Re: [Leica] Two more scans (Oh no!)

[Henry Ambrose <henryambrose@home.com>]

Wow George!
Did you really want anyone to look at your pictures?
Wouldn't it have been easier (and so much less messy) to keep them to 
yourself?

Here's the deal:
If others fail to catch the enormous emotional impact of your photos it 
could be that what you felt when you pushed the button did not make it 
through the developing and printing. (dang - you used the wrong bottle 
again!)

Lighten up and listen, it might help. 

Scroll down please:

>On 5 Sep 2001, at 9:24, SonC (Sonny Carter) commented:
>
>> A couple of thoughts about the Soapstone Valley, and these are newly
>> acquired prejudices (postjudices?).  A picture like this can always be
>> improved by the inclusion of people, or animals, or anything except
>> plain old scenery.
>> Soapstone Valley has no context to me.  I really am not sure what I am
>> looking at.  The tones seem ok, but I am not primarily a Black and
>> white guy, so I can only go by my subjective feelings.
>
>Plain old scenery. Well, I thought it was a stairway by a creek lit by 
>scattered sunlight. With some imagination it could be part of an 
>enchanted world. (No, it's not like the interior of a church with a 
>beaming choir in full-throated worship.)
"lit by scatttered sunlight" does not come through.
Not on my monitor. Its dull, flat and lifeless.
>
>I defer to your years of wire service and other professional 
>photography but I would point out that a human presence is not 
>necessary for art to work on the imagination. Indeed, I wasn't 
>aware that that school of thought could exist in the art world. So 
>thanks for bringing it to my attention.
George, there's nothing happening in your picture. A human or even an 
armadillo waddling through would help. The print may be SPECTACULAR but I 
can't see it from what you posted. Nope!
>
>
>> The truck is terrific, but I REALLY want to see the whole truck.   
>
>Sorry, no can do. You only get the front 2/3s of the truck. But if you 
>look closely, you can see almost the entire truck shadow, beneath 
>the truck. Hope this helps.
>
>> The picture could be improved hugely with the
>> inclusion of people.   It is clearly someone's pride.   Even a posed
>> shot would have made this a wonderful picture.
>
>Some people are interesting. Some really, really aren't. Wouldn't 
>you be disappointed if it were just some jerk standing by his truck? I 
>like it a bit better without, since it allows me to think optimistically 
>about what might be. Of course, if the owner were a really cool 
>person I might want to include them. Kind of depends on a lot of 
>different things. 
It might have been even better if the owner of the truck were a real 
character. Some kinda goof ball you would not stand next to in line. (it 
really does not matter if she was "cool" or not) I'd love to see the jerk 
too!
 Jerk pictures are great - they are very often quite interesting. 
(see how I used "she" ? I'm SO PC) ; >)
>
>> Finally, the bread shot. 
>> My thoughts on the shot is that
>> the mixer and things around give clues to what the shot is about, but
>> it does not say "BREAD" to me.   Too much ceiling and too little bread
>> is shown.  A lower angle with lots of product would do the trick here.
>
>Thanks again, but this was not a 'product' shot. It's a black African 
>guy, surrounded by white stuff, making white bread. It's like a little 
>joke -- get it now? (Maybe this kind of allusive image doesn't go 
>over well in the South, Sonny. Sorry.) 
You're right here. We're dumber than rocks down here in the sunny south. 
Must be because our brains are baked by all that heat.
(or maybe no one got your little joke?)
Of course SonC - is - from Louisiana and that - is- farther south than 
Tennessee.
Whadya think SonC, feeling stupid today? I'm feelin' purty smart mysef.
Oh yeah - watch who you're callin' "allusive" - Mr. Smarty Pants Kenney.
>
>> Since you mentioned the controversial pinhole shot, I'll comment on it
>> too.  I once had a contract  with a real estate firm to shoot the
>> pictures that appeared in their ads in the newspaper.   The goal was
>> to show the building.  When the minilabs came to town, they did not
>> renew my contract, because they could give agents point-and-shoot
>> cameras  and realize their goal.   Your pinhole picture looked like
>> those real estate agents' efforts.
>
>News flash: pinhole photographs do not look like the output of point-
>and-shoot cameras. To realize this requires sort of an eye-brain 
>thing. I'd suggest glasses but I know that won't help. Biofeedback in 
>a lab might get you there. I dunno.
Biofeedback is a good idea George, you've just got the wrong person in 
mind.
>
>Thanks, Sonny, for taking time to review my pix.
Thats better, but how about some little smileys here to show that you're 
really a gentle, sweet guy looking to improve his pictures?
>
Kind regards to you and best wishes for your photography.

Henry Ambrose