On 20/07/2011 2:02 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Like Christine , I feel uncomfortable shooting the unfortunate and while
that photo of Shel's is powerful it is also maudlin (skipping around to
referencing other posts here - sorry) and cruel.
I'm going to challenge you on that one Ann. Lets presume for the sake of
discussion that the story under the picture is true (and I have no
reason to believe otherwise, and neither should you).
With that in mind, the subject new the camera was present, and I expect
new he was being photographed. Without going back and looking, I believe
Shel mentioned he had shot most of a roll of film on that subject.
So, the subject was knowingly being photographed in what had
unfortunately become his natural environment.
I'll agree with the maudlin part, but cruel?
There had to have been at least a tacit approval on the subject's part
regarding the image being shot, and one would presume that had he
objected, the image wouldn't have been made (though this would depend
entirely on how sensitive Shel was that day).
How is Shel's picture, taken with the subject's permission any more
cruel than this one by Paul, more obviously with permission I'll admit,
for example:
http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/Gallery_index.html
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
