Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina Manley wrote: > I'm just saying from my > point of view, if you have to explain a photograph or search for a hidden > meaning, it has failed to communicate.] And, as usual, Tina has said in just a few words what many of us have been struggling to say in endless posts.... And Tina's post reminds me of a set of photos displayed a while back on one of the "zine" websites....These were PJ efforts, taken at "million man marches" in various cities. In many cases, the captions told a far different story from the photographs. Obviously the young photographers had seen and heard what the captions suggested they had, but the still photos didn't begin to convey it. Which means that the photos failed as photos. One of the problem with many of today's younger photographers is that they have grown-up entirely in a video age. They "listen" to music on MTV. They "watch" the news on 24 hour cable shows. They "read" biographies by watching A&E's "Biography." They really have no concept of the fact that a still photo is just that - still. It is an optically and chemically captured split second. And if the right split second isn't the one that's captured, the image fails. It doesn't matter what the photographer saw, smelled, or heard as he took the photo. And it doesn't matter what took place in the moments before and after the photo was taken. The bottom line is that the photo is the photo. Either it conveys the message, or it fails. B. D.