Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John, It would never have occurred to me to direct people in photographs and then present the photographs as documentary or photojournalistic work. I was very surprised when Rob admitted that he does this and sees nothing wrong with it. To ask people to repeat an action or to move to a better location or come back at another time, goes against everything that I have learned. The main reason I use Leicas is because they are so quiet. Most people never know that I am taking pictures and I would not draw attention to myself by asking them to move or do anything. I am a white, Algo-Saxon protestant woman and at first am a strange sight in a rural village in Honduras. The children follow me around at first and watch every move I make. But after I have been there a few days, they realize that I'm not that interesting. I never do anything but sit in dark corner. They and their parents are much too busy to act for the camera. I do work for religious groups and relief agencies but there is no requirement that the people have any particular religion or any religion at all. The communities are ones that relief agencies are working with, but no promises are made because of my presence there. They are just very welcoming, hospitable people who would also welcome you if you came to stay a few days with them. This has been a very interesting discussion and it has given me a lot to think about. I don't think I will ever direct photographs. I just don't work that way. Knowing that Rob does makes me look at his work in a different way. I didn't intend to imply that one way is more moral or honest than the other. If Rob had set the photos up and then lied about it, that would have been dishonest, but he doesn't do that. I honestly did not know that some photographers worked that way. Tina At 12:55 PM 11/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: >I am at a bit of a loss here Tina. Rob basically describes polite >interaction with his subjects and you imply he is dishonest. The fellow >says he washes his son in the puddle and Rob politely asks permission to >photograph it happening. Can you please explain what is dishonest about this? > >Now to your own work where I have a few questions that I feel should be >answered as you have implied that it is morally purer than Rob's. How is >the family or families you photograph chosen? Do you look for photogenic >subjects (the old Afghan girl syndrome)? Are they aware of the >implications of your photography; in that, your photography generates >funds for their welfare? Is cooperation rewarded in any way however small? >Is noncooperation punished in any way however small (i.e. not getting the >rewards)? Is the religion of the subjects or recipients significant in any >way however small. These question may be taken as crass but you do work >for a religious group and the questions should be answered within the >context of this current debate. > >Now I am not attacking your work or the funds your work raises. That is >all to be admired, greatly admired. I also admire all the work you have >shown here. If it wasn't good I would not be wasting my time with this. >However to imply that you, a white (anglo-saxon?) protestant, dressed in >clothes from Tilly and Banana Republic, bedecked with cameras, >operating in a culture mostly unfamiliar with such a phenomenon and >representing otherwise unobtainable aid, do not have an effect on the >surroundings is to beggar belief. > >John Collier Tina Manley, ASMP www.tinamanley.com http://www.pdiphotos.com http://www.workbookstock.com http://www.newscom.com http://www.americanphotojournalist.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html