Without a title, this thread expanded on my screen looks like a big worm...cool. Norm
Cotty wrote: > On 8/5/07, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >> What? Is Godfrey in a 3rd grade photography? :-) Sorry to appear rude. >> >> What is good about this picture? I don't find anything appealing about it. >> I don't see that it took any more effort than haphazardly raising the camera >> to one's eye and pressing the shutter release, maybe not even looking >> through the viewfinder. >> >> Not only is the main subject not in clear focus, the secondary subject is >> not either, and both are cut off. I'm not a believer that some sort of >> unspoken social commentary, makes a photograph a good photograph. >> >> If this is the kind of image that constitutes an incredible photograph, then >> by God, every person that ever picked up a camera and pressed the shutter >> release a half dozen times is a good photographer, and we should all stop >> trying. >> > > I think there's one thing you missed Tomas (sic) > > It's not just all of the above, but the decision as to how that frame > actually is presented as the finished piece. The actual frame chosen, > the composition decided upon, possibly post-production, the rendering - > how it was printed (in old fashioned speak). That's all a cognitive > process beyond just snapping the pic as you intimate. > > To me, a photograph - any photograph - is more than just what was > recorded in front of the lens. To me, it's about what the viewer *feels* > when looking at the image. It's about the emotions that one recalls, > about one's own experiences, and how that relates to what the > photographer has presented. > > We've all walked past a homeless lady with a dog at some point in our > lives, and we all react differently. What makes the shot more than just > a fuzzy grab to me is that the image presented by Godfrey conveys what I > feel when I walk past a scene like that - slightly blurry because I > steal a glance, only recalling the vital elements of the scene - the > head, the blanket, the dog. That's all i wanted to see, otherwise I > would have gone back and looked harder, looked longer. To me, Godfrey's > photograph has captured beautifully the essence of the scene he saw, and > turned it into something that I can relate to, and that's the whole > point of the exercise. > > I would go so far as to compare Godfrey's pic to Robert Frank. I look > through The Americans and I see echoes of it, and vice versa. Of course, > Godfrey is exploring a style here, and Jimminy Cricket, it works for me. > Look at Juan Buhler's work and see something else, yet also that works > conveys emotions and feelings, and I see fabulous things there, I'm sure > a lot of folk on the list do. > > Can I just end by going over your last para again: > > >> If this is the kind of image that constitutes an incredible photograph, then >> by God, every person that ever picked up a camera and pressed the shutter >> release a half dozen times is a good photographer, and we should all stop >> trying. >> > > I wouldn't describe it as incredible, but totally credible yes. I would > describe it as indicative of what I feel when in proximity to such a > scene, and as a standalone piece of work I think it excels beautifully. > As such, i wouldn't consider hanging up my cameras just yet. In fact, > it's a pic like this that inspires me to go out and try and convey a > scene that I know of - try and present something that I like to look at, > and maybe someone else will like it too. > > HTH > > best, > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
