Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/01/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW 2003, Week 2...
From: "Tom Smart" <tom@sleepytom.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 15:30:19 -0600
References: <F93G3HstLVjFu9Udlo8000331bb@hotmail.com> <002b01c2b8be$379e1840$9cad5018@gv.shawcable.net> <003601c2b9a1$c37e4220$6401a8c0@home> <002101c2b9ad$15770e80$9cad5018@gv.shawcable.net>

Yes, that makes sense to me Ted.  I agree with you.  Thanks - I learn from
that kind of critique no matter whether the image is my own or not.

Tom

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW 2003, Week 2...


> > > Rob Mason's  PAW 2003, Week 2...
> > >Here is my second offering to the PAW for the year:
> > >http://www.leica-gallery.net/rcm/image-37730.html<<<<<<
>
>
> Tom Smart offered in response:
> >> > To me it looks like there is indeed a point of interest - the guy
> crying, or
> > scared, or whatever on the far right; the one everybody is looking at.
> I'd
> > say it wasn't captured in a way to carry the composition, but I bet
that's
> > the point.<<<<
>
> Hi Tom,
> Not to get into a long winded discussion, certainly without Rob here, but
> with my humblest apologies, the guy isn't crying, he's looking down at
what
> appears the hands of a woman helping with his life preserver. I could read
> into the shot... "a crew member." And he isn't the point of the focus,
> that's my point! Because, the couple are and you can't really see what
> they're looking at in a meaningful manner.
>
> The couple who are in focus maybe kind of looking at him, but more than
> likely just in front of him, as the "helper person" is adjusting his life
> vest straps. And if the guy being assisted is the "centre of the photo" he
> still isn't in focus in any event.
>
> Whatever ones attempt to make something out of this picture, it's
completely
> a non-event and my point was to explain to Rob why it doesn't work
> regardless of either of our points of view. It's far too easy to read
things
> and interpret events trying to make something out of a photograph, than
just
> looking at the content in a .... "does it work or not?"
>
> To make it work he should've moved to a better shot angle, possibly a step
> forward or used a wider angle lens. But at the moment it just sits there
and
> doesn't wash as a meaningful photograph.
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Rob Mason" <masonr7@hotmail.com> ([Leica] PAW 2003, Week 2...)
Message from Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] PAW 2003, Week 2...)
Message from "Tom Smart" <tom@sleepytom.com> (Re: [Leica] PAW 2003, Week 2...)
Message from Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] PAW 2003, Week 2...)