Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B. D. Colen wrote: <<But this is one of those examples of someone being in a setting, observing, feeling, smelling, hearing everything about it, taking a still photo, and then thinking that the viewers of that photo will observe, feel, smell, and hear everything the photographer did when he pushed the shutter release. > > The only thing that's ever in the photo is what's in the photo. ;-)<<< Hi B.D. You couldn't have explained it more meaningfully. People constantly read all kinds of things and feelings into a photograph far beyond what the photographer did or felt as all he or she did was .... simply expose a moment on film.... sans absolutely everything he or she was feeling at the moment of shutter release. I mean, look at the comments about Steve Barbour's latest child photograph of a kid in a hospital for example. There was fear of a needle to the typical reactions of native peoples to a camera and several other imaginary things in their own minds which had absolutely nothing to do with the photograph. When in reality, it was a sick or recovering child in the hospital. It could've been any child. What Steve did was a capture a moment of stress any child has in a strange environment when they're ill. There are a couple of things photographers shouldn't do... well OK lots more than a couple, but these will do. Pre-conceiving before you get to the shoot site and putting imaginary feelings into a photograph with no relevance to the reality of the moment of exposure. However, quite frankly none of us being perfect, we do it all the time. But that doesn't make it right, as generally it screws-up what the pictures can be or are. ted Ted Grant Photography Limited www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html