Re: [Leica] Squares and sabotage

[Ruralmopics@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/23/99 8:40:57 AM, dcardish@microtec.net writes:

>Any environmental photo that is done in a "wham, bam, thank you maam" style
>is going to look like crap, sorry.  Any endeavor done in this manner is
>going to turn out as crap.  
>
>There is more to photography than photojournalism.
>


Oh, I'm not arguing with you at all. I agree completely. I offered my 
comments only as an explanation of what happens within that particular genre 
of photography. I hoped that it would help break down some of the 
miscommunication that seemed to be going on concerning "environmental 
portraits." It seems that some in this group have a certain reverance for 
what they call an environmental portrait. For others it seems like a dirty 
word. Personally, I think that while the two groups are using the same words, 
they're not talking about the same thing.

For photojournalists, the "environmental portrait" is a formula picture. You 
frame the environment with a 24mm lens, place the subject in the forground 
and you're done. It's very easy and as I said earlier, it is often a crutch 
or an escape. THat's why I called it a cliche.  Bottom line is that daily 
photojournalism involves a lot of routine, almost mechanical, "meatball" type 
photography. The Environmental Portrait is part of that. It's what you do for 
a picture of a new business owner for the Biz section. It's what you do when 
somebody won't give you any time (or your editor won't give you any time). 
It's certainly not a good thing and nothing to be proud of.

There seems to be another camp that seems to be thinking of something quite 
different -- though I admit I'm not quite sure what. A Karsh portrait, 
perhaps. A character study in the vein of HCB. Again, I don't know what 
they're thinking of but I'm pretty sure it's NOT the same thing that the news 
shooter is thinking of. 

I'm rambling but the point I'm trying to make is that we seem to be talking 
about apples and oranges and calling them both the same thing.

Bob (trying to stay neutral) McEowen