Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree. Almost all my images come from those I'm close with. There is an intimacy which can be detected in most cases that adds to the image. Usually it is a subtlety about the pose, or object in the frame, a particular countenance which shown the photographer is on the inside. It doesn't have to be true, it only makes it easier. For example, the foot and shoe would have to be teasing the camera somehow, half-off and hanging, giving the impression that there is a flirtatious scene occurring above the cloth. Or perhaps it is known to the subject that the photographer has a foot fetish so she is teasing his lens. I do, however, prefer the B&W. At 12:10 PM 8/30/2010, you wrote: >I have not followed this thread at all but it seems like that is the issue. >That this is a surreptitious shot of a women's leg and here we all are >discussing it on a camera trading list. >Was that issue ever brought up? It was my impression no one cared. >Does the women know the photograph was taken at all and is now being >discused and peered at on the internet? I'm guessing not. > >Engagement is the issue. > >Our subjects need to be engaged. >You get that with a normal use of wide angle glass on Leica gear. >You're not off in the distance photographing people. >When you're not working close there gets to be a voyeuristic aspect of the >whole deal. I'm getting that here. >If this shot were of a sister or daughter or wife or close friend would we >all be as blas? about it? I think not. > >The shot sounds worse then it is. >But its not well thought out or executed. And it's ill conceived. >It's muddy and at a poor angle. >Ralph Gibson could have pulled it off. And we'd know what the women's name >was. > >-------------------- >Mark William Rabiner >Photography >mark at rabinergroup.com > > > > From: Phil Swango <pswango at att.net> > > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:00:30 -0600 > > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Subject: [Leica] Legs > > > > Phil -- I don't agree with you but I'm glad you raised the issue because > > I > > think it's an important one. A couple of years ago I did an entire Blurb > > book on women's legs, feet and shoes, not only with their permission but > > at > > their request. You can view parts of it here: > > http://www.blurb.com/books/50439 > > > > <http://www.blurb.com/books/50439>Any one photo in the book could be > > subjected to the same social question you raised in your comments about > > Lluis' photo, but only if you didn't know the context of the book > > enterprise. You could also ask if having the > women's permission negated the > > objectification issue because they may have participated in their own > > objectification, and arguably they did just > that. For what it's worth, they > > were quite adamant that their faces not > appear in the book. As you can see, > > the gallery is the one in which we met when > you and I had coffee during your > > home visit to NM a while back. > > > > I'm working on another book with a similar theme and I'm pretty sure my > > gallery-owner friends, who use the books in > marketing, would be horrified if > > I told them I thought the book was somehow morally questionable. > > > > The point I'm trying to make is that you are > not so much objecting to Lluis' > > picture as his revelation of how it was made. If you just saw it in a > > magazine you wouldn't know what to think about it. > > > > -- > > Phil Swango > > 307 Aliso Dr SE > > Albuquerque, NM 87108 > > 505-262-4085 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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