Re: [Leica] Tina's pictures

["Bruce R. Slomovitz" <brslomo@erols.com>]

Eric,

Thanks for your reply.  I really feel that it was enlightening and helps me
by giving me a context in which to view your work.  And thanks again for
sharing your work with us.

Bruce S.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Tina's pictures


>At 05:47 PM 4/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Now you've really got me curious Eric.  You've vehemently disowned any
>>pretensions to photography for art's sake.   You're not the kind of
>>photographer that Harrison is but describe yourself as an erstwhile
>>photojournalist (currently working as an editor) and if I understand this
>
>First off, this is not a criticism of Harrison. Okay? I like his work. I'm
>just referring to the kinds of pictures on his web page vs. mine. And I
>have to correct myself, we are probably not that different, maybe we are.
>But I am only referring to his pictures on his web page. Is that clear?
>
>There are differences between "editorial" photographers and "news"
>photographers. Take a look at Harrison's pictures. Highly lit, carefully
>composed editorial style photographs. Wonderful stuff, I might add. There's
>a lot of crossover between what he does and what I do, but there is a
>significant difference.
>
>I do classic documentary photojournalism. I do not light my photos unless I
>absolutely have to. Fill flash some times, but it's only to open up
>shadows. I rarely ever light anything but portraits (I did two days ago by
>leaning a lamp over to create some side light) unless the light requires me
>to. And I never set up a bunch of lights to fill up a room with light
>except gyms for basketball. And it's not artistic lighting in gyms, it's
>just basic light.
>
>Those are some of the basic differences between that style of photography
>and mine. So don't expect my pictures to look like his web pictures. I just
>don't have the time, or the desire to light my pictures. Why? Because
>lighting quite often destroys the spontaneity of the situation I am
>photographing. The subject moves, and I'd have to move the lights, and miss
>the moment.
>
>I'm sure he does that kind of photography too. But looking at Harrison's
>web page (which is what the person told me to do to get some sort of
>"enlightenment" - my word, not his) causes me to assume that the criticism
>implied in the message was that my pictures are deficient because they
>don't come up to the standards of Harrison's pictures. I can light things
>too. I am capable. I just choose not to, nor does anyone else choosing to
>work in the photojournalistic style I am accustomed to - and  which
>benefits greatly from using Leica.
>
>Not all of his pictures are lit, obviously, and they show his skill as a
>photographer. But that's not what I heard in the "take note Eric" comment
>and the words that proceeded that comment.
>
>>I guess the question then is how many and what kinds of photography are
>>there and do you fit into any of those categories.  Or put another way,
just
>>what is it that your photos aim to do?
>
>To be literal, there are as many photographic styles as there are
>photographers. But don't confuse editorial photography with classic
>documentary photojournalism. They are two different animals, with a lot of
>overlap, but require completely different approaches, and intents. Some
>people cross between the two. Most freelancers have to. Not many people can
>work in the style we newspaper photographers do and survive in the "real"
>world of editorial freelancing.
>==========
>
>Eric Welch
>St. Joseph, MO
>http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
>
>How do I set my laser printer on stun?
>