RE: [Leica] re: The Decisive Moment is gone

[Tim Atherton <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

> Two points: the first is that the observer's bias will transfer into
> what is recorded.  Ted has always pointed out that you need to look
> behind you, and most documentaries don't show the whole picture.  In
> many journalistic settings that I have observed the coverage has not
> portrayed what was really going on.  These would include race riots in
> KC in the 60's to street protests about vender locations at the 96
> Olympics.

As I have said before we mustn't confuse the photograph itself with the
thing photographed - they are two different things. The photograph will
always be our opinion about what we photographed - our statement, our point
of view. When we depict something in a photograph we aren't re-creating that
thing or that scene, we are giving our personal account of what we saw, our
perception of what happened in front of our camera. As photographers, we are
often very concerned about copyright and ownership - that we have unique
vision which shows itself in our work. If this were not so, then why not
just send a robot into photograph the family in the barrio, the woman in the
shelter, the refugees in the camp - and let it take random pictures. No, the
photographer makes many subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) choices in
making each picture, that makes it uniquely theirs - their view, their
opinion of what they saw. Which isn't to say that it is not an honest view -
far from it. But it is not an unbiased, neutral one.

> The second point is that you can immerse yourself into a situation and
> not have an observable impact on the world passing by.

Or the "fly on the wall" documantary or reportage photographer, who perhaps
spends an extended period of time with someone so they "blend in" and they
can then go about there work. I wonder how many times such a photographer,
getting to know a family, or a group of people at work somewhere, or a group
of kids in the inner city, says in the course of getting to know them; "Just
pretend I'm not here. Just act normally. Act as if I am not here". It's an
interesting approach. Pretend this situation isn't what it actually is -
i.e. there is a photographer taking pictures of you in your small peasant
home, or in your work place. "Act" normally? And how many of these kind of
documentary/reportage stories have people looking at the camera at some
point? That's the reality of the situation on that day/week/month in that
story - there was a family + a photographer, a workplace + a photographer.
And it wasn't normal. It wasn't the same as most other days.

Or perhaps like Salgado, the reality is, these working kids in the slums see
you taking their picture and like kids everywhere - even in some of the
worst situations - they smile when someone - a photographer - takes interest
in them. But that doesn't suit his vision, or how you see this situation. So
he shakes his fist or scowls or shake his head so they stop smiling. The
reality was that kids smile when you point a camera at them. The truth the
photographer wanted to show was that these kids led desperate oppressed
lives. So which is more important - the reality or the truth?


tim


BTW - isn't there now a strong belief that the "man jumping over the puddle"
was a collaborator of HCB's?

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