Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Time Photos of the Year
From: leicaslacker at gmail.com (kyle cassidy on the lug)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:20:51 -0500
References: <AANLkTimzpKuD90dKuTU4F-m+rX0yNFDzGjamhzbhkMPA@mail.gmail.com> <A8FBE238D4814BDCB98A9A517F4383AB@syneticfeba505> <AANLkTikRhKNNq=0L+wS5d6Ez8qAE+B-DgZwY7zFNgj-A@mail.gmail.com> <805C9843-0F15-4AFE-BA80-8418D948B3BD@embarqmail.com>

I think people are sometimes misinterpreting the concept of what an image 
needs to be a success. The photo needs to be good by itself. It needs to be 
worthy of hanging on a wall and being successful as a visual object. Steve 
McCurray's Afghan Girl photo is a successful photo whether or not you know 
who she is and why she's where she is, Thomas Franklin's photo of the 
Firefighters raising the flag in the rubble of 9/11 is a beautiful and 
poignant image regardless of whether or not you know the exact 
circumstances. This doesn't mean that we don't need or want to know the 
circumstances or that they're not part of the story.

The thing to keep in mind is that at some point in time your image will be 
viewed without the textual context, without your name, possibly without any 
real frame of time reference. Next time you walk through an art museum, look 
at the anonymous medieval and renaissance portraits. Imagine your photo on 
those walls. If it needs a tag next to it saying "Fred and Joe the first 
time they saw one another after being rescued from a sinking ship in 1944" 
in order for people to say "my, that's a nice photo" -- THEN it's failed. If 
they say "look at that beautiful photo, I wonder what's going on" then 
you've succeeded. But the fact that National Geographic did a story about 
Afghan refugees doesn't hurt Steve McCurray's photo -- it's already a good 
photo, it's already a success.

I haven't looked at the Best of Time photos yet, but I'm certain that every 
one of them is a good photo without the caption.


On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Ric Carter wrote:

> and, if a writer needs a photo with his piece, he's failed to tell the 
> story?
> 
> This is something we get a little carried away with here from time to time.
> 
> If this were true, we'd not need writing. Time Magazine could thin up and 
> go with a single photo per page. (Would they need headlines?)
> 
> A picture that carries its story is wonderful, but one that carries the 
> whole story is (so far as I know) non-existent.
> 
> Our world is full of wonderful, beautiful, successful photographs that are 
> improved by a caption and occasionally full-fledged, long-form writing.
> 
> ric
> 
> On Dec 12, 2010, at 4:20 AM, Marty Deveney wrote:
> 
>> If you need to add words, you've
>> failed.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
Reply from rcmphoto at yahoo.com (R. Clayton McKee) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
Reply from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
Reply from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
In reply to: Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)
Message from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] Time Photos of the Year)