[Leica] PAW 4 - 2005 - Lee Hermann

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Lee said:
Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW 4 - 2005 - Lee Hermann

>>I hope that I am learning and that you will offer your opinion of my
>>subsequent  submissions.<<<,

Lee, Good sir, be assured I will comment. If not, none of us learn from 
posted photographs.

>>> I appreciate your comments, but do not feel compelled to agree with 
>>> you.<<<,

Fair enough and rightly so, as you should stand by your feelings and your 
own assessment of the work.

However, my comments were made as a direct result of looking at this 
"photograph" and how it appeared as a regular picture posted to the screen. 
And not as a "colour art piece" in relation to your explanation.

>>> A.  Perhaps I should have titled the photo apres dejeuner, as indeed he 
>>> is
> not eating.  You do not like his appearance, I did.<<,

No his physical appearance had nothing to do with my comments as I wasn't 
really all too sure what the heck he was doing partially hidden behind the 
coat and chair. It basically has no valid content or composition as a 
photograph simply because it's all about the "colour."   As you did point 
out. Quite frankly it's merely an exposure of some kind illustrating colour.

Even then I took it to be simply a situation of the wrong film used under 
the wrong light conditions and not that you actually liked the colour 
effect. Sorry about that. But then I shoot for as close as I can to the 
"normal eye seeing colour." And in this situation the colour is off as a 
normal photograph and not an "art piece!" Major difference.

If the colour was your main reason for shooting this, fine, so be it. But 
may I suggest in the future you make sure we all know that it's a "colour 
art piece" and not a photograph of what appeared a person in a room 
partially hidden by a coat.

>>> B.   To me this is an "image of reality", not reality, if the color
> balance of the light is not that of the film and the resulting image is
> not exactly what you would feel is reality, well, your eyes see the light
> but your brain corrects for the difference from reality. <<<<<<

I think I know what you mean, however?

>> I assure you that the light in the cafe was yellowish.  To me, it is not 
>> "bad color"
> but rather has remarkable golden glow. <<<,,

I see, but you didn't say anything about this and posted the picture without 
any explanation and I believe you received an immediate and honest response 
from a number of members!

Much like some of the rooms in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia. 
There's this beautiful golden glow of light reflection from the walls, 
surrounding art works and ceilings. Quite amazing actually. However, when I 
shot under these conditions and the slides were used they appeared "at first 
glance, weird colour!" However, it was explained exactly what it was, the 
colour of the light and gold reflections.  Saved a number of people from 
thinking I'd forgotten about  "colour balance and film!". ;-)

>>Perhaps if I was really proficient
> with PhotoShop, I would have corrected the colors to what is more the
> general reality, but alas I do not do that. <<<<<<

Well I'm all for keeping pictures as honest as they can be simply because 
I'm a photojournalist, not an advertising type where everything is supposed 
to be "art director perfect." ;-)

>You mention that this is a sneaky shot, I guess that you are
> right.  I am a wimp.  But, I was an American in France and my French is
> not adequate to explain to an irate Frenchman what I was doing
> photographing him.<<<<<<<<<

Sorry I bet with a little practice you could've done it and he'd never have 
known. All you have to do is wait for a moment when the subject is 
completely engrossed in something.... then click! I bet even in your home 
country you're hesitant to shoot. Hey don't feel bad, everyone of us run 
into situations of "photo freeze!" And we sneak one or shoot in some 
nefarious manner.:-)

>>> As a Canadian, do you not have
> any feelings about Americans abroad?  I think I have sensed some of these
> feelings in your comments, I at least did not have a Canadian flag on my
> backpack. <<<<<

Quite honestly I'm not sure what this has to do with photography? When I'm 
in other countries I do my thing as quickly and quietly as I can leaving 
with nothing but fond memories. And I've travelled with, dined out and got 
as pissed as one can possibly be with my American friends and colleagues. 
And quite frankly none of us ever have any thought about being whatever 
nationality we are.

Oh and wearing a Canadian flag or pin? Yep when covering the Olympics, all 
the time! Do you know why?  Because other folks / athletes trade their 
country's pin's for mine and I for theirs. It's a tradition mon ami. Sorry 
I'm still not sure what you're getting at or the point you're trying to make 
with the above ?

>>I should have stood up and snapped the picture
> using the correct angle and direct approach.  I am a wimp.  I missed a
> much better photo, the mirror's reflection would have added considerable
> impact.<<<<

Well lets look at it this way. Hopefully you'll have picked-up some solid 
pointers from the LUG crew for the next time you encounter an interesting 
motivational moment. :-)

>Again, I thank you for your comments.  I am surprised that the
> photo resulted in so much comment, but in a perverse way, I am pleased.  I
> may not agree totally with you, but I do respect your opinion.  >

Thank you and I yours. Sometimes it's much easier to critique over a beer 
and pretzels. ;-)

ted