Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Art Wolfe's book
From: "Lee, Ken" <>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:36:48 -0500


While I agree with you, I think that it is an idealistic position.  In my
own work, I try to maintain that position.  I don't use filters and I try to
limit my darkroom manipulation as much as possible but it often results in
dull photos.  I think we all want to share our vision. We skew the viewer
toward our point of view by choosing to take the photo of the "pretty" side
of the scene not the garbage pile or the tire tracks (or maybe the
opposite).  We use the coloured grad or polarizer or not.  We use the super
saturated E6 film or the Kodachrome.  The animal shot could have been made
in a game farm or the wilderness. Gene Smith produced some images which
didn't look much like the scene in front of his camera. With his darkroom
skills, John Sexton can produce an "unmanipulated" B&W landscape image which
looks very different from what I saw when I looked at the original scene.

I bought a Playboy magazine for the first time in many many years.  I
wondered what the woman in the photos really looked like.

I think the bottom line is whether the image (mine or someone elses) speaks
to me. If it does, it is successful, if it doesn't it is a failure (for me).


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Doug Herr []
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 01, 1998 7:45 PM
> To:
> Subject:	Re: [Leica] Art Wolfe's book
> I don't think anything's wrong or immoral or nuthin' with digital image
> creation or alteration but if the photograph is used in a documentary
> sense
> then any digital work ought to be limited to very minor stuff (like
> getting
> rid of scratches in the emulsion), 'cuz it's far too easy for an unknowing
> person to put an animal in a habitat or context that is totally out of
> character for that animal.
> Doug Herr
> Sacramento