Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm curious, Adam - how does "the very fact of Tina's image diminish (my) argument?" ___ Sent with SnapperMail www.snappermail.com ...... Original Message ....... On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 20:56:23 -0700 "Adam Bridge" <abridge@gmail.com> wrote: "That's ONE philosophy B D but it's not the ONLY one. " "There is something to be said for the text reconceptualizing what you "see, changing the context so what you thought you understood you now "understand differently. " "It's not PURE but it can be very effective in the circumstance where "the story the image tells is either incomplete or made into something "else by the situation. " "There's no way we could know he was whispering a prayer or the nature "of his faith. Tina's reportage adds to the image, frames it in "context, we gain. " "We are creatures of vision and language - so combining them makes sense to me. " "The very fact of Tina's photograph and caption diminish your argument. " "Adam Bridge " " "On 4/6/06, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote: "> Sorry, Gary - if a photograph is presented as a photograph, that is, "> presented on its own and not as an illustration for text, or as an excuse to "> avoid writing text - a freestanding photo in a newspaper with explanatory "> caption - then it should speak for itself, without explanatory footnotes. "> Giving a photo a title - and that's really what we're talking about rather "> than captions - is a copout. "> "> Tina's photo is a lovely photo. As I said, I think it's one of the best "> image's she presented. But by itself it says none of the things Tina says it "> says. And if it is presented as a photo that supposedly says those things, "> it fails. One of the things I tell students is that they have to remember "> that what they saw, heard, smelled, perhaps touched, thought or otherwise "> took in while they were photographing is utterly irrelevant to the viewer; "> all that matters is what is captured in that 60th of a second - 8000th of a "> second - in which the shutter opens and closes. All that the viewer can know "> is what is printed on a single sheet of photographic paper, or projected "> the screen. So if Tina was caught up in the ceremony she witnessed, by the "> beauty, the warmth, the sounds of the father whispering the call to prayer "> to the baby, and wanted to convey that in a photograph, she failed. Period. "> And all writing the title does is admit that failure. "> "> Again, all of that said, I am not saying that the photo in question is not a "> wonderful photo - I love it. And I have great admiration for Tina as a "> photographer. But that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking "> about photography as a visual, rather than written, medium. "> "> B. D. "> "> "> On 4/6/06 9:40 PM, "Gary Todoroff" <datamaster@northcoastphotos.com> wrote: "> "> > Oh boy, a chance to debate with both Ted and B.D. at the same time! Although "> > a great photo can indeed stand on its own, words along with a photo can "> > provide a synergy that goes well beyond either. "> > "> > For me, the work of writing a good caption is usually more effort than the "> > photograph, and I would love to agree with you both, just for the sake of "> > eliminating all that work! However, communication is a commitment and "> > obligation in which the extra effort of writing can often make a difference. "> > "> > I will agree that it is important to let a photograph "speak" to you first. "> > I have to remind myself to *look* at a photograph in order to *hear* the "> > photograph, an oxymoron that becomes understandable with the lingering "> > effort. "> > "> > However, depth of understanding can come with words that take you even "> > further into the world of a photo. Tina's photograph, I think, is good "> > example of that combination at work. Gents and lady - what a great time we "> > could have on an evening over these ideas! "> >