[Leica] Legs

[chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich)]

If human beings showed-up for me the same way 
that wildlife shows-up for me then a long lens it 
is.  I like safety.  Often we treat people we 
don't know more like wildlife or the streets we 
are on as untamed and dangerous.  I never felt 
that HCB images portrayed people or places that 
way.  The people and the places seemed very 
natural and it is obvious that is how they 
showed-up for him.  Other street images seem like 
the photographer was shooting wildlife in a dangerous place.



At 01:21 PM 8/30/2010, you wrote:
>If this shot were of my sister, daughter or close friend I'd not have
>any concern.
>Because nothing offensive (to me or the subject) appears in the
>photograph;
>and no one but her and her closest friends would recognize the shoes
>and ankle bracelet.
>
>Granted it may well have been a finer photograph with a wider lens;
>which may have given us the environment, context and even a face or two.
>
>While I quite agree that engagement with, and knowledge, of our subjects
>will generally deliver the most interesting photographs;
>it is not necessarily so for the best so-called street photography.
>If knowing names were a prerequisite for fine street photographs
>99.9999% of so-called "street photography" including HCB's
>would get thrown out no matter the focal length of the lens.
>
>The vast majority of "street photographers" snatch glimpses
>and move on to another subject rather quickly,
>without taking names, or setting up coffee or lunch dates.
>They're simply showing us our fellow inhabitants around the world;
>hopefully with a "good eye" for humor, irony, documentation,
>composition, etc.
>
>The idea that we need long lenses to fully, photographically,
>appreciate wild life;
>but if we use them when studying human beings, we're all of a sudden
>being surreptitious,
>(unless they're engage in sports, entertainment or politics) seems
>disingenuous.
>If you're photographing strangers in public, you're more than likely
>capturing them unaware.
>Whether you're doing it with an 18, 21, 28, 35, 50, 90, 135, 180,
>250, 400, or 560 makes little difference.
>If they happen to catch you doing it - they may feel flattered, self
>conscious, offended, or any number of other human feelings.
>
>If we're talking about "serious" photography the aesthetic quality of
>the photograph is all that matters.
>
>If we're talking about collecting smut at the expense of various
>strangers;
>well shame on us.
>
>Regards,
>George Lottermoser
>george at imagist.com
>http://www.imagist.com
>http://www.imagist.com/blog
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>
>
>On Aug 30, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information