On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:20:36 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Frank, > > One of the problems we photographers have is that of separating ourselves - > our emotional attachment and involvement with a scene - from what makes a > good photograph. We must train ourselves to see with unemotional eyes, > thinking of composition and lighting, not so much about how we like the > subject, or how the music makes us feel, etc. > > Since the guy plays in a studied and quiet way, maybe you could have tried > to capture that aspect of his playing with different ways of photographing > him. Wider lens, longer lens, less DOF, different angles ... yiu know, my > usual kvetches. Of course, sometimes no matter what you do, a photo just > isn't there. > > BTW, there's not a damned thing wrong with making a photo "just because you > like it." > > Shel
This is becoming an interesting discussion (I think). I agree with what you have to say WRT different angles, etc. Those didn't work so well for me, although as I said earlier, another 1/2 roll of Neopan 1600 is awaiting development - maybe there's something in there. The remark I found interesting is: > One of the problems we photographers have is that of separating ourselves - > our emotional attachment and involvement with a scene - from what makes a > good photograph. We must train ourselves to see with unemotional eyes, > thinking of composition and lighting, not so much about how we like the > subject, or how the music makes us feel, etc. And, I guess my response is that there has to be some balance. I'm thinking that completely separating ourselves from scenes will leave us with bland, sterile photos, especially if we're dealing with photos of humans. It's exactly because we become emotionally involved that we know exactly when to snap a photo. All of the right composition and lighting in the world won't work if we miss a passing moment. I think that what I'm trying to say is that we, as photographers of people, have to blend the technical, unemotional side of the craft of photography with the involving, subjective, reactive art of photography. If we don't have the right blend (and I don't pretend to know exactly what that is), we might as well do architectural photography (no slight to architectural photographers intended <g>). BTW, I'm in no way trying to say that the particular photo that started this thread has that emotional element. I'm coming to think that it's the lack of emotion that leaves it a merely adequate or mediocre photo for many (including, increasingly, me). Oh well. Next PAW will have plenty of emotion, that's for sure! (ready Wednesday...). <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
