Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bob, My reply wasn't directed at you, personally. I just thought Elliot Erwitt's comment about the Zone System being nonsense was a little ironic on his part. After all, the Zone System is just a way of explaining how film reacts to exposure and development. So, I read Erwitt's comment to imply that consideration of exposure and development -- i.e. tone, contrast, etc. -- is nonsense, and all that matters is seeing (which I assume he meant, subject matter and composition.). Granted, subject matter and composition are important. They may even be more important than exposure and development. But you can't completely disregard the latter. I love Elliot Erwitt's work, in particular all his dog shots. And yes, they don't seem as technically great as Ansel Adams' landscapes. But consider Erwitt's somewhat famous image of a scampering dog suspended over a puddle with a person in the background. Dramatic tonal contrast helps makes that image what it is, IMHO. So in essence I see Erwitt's statement as belittling Adams for attempting to explain something that makes his (Erwitt's) photographs compelling. At least that's the way I read it. You posted the statement without any disclaimer, which sort of implied to me that you agreed with it. So I challenged the comment. Again, nothing personal. It all makes for lively discussion. DaveR -----Original Message----- From: Bob W [mailto:leica@web-options.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 5:22 PM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Ansel Adams > as long as you brought it here, it's supposed that you should > know why > you did, My post from Erwitt elicited the response "Is good photography really completely unrelated to contrast and exposure?". This is clearly a matter of opinion, and it's not for me or anyone else to decide what is and is not good photography. Having said that I then went on to state my opinion about the relationship between subject matter and technique, so I quite clearly showed why I brought that quote into the forum. Having asked me again to define what good photography is, you've gone on in the same post to criticise me for supposedly "overstating what photography should be for the rest of us". Really, you must think about things a bit before you blurt out silly emails. Perhaps you could point me to the part of my posts where I "overstate what photography should be for the rest of us", or even state (without the over-) what it should be. Everything I've written is either an obvious matter of opinion (eg finding certain types of photo boring) or an obvious matter of fact (providing a quote from someone else). At the same time, perhaps you could also turn your indignation on other people who similarly express opinions about all sorts of matters. Opinions such as "As photography they worth next nothing." The pot should not call the kettle black. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org] On > Behalf Of Luis Miguel Casta?eda Navas > Sent: 22 December 2008 20:08 > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Ansel Adams > > > On 22/12/2008, at 20:46, Bob W wrote: > > > That's not for me to decide - email Elliott Erwitt and ask him to > > explain > > himself. > > as long as you brought it here, it's supposed that you should > know why > you did, alas being able to speak at the very least for what > it means > to you, which, BTW, it was all you were asked for. > > > which is one reason why there are so many beautifully printed > > but boring pictures of dried up logs beside lakes, and so few > > exciting but > > technically bad pictures of the D-Day landings. > > > to me, as I said before, D-Day landings only worths something, if > anything, as historical document. As photography they worth next > nothing. I've seen better and more moving prints in 'found > photographs' sites of unknow soldiers and photographers, lots of them. > > You're falling into mistake your tastes and preferences with what > photography should be for everyone, diminishing the value of > whatever > you don't like. You can enjoy whatever you like, but there is > no need > to overstate what photography should be for the rest of us. > > > > > I feel better, to hell with photography, art, women, and all > E. Weston, 1924 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > http://luis.imaginarymagnitude.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >