frank theriault wrote: >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'm with Knarf here. If anything, not being able to see through the viewfinder makes this kind of photography more difficult. Come to think of it, *lots* of people take photos these days without looking through viewfinders: Think of digicams with LCD's on the back! Why not extend the LCD a distance from the camera itself via a cable or even wireless connection? I'll bet this kind of technology will happen in the not-too-distant future, particularly in the case of the kind of sports photographs that started this topic. >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? Well, none of that kind of paparazzi stuff is real photography, anyway! <g>
