Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't necessarily mean to suggest that Capa meant that one should use
long lenses. But I do believe he was talking about filling the frame
rather than being close to the subject. I have found that "initimate"
results can be obtained with a variety of focal lengths. My remarks were
in no way meant to be condescending and juidgmental.
Paul
Doesn't "filling the frame" amount to the same thing as either walking closer
to your subject or zooming in?
What difference does it make, other than perspective.
Once the image is recorded, if you filled the frame, that's what is intended.
Make the subject prominent and "up close and personal."
Just wondered, and open to dialog...
keith whaley
On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Sorry, Paul Capa did not mean to fill the frame using long lenses.
getting
in close gives more intimate results. You seem to like a more
"voyeuristic" approach to photography - that's fine for you. Getting
close
does not mean getting in someone's face - depending on what you mean by
that. your remark seems rather condescending and judgmental. one can
work
close and catch the subject unaware. it's a learned skill.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
I could be wrong, but I always took Capa's comments to mean "fill the
frame," rather than "get in someone's face." I've had good luck with
both long and short lenses on the street. It depends on whether one
wants to catch their subjects unaware or record the reaction to the
camera and intrusion. I think both can be good.
