Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Isn't this topic getting pretty old? I've not wanted to get into it,
but maybe a few words can turn this thing toward some not too distant
conclusion. I don't think I have EVER taken a photo WITHOUT looking
through the viewfinder, but because I'm a non-professional picture
taker, I have the luxury of simply not taking a picture if I feel that
it would endanger me or that it would be too exploitative. But I have
NO problem with anyone NOT looking through the viewfinder---why should
I have? Moreover, now that the idea has been brought up, I may try it
myself. If someone can obtain good pictures by that means, then he or
she should do it. As I argued some weeks ago during the discussion of
Henri Cartier-Bresson's technique, it's not what method is used that's
important, but rather the RESULTS obtained by whatever method is used.
(And by the way, that would include cameras, which perhaps makes me an
inappropriate participant in this group: if someone produces beautiful
pictures why should we care if they were made with some pinhole camera
or with the latest Leica?)
What's more, I think "courage" tends to be over-esteemed, to the point
where we suggest that anyone lacking whatever is deemed the requisite
amount of the stuff is therefore without value to our society---which
is ludicrous. The fact is that people who may not be very courageous
can and do make many positive contributions to our world in many ways.
I'd suggest that we would do better to appreciate people for what they
can do than to denigrate them for what they cannot.
Let's just let everyone take pictures however he or she sees fit, and
appreciate any good results.
Art Peterson
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [Leica] More blind shooting discussion
Author: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at internet
Date: 12/20/97 2:50 AM
I learnt at school, that "to have the balls" means "to show the
courage", no matter whether the persons is male or female. But,
I admit, taht my English is rather poor.
It even came to my mind - for a short moment - that the LUG ladies
weren't half as excited about the mentioned male's attributes, than
the those male photographers, who felt with their back on the wall.
No matter what the correct Englsih phrase may be for stating that a
photographer takes responsibility for his acts, I agree with Ted's
statement and position.
In my mind, a photographer, who does *not* take the camera to his
eyes (except in danger for life and limbs) (1) chickens out, is
coward, or hasn't the guts to stand to his deed, and (2) evidently
feels himself also, that he's doing something wrong or exploiting
others on their costs/ back.
Anyway. I do not think, Robert Capa was looking into another direction,
when he took his picture.
Alf
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
At 14:07 19.12.1997 -0500, Ted wrote:
>Obviously it doesn't always work, I'd be a fool to say it did, but on the
>whole the quick action of the Leica M cameras can beget you any number of
>wonderful and well composted images without walking around clicking like a
>Sunday stroller in the park shooting one way while looking another.