Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 13:21 1998-12-09 -0500, you wrote: >While still photographs do represent a moment, o.k., a decisive moment, they >can still express motion and time. I often look at photographs and imagine >how they express events before and after the actual shutter trip. Also, my >photographs are often blurred, albeit with great bokeh, because an instant >of sharp focus does not tell the story I want to capture. This may be >heretical on the LUG, but I believe that a nice blurry picture sometimes >tells the story better than that mica-crisp shot at the highest shutter >speed. > >My vote goes with B.D.'s > > Buzz > > >> "B. D. Colen" < BDColen@earthlink.net <mailto:BDColen@earthlink.net>> >> >Still photos can have unparalleled emotional and visual impact - far >> >greater than that of film because they are in front of us longer and >> >can be observed and contemplated longer. >> >> Dear Alexey, >> I agree that some images or scenes--like a downhill ski run greatly >> benefit from showing the motion and speed. However, "Ran" was long and >> boring. About halfway through I felt that I would vomit if I saw one more >> arrow strike one more breast. It got boring. I did have emotional >> impact--I don't think any photo could have bored me so much, or for so >> long. Sometimes showing the motion helps, sometimes motion obscures the >> impact and design of an image. Just depends. I don't see how one is >> "right" or "best," and the other is "wrong" or "not so good." >> Sincerely, >> Joe Stephenson >> > > The main part of this discussion seems to deal whit the taste of, how much the as i understand it the documentary if its either a photograph or a filmclip, and as I se it, how much it is going to trick the observer about the current event, am i right i have newly participated in the LUG It would be intresting to read about what the discussion members think about the photograph or the film as a eyewittnes, and the difrence between the two mediums, Hälsenor Rikard