Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/09

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] pix, my life, and all that....
From: "SonC (Sonny Carter)" <>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:20:35 -0500
References: <><005301c0f04f$05bb0880$> <>

> Stephen Holloway wrote:

> "SonC wrote:
> > Taking a picture only uses a fraction of a second in most
> > cases; It seems to me that the shooter's brain processes
> > MUST consume more time.  I'm not sure we give the viewer a
> > fair shake if we present only a revelation of 1/60th of a
> > second of our thoughts.
> >
> Stephen sez:
> Do you think you only see 90 minutes of the director's brain processes
when you watch a movie? Also> It takes much more effort than just clicking
the shutter to make a good picture. You see a lifetime of the photographer's
experience in each
> shot. You just need to look at the photo.,

SonC defends:
Of course not, that was my point; But then, 90 minutes of movie is about 128
thousand frames, so you are likely looking at years of brain processes.

 If you subscribe to your movie/still shooter  metaphor, how do you explain
away the public's seemingly inexhaustable hunger for docs on how this film
was made, and magazine articles with interviews picking apart all of the
technical and no-tech aspects of the film, not to mention the interviews and
alternate scenes that help make the DVD such a hot seller over VHS?
> Almost all of my pictures are built in my head way before I ever take
> them.

I was generally speaking of street-shooting, and if all of your pictures are
made up in your head, then it doesn't seem to be street-shooting, does it?
> Having said that, I think Kyle's words and pictures are excellent -
> that's his art. But I don't think you're being ripped off if no words
> are supplied.

Sorry if you think "not giving a fair shake" is the same thing as "ripped
off."   I don't agree.  I come from a (journalism) background that wants
more information than most pictures offer standing alone, and I hope I that
photographers who do not choose to add text will understand, and not be
I was making the comment to Kyle that I liked his work better with the text.
>>>>My opinion.<<<<<> Not a law.  Not a new rule.  Will I still look at
pictures without text? Yes.  Do I like pictures with text explaining the
photographer's minset, or something about the circumstances? Yes.

The Emily saga is an important example.  If you see the picture of a girl
with a bloody arm, it is chilling, maybe repulsive . . . but Kyle's
excellent narrative brought me into the story, and I now care about Emily,
and what happens to her.

So, that's all I can think of to reply to you without drawing you a picture.



In reply to: Message from Kyle Cassidy <> ([Leica] pix, my life, and all that....)
Message from "SonC (Sonny Carter)" <> (Re: [Leica] pix, my life, and all that....)
Message from "stephen holloway" <> (Re: [Leica] pix, my life, and all that....)