Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Scott I wasn't going to intrude into this discussion until I read B.D.'s very observant remarks. I've books by Seymour, Capa and perhaps many others you've not come across. Withing the last coupe of years I saw Nachtwey's traveling exhibit and quite frankly was not blown away. Don't misunderstand me, he is a fine shooter but I was much more impressed with his courage rather than his work. Some of the Magnum shooters (Nachtwey once was as well) impress me with their vision. It's a personal thing and hard to nail down. I remember way back in the 70's hearing many pro shooters talk of HCB's work as snapshots. Hate to admit it, but I might have been blabbing that as well. :-! Although Capa's always called "the greatest war photographer" I'm not in agreement. Again, personal preference and you know what we say about those. One of the often overlooked elements in Mid East war coverage should be obvious to us all. Capa, Chim, George Rodgers, Smith and many other greats knew where they stood. Not always safe but certainly well defined. Go back and look at more of Anderson's work. There are some images of crazies waving Hezbollah flags and pistols on the streets of South Lebanon. Right in the middle of it all is our little white boy from Canada? Excuse me while I go change my underwear. See you on the West Bank Walt Scott McLoughlin wrote: > Excellent points all around. > > I put scare quotes around the term "collateral damage" > just because some might find it an offensive euphemism > for "dead innocent civilians." This wasn't meant to criticise > Anderson choice of subject - just a segway to a comparison > with Seymour. > > My point wasn't necessarily to bust Anderson's chops; I > don't know his other work, and he's very likely a fine > photographer. > > I was just surprised at the quality of this series of snaps. > > Scott > > B. D. Colen wrote: > >> Comparison, Scott, is always fair, if those being compared are >> playing on >> the 'same field.' Here you're comparing professional photographers >> covering >> war and its aftermath - so if Nachtwey is the modern standard setter, >> he's >> the one against whom other professionals should be judged. >> >> That said - consider that what you're seeing of Capa and Chim's work is >> their absolute best, culled, reculled, judged, and reculled, over the >> past >> 60 years; what you're seeing of Anderson's work are probably the >> images he >> edited and transmitted to the syndicate while on the ground in a war >> zone - >> and that makes a huge difference. First off, we are all our own absolute >> worst editors; second, it's one thing for a curator to go through >> work that >> was shot 50 years ago and dispassionately choose the best x hundred >> images >> from thousands and thousands, and it's another thing for a >> photographer on >> the ground, with bombs falling, to decide what 50 images to send over >> the >> Sat phone. >> >> None of this is to disagree with your judgment, I'm simply trying to >> refine >> the discussion a bit. >> >> Oh, one last point - most of Capa and Chim's work was not of combat, >> but of >> collateral damage. >> B. D. >> >> >> >> >