Hi, Boris. Immediately after reading your query I thought of a little blurb from the "National Geographic Photography Field Guide". Pages 182 and 183 for those of you who may have a copy.
"A poetic man, an artist with a camera who wanted to make "quiet pictures," Sam Abell nearly failed his goal to become a magazine photographer. One of his first National Geographic magazine stories in the early 1970s, a profile of Newfoundland (January 1974), came close to being his last. The editors' reaction to most of those images was not positive, he says, and this feeling lingered over several subsequent assignments. "Too quiet - that was the hallmark of my photography, and it left a powerful question about my suitability. I was put on notice to consider changing my style," he says. The solution, he decided, was not to reinvent himself. "Instead, I resolved to make the quiet in my photographs more compelling."" If it makes any difference, and I know it's not an answer to your question, but maybe "static" is something your good at for some reason. Perhaps exploring the possibilities of "static" might be more fruitful. On 3/28/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Ladies and Gentlemen, perhaps it is time we spent some time talking > about photography and photographs rather than processes, work flows and > what not. > > Recently my attention was brought to a fact that most of my photographs > are very static... They seem to be some kind of documentation of the > process/moment/event/scene or just a frozen moment in time, static and > disconnected from previous and next moments... > > I wonder what kind of advise I would get from my fellow PDMLers if I > were to ask you - how could I make my photography slightly more dynamic... > > Thanks. > > Boris > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
