Re: [Leica] It's baaaaaaaaaaaack--and frooooont

[Donna-Lee Phillips <dlp@pacific.net>]

Ted Grant wrote:

> That's all well and good Guy, but tell us the truth now, what are you
on?
> ;-)
> ted

I guess you are as confused as I am.

> P.S. In Muslim countries with strict laws, a woman is likely to get
>  stoned if she commits adultery. In Indonesia it's the other way
around!

                            =====
> Ray,

>  are you saying she will be stoned if she doesn't commit ;-)

I think things are becoming clearer now...

> To stretch an analogy to its limits, how would you feel if you were
> strolling down the street past the local tailor shop, and the tailor
> dashed out and took your inside leg measurement without permission.
> After all, he must be allowed the freedom to practice his profession.

In order to commit adultery in some Muslim countries, a woman has to be
stoned. In others, the man has to be stoned. Personally, I've had times
when committing fidelity went better if either partner or both were a
little stoned, but what do I know?

Sorry... I've just ruined my whole argument because I keep picturing
Alan's stretched analogy. Damned difficult to stroll down a street
without exposing one's inseam to any randy local tailor. Did I say
randy? I meant random.

Not having committed adultery OR being stoned, I'll return to a subject
I've been following with some interest--the turf war between
"photojournalists" and "street photographers". I think Alan's comparison
of the compulsive photographer as a 'territory marker' is close to the
mark.

But even closer, IMHO, is the fact that photography requires placing a
barrier--the camera--between the photographer and the event--or life. To
me the usefulness of the Leica has always been that it interposed the
least intrusive or distancing barrier, since at least as I used it
putting the tool in front of my face wasn't usually required to make a
photograph. Photographing often replaces seeing in the moment, as we can
always look at what was there when we get home and develop the film.

If you doubt me, trying taking a trip somewhere you are certain you will
not ever be able to visit again, and going without a camera.
Cold-turkey. It's an extremely interesting discipline. No, framing
everything with your fingers doesn't count. I have a friend who isn't a
photographer, but who constantly 'frames things' as we trek, telling me
what would make a good photograph. He finally stopped when I threatened
to commit bodily harm, but I can still see his eye darting around
mentally composing the real world into 'shots'.

No doubt everyone has heard the old joke about the proud grandmother
wheeling the pram who replies, when the neighbor says "Oh.... what a
beautiful baby!"... "That's nothing. You should see his photograph."

It is amusing to listen to Photojournalists posture as though their
profession was one for which ordination was usual, and Street
Photographers respond like guerillas. I have never been comfortable
photographing strangers, as I have always felt that it was an invasion
of their private space, although this was how photography was taught me.
I realize that the legal argument about whether someone is likely to be
newsworthy or not is where the line is drawn on photographing people in
public places... to the individual, his/her life IS newsworthy, whether
star or stumblebum.

In those 'primitive' cultures which resist being photographed because
the image captures a piece of the subject's soul, there is an argument
worth hearing, even though it is far too late to apply in most of the
world.

For decades I, like most of you, required a camera to 'capture the
moment'. When I could no longer use a camera--a situation which may
change soon-- imagine my surprise when I discovered that the moments
happened anyway?

I'm tranquil.

DL