Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In response to a post of mine, a few people wrote somthing along the lines of what Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org> did: >While still photographs do represent a moment, o.k., a decisive moment, >they can still express motion and time. I often look at photographs >and imagine how they express events before and after the actual shutter >trip. Yes, obviously. That's not my point, though! I was replying to another LUGger who implied that still photography *generally* had greater "visual and emotional impact* than film. My point was and is that still photography *and* film can be done poorly or superlatively, and that the best films *equal* the best still photos in "visual and emotional impact*. It's an opinion. I doubt that my fellow LUGgers will change my opinion, and I'm certain that many won't share it. That's fine. >Also, my photographs are often blurred, albeit with great bokeh, >because an instant of sharp focus does not tell the story I want to >capture. This may be heretical on the LUG, but I believe that a nice >blurry picture sometimes tells the story better than that mica-crisp >shot at the highest shutter speed. I agree, and I can't wait to get my photos of street gymnasts and rock climbers onto photo CD so that I can share them with you all... Best regards, Alexey .......................................................................... Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com