Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks to the LUGgers who corrected me on the details of the Minimata photo. It is still possible, though, that what Smith's darkroom assistant said to my friend is true, namely that Smith liked to burn things way, way down in the darkroom, which gives many shots a very different feel than the light he was actually shooting in. Second, the point that setting up shots was okay *then* but not *now* also makes sense to me, but only when we're talking about strict photojournalism. Perhaps because so much time has elapsed, I think most people tend to view the work of Smith, Doisneau, Brandt, etc., as "art" rather than journalism. And just as we allow, say, satire, surrealism, indeed all kinds of poetic justice in literary genres, so there must also be a place for "photographic justice" in photography, IMHO. Bruce Feldman Warsaw - ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> >At 03:23 PM 4/2/99 +0200, you wrote: >> Charbonnier, Doisneau, Bill Brandt, a lot >>of guys who did big photo essays for the picture magazines set up their >>shots. The real question is *how* the shot is set up. Does it convey the >>situation honestly and revealingly, and appealingly? > >It is not acceptable. Period. If a picture looks like it's not "posed" then >it darn well better not be. That's the way photojournalism works now, and >documentary photographers should do the same. It's not enough to pretend >it's honest. Either it is, or isn't. That hasn't been the way it's always >been. But that's the way it needs to be now, if there is to be any >credibility in documentary and photojournalistic work. It's way too easy to >manipulate photos nowadays and have it so seamless that you can't tell it's >manipulated. It used to be hard to do.