RE: [Leica] I missed it.

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Eric,

This is a public list, I am not lecturing you, I'm trying to make sure we 
are talking about the same thing and that others are in a position to 
follow the conversation. A date and a name of a place or a name of a person 
are not really covered by my definition of what makes a "caption", they are 
more like the title of a painting printed on a sticker next to the frame.

I repeat that I agree that text and images together might be more powerful 
than separately: we do not disagree on this.

But the successful picture, IMHO, will be the one that can have a life 
(i.e. relate to the viewers) without any caption or with no more than a 
date and a place or a name.

It is much easier to write a relevant text that functions without pictures 
than shooting a relevant picture that functions without text. This is the 
MAIN point, if you wish to snip...

The examples mentionned here, as well as your analogy with painting (Mona 
Lisa) confirm that opinion; not because they are "Art", but because they 
convey a vast array of feelings and/or informative data on their own right 
and in a way that the viewers relate to.

Some pics are dead without a caption (as defined hereunder), other pics are 
alive even with no such caption. For me, IMHO, the latter are what makes 
photography a means of expression per se.  The others are (good or 
mediocre) illustrations to a story mainly told by a text.

Alan

On jeudi 1 avril 1999 15:54, Eric Welch [SMTP:ewelch@ponyexpress.net] 
wrote:
> At 07:54 AM 4/1/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >The
> >caption is that text, made out of complete sentences, that explains to 
the
> >viewer what is on the picture. The picture then illustrates the text.
>
> Alan,
>
> First of all, there is no need to lecture me on what a caption is. I've
> been writing them for 12 years.
>
> This word-herder attitude is what's wrong with the publishing industry. 
All
> of a sudden, words become more important than the photograph because they 
> need each other? I don't think so. The words could as well be said to
> "contextualize" the photo. It doesn't denigrate the photo, and it doesn't 
> denigrate the words. And it has the benefit of being more accurate.
>
> Without the photo, the words are a waste. Otherwise, write a story that
> needs no photo. There are lots of situations where I wish they would 
think
> that way at my newspaper. There are lots of stories that don't need 
photos.
> But too often photos are treated as design elements, and thus waste our
> time taking unnecessary photos when we could be spending time on more
> important ones.
>
> And I, and most of the publishing industry, agree that a photo without a
> caption is never going to be as valuable to a reader as one that has one. 
> As for HCB's photos, you can bet when he worked for Holiday magazine, or
> Epoca, or whatever, that there were captions on his photos. When they are 
> treated as Art, as in most of his books, captions are irrelevant. You 
don't
> put a caption on the Mona Lisa, either, as it hangs in the Louvre.