[Leica] Re: PAW5 ...... YUCK!

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

Well, no, actually - It was quite intentionally tilted - something
that's pathetically popular these days and something I usually eschew;
it was intended to be more silhouette than anything else, and ended up
being that. It was an experiment, and as such I'm not particularly
unhappy with it. Is it the best thing I've ever shot? Hell no. Is it
better than Robert suggests? I'd say so.

Interestingly enough, another former LUGGER and I have a mini-critique
of sorts going - when we shoot something we like, but we're really not
sure if it "is something" - in other words, whether it works, has that
indefinable something special, or falls flat - we send an email with the
image attached and the subject line "is this something?" We are both
quite critical, and more often than not say, 'no, it doesn't quite work
because....It might have worked if...' Well, this was one were he said,
"Yup. I like them both" (5 and 5a)

All that proves is that different people see differently. 

I'd love to look at your work, btw, Robert - where do I go to find it?

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Ted Grant
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:40 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: PAW5 ...... YUCK!


Robert Schwartz offered:

> Mr. Grant,
> You, sir, are a true and great photographer. Your photographs have all

> of
> the proper compositional elements and lighting that make for
outstanding 
> visual (photographically redeeming) qualities. I have one of your
books. 
> Wonderful photographs.
>
> The photograph in PAW5 looks like what I get on the first few frames 
> after
> the film leader when loading film. Close the back and fire off a few 
> frames. The results are usually crooked (angled), poorly exposed, 
> basically non photographs. PAW5 is crooked, totally improperly exposed

> (and processed if film), and what might be considered a subject,
competes 
> so violently with the railing and background, it's virtually
impossible to 
> find. It is a collage of underexposure and lens flare.
>
> I suspect the photograph is indeed a frame from loading film or if it 
> is a
> digital photograph, then it was an accidental pushing of the shutter 
> release.
>
> But my "fire away" analysis stands. It's a non photograph. It is 
> simply
> light struck silver halide or pixels. No redeeming photographic
qualities.
>
> The PAW5 author stated: "fire away". I simply obliged with my personal
> opinion. I apologize for not elaborating the first time around.<<<<<,

Hi Robert,
Thank you good sir.

Now yer cooking my friend! :-) Exactly what I meant as you gave a
perfect 
reason everyone can understand what you meant. Wonderful visual
description 
and possibly exactly how B.D. shot to see if anyone was sharp enough to
pick 
it up? :-)

Along the lines of your description "the first few frames as we start a 
roll."  About 30 years ago the National Film Board Photo Gallery hung a
show 
by a half dozen photographers made up of just what you described. Those 
first frames shot while advancing the film to start real time shooting. 
There were photos of car trunks, inside the car, trees, feet you name it
and 
it was there.

As interesting as it was it created an incredible amount of animosity
due to 
the considerable amount of money paid the photographers for these throw
away 
frames. It didn't hang very long, but sure caused some folks a
tremendous 
amount of grief for throwing "tax payers money away" so frivolously.

Thank you very much for your explanation. Much appreciated.

ted





_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information