RE: [Leica] WOW!

["Stuart Phillips" <Stuart.Phillips@umb.edu>]

It's really bizarre that the first thought that came to a couple of
people on the list is that her photos were a result of technical
malfunctions. Gee was it a faulty meter or the fact she's working on a
Mac. Or maybe she's not telling her story quite clearly enough. How
condescending.  More likely we're not even her intended audience.

Stuart Phillips


- -----Original Message-----
From: Ted Grant [mailto:tedgrant@shaw.ca] 
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 6:39 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] WOW!

Kim wrote:

>>> I'm not a pj, so help me out here.
>
> Is it that her work isn't....accurate enough?
>
> Is it that she's not telling a story?
>
> I guess I'm asking is it that you think her skills (whether technical
or
> compostional) aren't up to par or is it the ....content and format fly
in
the
> face of "traditional" photojournalism?<<<

Hi Kim,
Good questions and from my point of view as a photojournalist I'll put a
personal spin to them

> Is it that her work isn't....accurate enough?<<<
Nope, it's different and accurate enough in her eyes. In mine? Well it's
difficult, as I don't see it as I've shot my work for 50 years as a
published photographer.

>>> Is it that she's not telling a story?<<
To some degree, but these days everyone thinks they're photojournalists
with
a collection of single pictures, which wasn't the meaning originally of
photojournalist,  "a story teller with pictures generally on one subject
."
And what we see in the pictures presented are a collection of
photographs
shot some what in "art fashion" instead, as what's considered
photojournalism.

>>> I guess I'm asking is it that you think her skills (whether
technical or
> compostional) aren't up to par or is it the ....content and format fly
in
the
> face of "traditional" photojournalism?<<<

No I think her skills are well up to par because if they weren't, then
she's
one damn lucky photographer to capture the photographs we see. They're
consistent in technique, so she's got the skills and then some. Actually
I'd
like to see more of what she shoots on a daily basis and not a selection
of
pictures shot over a period of time..

Well the content certainly flies in the face of what's "traditional"
photojournalism, certainly  if you consider telling a story on a subject
as
traditional. That doesn't mean she's not a photojournalist, as she may
do
major photo stories and that's where the PJ title comes from

Put what you see here up against what was considered photojournalism in
the
old LIFE magazine then the subjects are miles apart.  Again this doesn't
mean she's not good.

As Tina pointed out she's working as a staff shooter:

>>But she works as a PJ - on staff at the Sydney Morning Herald.  "Now
based
in Sydney, Narelle is a staff photographer at the Sydney Morning Herald.
Previously, she worked at the Adelaide Advertiser. She was the principal
photographer for News Limited's London bureau and freelanced in the
USA."<<<<

What would be interesting is, what she shoots for the paper and not what
we
see here.  Question is,  is she winning these awards for what she shoots
daily as a staff photographer or what's here? And if this is the kind of
thing being published,  to what amount is the work used?

Or what we see on her website, is it a  " personal photo project"  Or is
it
being shot for illustrations as her regularly published work?

Not sure if this answers any of your questions and making a judgement
call
on another photographer, certainly one who's won these awards, makes for
the
sound of sour grapes, so one must be very careful how one responds! ;-)

ted
















- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html