RE: [Leica] going beyond family photography

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Eric - Keep doing what you are doing! This "serious photography" thing is
such total and utter crap I don't know where to begin in trying to deal with
it.

Why is taking a shot of a nude "serious photography," when shooting a mother
and child isn't? Why is taking a bunch of mediocre tourist photos of a
European city "serious photography" when doing good photography of your
family isn't?"

I'll make a lot more enemies than I probably already have on this list and
say that the vast majority of what is taken and posted here is incredibly
mediocre, run of the mill snap shots that everyone either ooooos and aaaaahs
over, or, as has more recently been the case, plays art critic with - and
I'm not making an claims to seriousness or greatness myself, believe me! But
there is this really sad belief that if one goes out and takes a basically
crappy photo of a bum in the street, but uses a Leica, it's a "serious
photograph." Or if one takes an utterly vapid shot of two people talking in
a public place, it's meaningful "street photography." Sorry guys, it's not.
It's a crappy, derivative, photo of a bum that happened to have been taken
with a an overpriced camera. Or a dull, meaningless photo that happens to
show two people talking, but makes absolutely no statement, conveys no idea,
says nothing.

Serious photography is photography by a person with reasonably good
photographic skills who is serious about what he or she is doing.

B. D.

(heading for the bomb shelter.)

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Eric
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:50 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] going beyond family photography


Mark:

>I find it very interesting that my to me that my seemingly obvious idea
>that maybe we should occasionally try to go beyond our family
>photography is shot down by everyone

>I somehow got the illusion that most of us here on the LUG strive for
>something that somehow headed in the direction of something resembling
>occasional serious photography. And that such an endeavor was to be
encouraged!

I'm in full agreement with the above.

I don't understand why serious photography cannot include subjects who are
related to us, though.

The very last thing I want to do is bore my fellow luggers with mundane,
run-of-the-mill baby pictures.  "Oh no.  Here comes Eric.  He's going to
pull out his wallet and have an accordian-style barrage of photos flip-flop
out of his wallet, and then he's going to want to show us his daughter's
first drool.  And first stool, even!"

How do I grow as a photographer so that what I'm showing isn't family
pictures but "real serious" photography that coincidentally has a baby girl
as the subject?

I think it was Henning who stated he had a "Ted Grant" picture of his
daughter.  (Poor girl.  Does she *really* look like Ted?  <grin>)  That's
sort of what I'm trying to do...except without Ted clicking the shutter.  I
don't mean to exclude any of the wonderful photographers here, but if I can
come somewhat close to Ted's or Tina's work that I've seen--and have the
subject be my daughter--I'd be ecstatic beyond belief.

I've love for my work to resemble yours, Mark.  Your Carrie portrait is
fantastic.  Except I'm going to superglue clothes on Johanna so she can't
pose for nudes.  :)  I've seen much of your work in person, Mark, and it's
great stuff.  I want mine to look as good, too.  I'd like to learn how to
produce great work using a small child as the subject.  Using my small
child.  :)  Overall, I'm happy with my nature shots that I took before
Johanna was born and we had time to go hiking.  Taking pictures of people,
on the other hand, I've always viewed as a weakness.  I want to improve.

I don't have the ability to be completely objective about my images that
include my daughter.  I recognize this.  That's one of the reasons I decided
it would be a good growth experience for me to use her as the subject for
the PAW.  Not that I won't shoot any other subject over the next year.  Just
that the only thing I'm including in that particular project will be photos
of or about Johanna.  Since I can't be objective, I thought the PAW would be
fantastic.  It would give people an opportunity to say, "Dude!  That picture
sucks!  Sure, it has a cute kid, but the lighting...man...do something about
it!"

Like I said, I'm not wanting to force family pictures on the LUG.  I want to
create serious photos.  That include my daughter.  I appreciate any help
that is offered to help me achieve that goal.  I also want to create serious
photos that *don't* include my daughter.  But that won't be this year's PAW.
That's a different project.  Not necessarily a different year, though.


Eric
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html