Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:14 PM 9/12/99 -0400, Paul Schiemer wrote: >My questions are this; I've seen moving picture footage of the very same >vantage point, where the entire sequence is played out in horrific detail. >Am I to understand that Mr. Adams AND a motion picture cameraman were >standing side by side at that moment? Is the single fame we all attribute to >Mr. Adams (and a Leica) actually a frame taken from a motion picture camera? >Does anyone know about the 'real time' segment I am referring to? Has anyone >else seen it? Did E. Adams photo earn a Pulitzer as I am led to believe? >(and what year was that awarded?) >Did the 'real time' footage gain equal acclaim? No, it's not a frame grab. It wouldn't be nearly the same image quality if it had been from the movie camera. Yes, Adams did win the Pulitzer, which would have had to be the following year. They Pulitzer is only given for pictures from the previous year. No, the real time footage did not win equal acclaim. And for one very good reason. It's not a decisive moment like Adams' picture is. His is a moment frozen it time. You can hold it in your hands and look at it for an extended period of time. You see the grimace on his face as the gun is going off. You see the calm face of Gen. Loan. A movie/video isn't the same, and doesn't have the same impact, for this kind of "moment." It zips by, as quickly as the man fell to the ground. Blood spurting out of his head in a fountain. That has impact, for sure, but it's not the same kind of impact. There are strengths that movies and video do hat that are greater than stills, but in this case, the still photo is the one that helped turn America against the war. Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch I don't get no respect. I called a suicide prevention line and they tried to talk me into it. -- Rodney Dangerfield