I agree. A good photo is a good photo, regardless of how much ingenuity
and equipment is needed to capture it. Looking in the viewfinder should
never be a prerequisite. Some of the best car pics I've seen are rig
shots that were obviously shot by remote control, but the framing and
the sense of what the shot would look like required the photographer's
vision. I used to shoot motorsports with a Mamiya C220. The cars
entered frame going the opposite way that I was panning. When I got a
good one, a lot of luck was involved. But I was still happy to take
credit for them:-).
Paul
On Mar 25, 2006, at 6:36 PM, frank theriault wrote:
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
