Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I know what you mean about the driftwood-and-stones brigade. My reference to the difference between the photographic disciplines is the necessary emphasis, in photojournalism, on the subject matter as opposed to the concentration on the image as a whole in photography 'for it's own sake' (or 'fine-art photography' as it seems we must call it). To put it another way, I've always seen the difference thus: to the journalist the subject matter is more important than the image, in more creative photography the image is more important than the subject matter. For me, technique is not the point in either case. Incidentally, as regards the Vincent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Vincent_Black_Shadow Cheers, Paul. ******* Paul Hardy Carter +44 (0)20 3239 9573 www.paulhardycarter.com www.lightstalkers.org/phc www.twitter.com/paulhardycarter Skype: paulhardycarter ******* On 23 Dec 2008, at 20:49, Bob W wrote: > No not really. Subject matter is subject matter. > > I don't know what a Vincent Black Lightening is, but I haven't said > anywhere > that I don't like Ansel Adams. In fact I admire his work a great > deal and > have a couple of his books. However, my preference is for humanistic > photography of the Magnum type, and I generally prefer landscapes > that show > some human presence. My criticisms are reserved for the type of > photographers someone once described as 'the very minor Whites'. > > Bob