Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 19/5/00 4:31 pm, Michael Darnton at mdarnton@hotmail.com wrote: > I wonder how Johnny Deadman, who made the strong (I thought valid) point in > the "Nanook" discussion that documentary movie photography requires all > sorts of manipulation to be effective documentation, without which the > footage is basically garbage, would react to this? By his standards for film > work, if he considered his street photography "documentation" he would > logically then say that what he's garnered is hundreds of feet of useless > dreck, right? No. Movie documentary is a narrative form, stills isn't. Moving pictures have to be honed into narrative, stills stand alone. Also I didn't say that manipulation was necessary for effective documentation, but for effective 'entertainment' for want of a better word. I guess I scan about 10% of what I shoot, probably keep half that. That's a 1:20 ratio more or less. Working on documentaries my ratio would be between 1:5 and 1:15. So the same quality of editing is taking place. - -- Johnny Deadman photos: http://www.pinkheadedbug.com music: http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk