Re: [Leica] The Inadvertent and the Contingent

[Afterswift@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/1/03 12:09:21 PM, tim@KairosPhoto.com writes:

<<  Even if we've done the improbable in the short time
allotted and have covered it all, only a few shots get chosen of space
necessity. The same choices are made all over again by the editor or
director. What if they believe a different truth and choose only to show
that?" >>

The compositional editing doesn't bother me. What I hope nobody will excise 
are the two elements unique to photography [more big words]: the INADVERTENT 
and the CONTINGENT elements. Every proficient photographer and editor can 
recognize them almost immediately in a print. Everyone knows what inadvertent means: 
something that wasn't meant to be seen and the photographer didn't notice nor 
expect to be in the print.
Example: the kid who makes a face while the mirror of your reflex banging 
around. You never saw it until it popped up in the print. 

Contingency is sometimes only half visible; it's the reason something is 
there. If you make a shot only of Bush's face, he could be anywhere and you'd need 
to write a caption to explain where and why. If you take a shot of Bush 
having dinner with Osoma bin Laden in a public restaurant, that shot is full of 
contingency. There is an interdependent relationship going on. The contingent 
element is bin Laden. This may be oversimplified an explanation but it's clear. 
If you print only Bush at the restaurant table, you're destroying the 
contingent in the photo.  I assume a good PJ would make sure that the duo would appear 
in the shot, negative or digital file.
If the shot was made on film, the poor editor couldn't cut bin Laden out 
without destroying the integrity of the negative. The digital file is easy to edit 
and legitimize. 

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