Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The brief answer to the first question is "because I can do it". I've taken many different creative paths in my life - perhaps too many. (Thank God I can't hold a tune on anything other than a mouth organ or I'd probably have spent years trying to become a rock star.) Photography was an early love, you could say an obsessive one, and one I returned to suddenly and unexpectedly after a fifteen year hiatus. One of the great aspects of photography is that, at it's best, it's a very literal medium. As a result people tend to believe what they see in pictures, and you can use that belief to make the viewer think you're holding up a mirror to life. Of course we're not doing that, what we're doing is capturing a four dimensional moment and making it a limited two dimensional, and in my case monochromatic, image. This makes the viewer see things in the picture that they probably would not have noticed had they been there when it was taken, and makes them curious and intrigued, and hopefully broaden their horizons a little. Or at least begin to wonder whether their point of view is the only one. My primary subject matter, when I can take pictures of whatever I like, is human life. Or you could say humanity. Or indeed inhumanity. It's definitely not humanity the way we'd like it to be, but the way it is. Plain, funny, curious, horrifying. It's why photographs taken when the photographer is controlling the subject are boring, and photographs when the subject does it's own thing and the photographer controls the picture are better. I've never felt the need to change anything about a subject - from lighting to physically moving something or someone. The world is quite fascinating enough, all you have to do is take pictures of it. My pictures are made when I press the shutter. Not in the darkroom and not in the computer. The picture is born, whole, when you press that button. Everything that happens afterwards is frippery. Because it's me, my view. Nobody else standing there could have taken that picture. P. ******* Paul Hardy Carter www.paulhardycarter.com +44 (0)20 7871 7553 ******* On 3 Apr 2006, at 13:21, B. D. Colen wrote: > Enough of "what's your favorite color film?" or "which exotic animal > skin > makes the best covering for a gold plated IIIg?" Today's question is a > three parter: > A. Why do you photograph? > B. What's your primary subject matter? > C. Why? > > > > ___ > Sent with SnapperMail > www.snappermail.com > > ...... Original Message ....... > On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 12:09:24 +0100 "John Beeching" > <johnbeeching@gmail.com> > wrote: > "Dear Don, > " > "Thanks for you comments, they are very useful. This particular set > "were all taken at the same place, though as you point out, there is > "some disparity of content. The contrast/darkness/lightness is > "something I must look at - I have just bought a new monitor (NEC > "Spectraview 1980) and it is quite different from my aged CRT. > " > "John > " > "On 02/04/06, Don Dory <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > "> John, > "> The gallery you pointed us to is for the most part very austere, > almost > no > "> people with just some signs of habitation such as graffitti on one > wall > or > "> some laundry hanging up. They work together with the exception of > the > "> woodland shots that just don't have any snap visually or contrast > and the > "> image of the two people on the edge of the beach. > "> > "> The two on the beach is a good engimatic image, but doesn't work in > that > "> group. > "> > "> I would say that for the web most of the images could use just a > touch > more > "> contrast; they lack an absolute black and seem to stop just short of > white. > "> The roof top scenes in particular would benefit from a very small > increase > "> in contrast as shown on a monitor. > "> > "> I took a quick peek at some of you other galleries and you have some > mighty > "> fine images throughout. > "> > "> Thanks for showing us your work. > "> > "> Don > "> don.dory@gmail.com > "> > "> > "> On 4/2/06, John Beeching <johnbeeching@gmail.com> wrote: > "> > > "> > Dear All, > "> > > "> > http://staff.bath.ac.uk/bssjrb/Photographic/conil/conil.htm > "> > > "> > Tri-X DDX 1+4, 28, 35 & 50mm. > "> > > "> > Comments and criticisms welcome. > "> > > "> > John > "> > > "> > -- > "> > John Beeching > "> > http://staff.bath.ac.uk/bssjrb/Photographic/photo.htm > "> > > "> > > "> > _______________________________________________ > "> > Leica Users Group. > "> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > "> > > "> > "> _______________________________________________ > "> Leica Users Group. > "> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > "> > " > " > "-- > "John Beeching > "http://staff.bath.ac.uk/bssjrb/Photographic/photo.htm > " > " > "_______________________________________________ > "Leica Users Group. > "See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >