Re: [Leica] Project '99 ? a picture a day!

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Ted Grant wrote:
> Now that's an interesting terminology. So OK how many real "PAD people" out
> there as we come to the close of day 3? Remember, you only need to shoot
> one meaningful picture a day for the 365 days of the last year of the
> millineum.
> 
> By the look of it at the moment there seems to be only 3 who have made it 3
> days in a row. 

Ted,
I'm up to PAD quantity and periodicity requirements up to now (easy,
this is day 4). But I have a real problem with the PAD quality
requirement, the word "meaningful". Which brings us back to the source
of this idea: what is the reason of existence of our pictures ?

So, is the PAD project fulfilled by shooting 1 pic a day ? And if it
should be 'meaningful', what is the definition of that word agreed upon
around here ? Is the 253,357,418th pic of the Hôtel de Ville of the
Grand'Place of Brussels 'meaningful' even if the light is great, the
exposure perfect and the lens a 35mm asph ? I think not. Unless it is
burning or unless some naked protester is climbing up or unless you spot
Saddam Hussein in a tourist group in front of it. Or unless I find an
innovative angle of view with a stupendous composition pattern.

Judging from previous threads and web publications, some image might be
extremely 'meaningful' to 1 person and really 'meaningless' to most
others. I do not own a dog, but I'm quite sure it would be VERY
difficult for me to shoot a 'meaningful' image of that dog, if the beast
existed. This is the 'man bites dog' discussion. On the same line, would
my favourite image of my new born baby have any meaning to anyone
outside my closest family ? I think not, unless (maybe) if the birth
took place at sunset in the Sahara desert or if my name was Monica L or
if the pic is integrated in a project about people working in healthcare
;-)

I find the PÄD idea real fun, but I do not feel presomptuous enough as
to proclaim that I've shot a single 'meaningful' picture since Jan 1. Or
even before that, BTW...


Alan