Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:55 PM, EPL wrote: > Robert Meier wrote: >> >> I see a profound difference between the photographer who watches and >> observes >> life and takes pictures of the world around him as it unfolds, and the >> photographer who directs people and events, turning them into models who >> are >> following his script. The results might look superficially the same, but >> they aren't the same. The artificial creation might sometimes be >> superior in >> many ways -- lighting, design, composition, gesture and expression -- and >> at >> other times it might not come up to the level of the genuinely captured >> moment. But it is not the same and is not, in my opinion, to be judged >> by >> the same criteria. > > Well, that eliminates our admiration for many of the great photos in > National Geographic magazine, for example. Many many are "orchestrated" to > some degree (the word "staged" is to be avoided), despite the appearances > of > spontaneity. > > And I'm thinking too of lots of press-type photography of famous people or > major events where the particpants (from athletes to the Dalai Lama) are > media-savvy performers. Nature or nurture? > > We all have a few of those single-shot success story images from when our > instincts and our reflexes and the Gods conspired in our favour. But in my > opinion, those are exceptions and not the bread-and-butter of photography > and need not be mythologized as such either. It takes an astute observer of life to properly "orchestrate" a convincing "slice of life" photograph, short story, novel, play, opera, short or feature film. And even if all we're orchestrating is our own position in relationship to the subject - we are director/producers Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist