On 3/25/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I diagree with this condescending attitude 100%. > > For most of these shots, it is physically (or at least practically) > impossible for there to be a photographer standing there behind the > cameras. So, in order to cover the number of viewpoints that would > be available to this hypothetical photographer, it's realistic to > stick several cameras (and a few different focal lengths) there. > > To imply that the person pushing the button doesn't know just when > to do so (and doesn't have a very good idea just which camera is > most likely to provide the money shot) is derogatory and insulting. > > Some of the best motosports photographs I've seen have been created > by remotely-operated cameras - they provide a viewpoint I'm unable > to capture (often from positions it would be too dangerous to stand). >
I must be counted in the "this is photography" camp. If it's done properly, it can be great photography, maybe even art (oh no, don't bring "art" into this! <LOL>). Here's one of my favourite baseball photos, one of Jackie Robinson taunting a catcher just before stealing home: http://www.walteromalley.com/hist_hof_robinson2.php?photo=5 I don't remember who the photographer was, but I do remember reading an interview of him, wherein he describes how he took this photo. Normally, he'd be in a strategic location with a moveable camera, but he'd set up at least one or two cameras, usually one trained on home plate, the others pointed down the baselines. These he'd operate by some sort of remote foot pedal. He would watch the action, and fire the remote cameras when the action seemed right. Just because he wasn't looking in the viewfinder, does that mean that there was no art or "heart" in it? He still had to be there, watch the play, fire the shutter at the precise moment. This, of course, was in the days before motor drives (I wonder if he had an assistant change the magazine for him? - I seem to recall he used speedgraphic press cameras), so it wasn't just "mash down the shutter release and hope for the best". I guess I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, as it seems that, Cotty, you're pretty well entrenched in your position. I wonder, though: Several times you've shown us shots you've made "from the hip", when you've not been looking through the viewfinder. Where to such shots fit into this debate? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
