Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I improved yours! - - from my iRabs. Mark Rabiner http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/springdays/ > From: Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:44:56 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Are we anal puddle jumpers or what? > Just trying to make a friendly suggestion: After typing a long essay such as the one below, immeasurable improvements will occur if you then read what you have written and break it up into appropriate paragraphs. Herb > >> I've been reading this thread and have a couple thoughts: >> 1. Equipment: Of course equipment is important, it was important to HCB, >> it's important to all of us today. It is not, however, the be all and end >> all many endless discussions of micro contrast, glass, and pixels would >> lead >> one to believe. Someone yesterday or today made the comment that today's >> photographers keep upgrading their equipment, and need to, if they are >> serious about their craft. Well, yes, but what isn't mentioned is that >> today's camera body is not simply the light-tight box bodies were 20 years >> ago, but it is the box AND the film. That is, today a photographer is >> required to upgrade equipment with some frequency because digital sensors >> are still evolving, just as film evolved over a period of many decades. So >> in order to be able to meet client and publishing standards, a >> photographer >> is required to upgrade. But the photographer who bought a pair of M3s in >> the >> 1950s, did NOT have to upgrade his bodies - EVER - if he didn't beat them >> to >> death. The photographer did, however, upgrade her film. But the Nikon or >> Canon glass from 20 years ago is plenty good to shoot with it today. So, >> for >> that matter, are Leica's first generation aspheric lenses plenty good >> today. >> If someone wants the latest $7k Summicron, good for them. But there is no >> NEED to make that upgrade. >> 2. Analism: Anal is as anal does. HCB was not the film era equivalent of a >> pixel peeper. He did not wear a loupe around his neck for counting >> eyelashes. He was an artist who cared most about composition, and the ways >> in which visual elements came together and played off each other. Counting >> facial hairs is not photography, and really has little to do with >> photography. Does a particular lens effectively suppress veiling flare >> when >> shooting with strong backlighting? That is important to a photographer, >> because it effects her ability to successful capture a given image. But >> being able to examine a pimple on the face of the man in the moon in a >> night >> shot of lower Manhattan? Not so much. >> 3. HCB and how many times he pushed the shutter release: Yes, HCB shot >> thousands of frames we have and will never seen. But don't kid yourselves >> that this somehow means that he, or similar 'giants' weren't as good as >> we've been lead to believe. The question is not, did he shoot thousands of >> frames he discarded? Rather, it is how good are his keepers, how to they >> compare to everyone else's keepers, and how many of them are there? We >> all, >> in our life times of shooting, may come up with one or two HCB-like >> images. >> What we will never come up with are the hundreds he produced. >> 4. Was the Puddle Jumper posed, and does it matter: As I said before, and >> I >> gather various people's searches have indicated I am correct, that image >> was >> an unposed one-off. But some people have suggested over the last couple of >> days that it's the outcome that matters, 'art is art,' and we shouldn't >> care >> if it was posed. I vehemently disagree. Because if that, or other >> supposedly >> unposed images were posed, it tells us that HCB was a completely different >> kind of artist from what we thought he was. Philippe Halsman, a wonderful >> Magnum Photographer, made jumping his gimmick. He produced terrific images >> of everyone from Richard Nixon to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor jumping >> on >> command. But Philippe Halsman was not HCB. He was not a chronicler of the >> "decisive moment." He is not noted for creating incredibly composed images >> of moments in real life and real time; HCB is. If it turns out that HCB >> posed images - and I am NOT suggesting, nor do I believe, that he posed >> anything other than some portraits, then he simply was not the >> photographer >> we thought he was and his work needs to be reconsidered. (When Bruce >> Davidson's Outside Inside came out, I went to hear him speak at Boston >> University. During a rambling discourse he said that he ALWAYS asked >> permission before photographing his subjects. IF that is true, I think his >> work needs to be reconsidered. He still is a brilliant photographer, but >> IF >> that's true, he is more a brilliant fashion-type photographer, than the >> documentarian he has been thought to be. (I must note here that I have >> heard >> from a number of sources I trust, and concluded myself from listen to him, >> that age has really caught up with Davidson's mental faculties, and I >> would >> NOT take his saying he always asked permission as reliable testimony.) >> 5. The Decisive Moment: For all the talk about the Decisive Moment, and >> the >> idea many have that HCB saw these special moments flash before his eye and >> grabbed them, I would contend that the true decisive moment is that >> instant >> in which he - or anyone - saw or sees the photographic possibilities in a >> scene, a situation, and THEN begins to work that scene, until all the >> compositional elements come together. With the anal puddle jumper, the >> decisive moment would have been that instant when HCB saw the hole in the >> fence, realized what was going on, and started shooting. All of which to >> say >> that the fulfillment of genius requires hard work. >> Back to anal puddle jumping. :-) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- > Herbert Kanner > kanner at acm.org > 650-326-8204 > > Question authority and the authorities will question you. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information