not come up.

As a preface I should say that I like looking at photos. A lot. Sometimes
I'm critical, sometimes I'm not, but I'll keep on looking. I have seen
photos that have moved me purely through subject matter, and I have seen
photos that have moved me less through subject matter than through
consumate technical skill. Most don't move me. The ones that don't move me
I pass by and forget.

But I have also seen a lot of photos, some which have moved me immensely,
that I would never have taken. I could have stood on the same spot, with
the same equipment, and I would have taken a different picture. And if I
went back to that spot, and a similar situation came up, I would still not
take the picture that I had admired. I would think that this applies to all
of us, and this makes photo criticism so difficult. I think the reason I
would not take that photo is because I am a different person, with all that
that implies, and I do not respond in the same way that the person who took
the picture responded to the scene. Therefore, how can I possibly respond
to the photo in the same way, or even in any sort of predictable way? The
average response of a group may be pridictable within a certain range, but
individuals are not predictable. So if I see a photo that doesn't move me,
I regard that as a miss. I can critique it to a certain degree, more so
technically than artistically, but all within my own framework which, as I
have pointed out above, may have no relevance whatsoever.

And then there is the web issue. Many of the photos on my web site were
made with a 4x5. Beleieve me, my web site with its maximal 100k JPEGs does
no justice to them technically, in spite all of my efforts :-).


   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com