Re: [Leica] FOM 2/year 2

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

Alastair and everybody else,

Just want to say that I still completely endorse FOM 2. And Alastair is
making reference (below) to me from a off-list comment that I had made to
him a few weeks ago about the final results of last Years FOM 2. I had
commented to him that i thought the judging was poor, had way to much
emphasis with pictures of kids (a full 50% of last years selections has a
picture of a kid in it) and I said to him that I thought that the first
year's selections were way too "white-bread" and because of that would fail
any critical arts revue. The only other objection I have is the 'goofy'
category titles for this year's FOM 2.

I want to make it clear that I have nothing against kids in pictures, except
in this case, with Alastair hoping for FOM 2 to evolve into a book and a
travelling exhibition, the, "oh! isn't little Mary so cute." tone will
gaurantee negative critical revue.

As far as the 'goofy' category titles, they probably should remain the same
year-to-year, last years were okay.

As for the judging, I do not know the answer, Alastair has suggested that we
volunteer to be judges, which I might consider doing if I knew more about
what is involved. The other thing about the final selections, Alastair as
Curator should understand that he has the power to overrule the judges
selections, and to make selections of his own which will help make FOM 2 a
critical success.

I want to be clear that I am 100% behind Alastair's FOM 2 and will be
sending in my submissions in a few weeks.

Regards,

sl


> G'day all,
>
> Well not so quite on it, rather pulled away to other things. I'm
> surprised to see so many comments about "photographs" ;-)
>
> Firstly, I should make a comment about FOM2 and let's not get too
> carried away with it. The decision to include or not include images
> in FOM2 is NOT made by me. My occasional comments on this forum, are
> designed to keep some of you thinking about the project, and
> sometimes to stir up those who keep thinking: I should put those
> shots up some time. There were images chosen last year, which
> surprised me, and one of the things which was interesting was how
> diverse opinions are. This recent spray of comments illustrates the
> point. But rather than feel rejected or "insulted", I would hope some
> of you might fight to demonstrate that you can do better. If someone
> submits to the project, I do not reject the image based on any
> grounds other than it being outside the guidelines. I have not had to
> "censor" anything so far. Some images come in, and I wonder why, some
> come in and I feel inspired, but because the project is designed to
> suit all levels, they all go in.
>
> Some of you have made comments that the images are not up to
> standard: OK, submit something better, and when it come to November,
> join us in judging the images, and putting your flavour into the
> final choice. Please, make this YOUR project, and put some diversity
> into the results.
>
> To Rob's image: I like its spontaneity, and I like the fact that it
> tells us something about the husband and wife. I do like the tired
> look on the male, and (sadly) I do relate to it. I like the flag
> waving -- OK, I don't know it was taken at a Soccer celebration, but
> I know there was patriotism involved, alcohol involved and families
> involved, and that's not a bad basis for a story. Flash - I don't
> like using flash, but sometimes its needed I suppose. The flash is
> flat, but then there is not a lot of time to set up an image like
> this, unless you are doing it in the studio. I've done a lot of
> "party" photography. Its often pretty boring. Usually the "snap"
> shots include the subjects stuffing food into their faces, half
> swilling, or in mid sentence with eyes shut and mouth twisted, or all
> looking at the camera silly grins on their dials etc. This is not a
> pretty picture, and I agree that for a wedding, I'd probably reject
> it. Can't imagine the pair wish to be "remembered" this way, but this
> is not a pretty scene, and I do think it was captured accurately. As
> for the 15, its great to hear the more professional guys warning us
> about this kind of "table detruitus". I would add, that I hate the
> accumulated bottles and masses of food that often appear in these
> shots. We can all learn from it, but it also sets the scene. When I
> see that sign, I know EXACTLY the type of evening from bitter
> experience.
>
> Why would I comment on it wrt FOM2? Simply to keep the variety coming
> in, to keep pushing you all into putting your "money" where your
> mouths are, and to encourage participation by as many luggers as
> possible. Steve and Jeffery may consider the project a failure. I
> never set it up to be a "success", only to have a go, and provide a
> vehicle for everyone here to express their own individual
> photographic stories in front of the group in a non threatening way:
> your rejected images are never put out in front of the group, and
> that is why (amongst other reasons) that the initial submissions are
> kept anonymous. Year one was good, I would hope year 2,3,4 and 5
> would get better, but it means that all of you who would like to see
> a prospective mass of images representing the first 5 years of this
> "age" get out there, record, document, experiment, and SUBMIT.
>
> Sorry for the rave, I was due to push and nag a bit anyway. Remember,
> its not my challenge, its everyones. I do hope some of the
> "professionals", and especially those who have correctly critisised
> this image, will put up some of their own, and show us all how it can
> be done.
>
> Cheers and here's luck
> --
> 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