Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jan 13, 2008, at 3:06 PM, B. D. Colen wrote: > I'd say, Michiel, that with 23 years experience as a reporter, I > have a > pretty good idea of when people are being 'themselves' and when they > aren't. and that is the key issue... are they absolutely being themselves...? since I have been on both ends of a camera as an MD/photographer, I have the feeling that people can be acutely aware of the camera/photog present, yet studiously/resolutely "going about their business as usual", giving absolutely no visible sign that they are aware of the camera... in fact sometimes they seem more focussed on their business as usual... than usual. :-) Steve > > > The problem with this thread, which started out as an interesting > discussion > about the difficulties/realities of trying to work in a documentary > mode, > it's become more a discussion for a philosophy classroom than a > photo class. > Does the tree make a sound when it falls in the forest if there's no > one > there to hear it? > Best > B. D. > > > On 1/13/08 4:06 PM, "Michiel Fokkema" <michiel.fokkema@wanadoo.nl> > wrote: > >> But the problem is B.D., that you can not know how they behave when >> you >> are not there! Therefore you can not know if they behave natural >> when yo >> are there. >> Off course, working with them for a longer period will shift them >> into >> more natural behavior. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michiel Fokkema >> >> B. D. Colen wrote: >>> If I'm reading both you and Ted correctly, Tarek, you're arguing >>> about >>> quantum mechanics rather than about photography. >>> >>> I would agree with virtually everything you write here - although >>> I do think >>> there are times when people are truly unaware of a photographer's >>> presence. >>> The real issue, I would suggest, is not whether someone is "aware" >>> of your >>> presence on a metaphysical level, but whether that awareness >>> alters their >>> behavior. And both you and Ted - and I - see to agree that, if one >>> is doing >>> his or her job correctly, it does not. So the awareness is really >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> Best, >>> B. D. >>> >>> >>> On 1/13/08 1:54 PM, "Tarek Charara" >>> <tarek.charara@pix-that-stimulate.com >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Ted, >>>> >>>> may I humbly suggest that according to my experience (a third of a >>>> century this year), the mere presence of someone, with or without a >>>> camera, active or not, in a particular space just modifies that >>>> space and the behaviour of the other beings in that space, to a >>>> certain degree. (I'm having some difficulties expressing this, but >>>> hope I'm clear enough). >>>> I want to believe that my active, but very discrete presence with a >>>> camera has no influence whatsoever on what is happening around me >>>> and >>>> that people and things are just the way the would be without my >>>> presence. How can I be sure? I can never be sure... >>>> >>>> It has been proven that the unconscious mind is aware of (and >>>> memorizes) things the conscious mind didn't even notice. The body >>>> acts according to these things nevertheless! Experiments in >>>> (quantum) >>>> physics have shown that results can differ if someone is looking at >>>> the experiment or not... Who am I to pretend that my presence has >>>> no >>>> influence whatsoever? >>>> >>>> On the other hand, does it need to show in the picture? No. When >>>> your >>>> subject is totally absorbed in whatever s/he is doing, the >>>> photographer/journalist/reporter becomes less and less important >>>> and >>>> the subjects seem more and more natural... >>>> >>>> You see Ted, I didn't say you were wrong, I said that "Believing >>>> the >>>> subject could "forget" that the photographer is in the room or >>>> around >>>> him taking pictures, is just wrong". There was nothing personal >>>> about >>>> that. You may believe other things and this is ok with me. >>>> >>>> The subject can ignore the photographer. S/he can pretend the >>>> photographer is not there and act naturally, my opinion is that if >>>> the photographer had a "paparazzi approach" the subject's behaviour >>>> would be different. And this even after weeks and weeks of living >>>> with the subjects. >>>> >>>> All the best from the south of France! >>>> >>>> Tarek >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------- >>>> Tarek Charara >>>> <http://www.pix-that-stimulate.com> >>>> >>>> NO ARCHIVE >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 13 janv. 08 ? 15:40, Ted Grant a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Tarek Charara offered quite unmistakenly! >>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] When in doubt ask photographer >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Ted,I think we are thinking this the other way around: it's not >>>>>>> about the >>>>> photographer, it's about wether the subject is concentrated or not >>>>> on what >>>>> he's doing. Believing the subject could "forget" that the >>>>> photographer is in >>>>> the room or around him taking pictures, is just wrong.<<< >>>>> >>>>> Excuse me? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know what the hell is wrong with some of you people when >>>>> you are >>>>> dealing with a photojournalist with over half century experience >>>>> of >>>>> working >>>>> in the fashion we're discussing. Then have the audacity to tell >>>>> me I'm >>>>> WRONG!! :-( Get stuffed! >>>>> >>>>> I have nothing to gain by explaining to you exactly what these >>>>> experiences >>>>> are, but you people are the ones who are wrong! Damn it if I sound >>>>> angry I >>>>> bloody well am! >>>>> >>>>> When I explain to you of daily experience with published books to >>>>> back it up >>>>> not to mention the assignments, do not tell me I'm wrong! >>>>> >>>>>>>> The photographer can be ignored, but that doesn't mean that the >>>>>>>> subject's >>>>> unconscious mind isn't aware of his presence and/or that the >>>>> photographer >>>>> isn't altering the scene by his presence.<<< >>>>> >>>>> Look if you walk into a room and have 2 minutes to get some quick >>>>> hit and >>>>> miss snap you maybe right. >>>>> >>>>> But what appears to be happening here is, you are not listening >>>>> nor >>>>> do you >>>>> understand the difference between a 2 minute hit and run compared >>>>> to a 5 day >>>>> or 5 weeks day after day shooting in the environment of the >>>>> subject or >>>>> subjects you're documenting. >>>>> >>>>> Your lack of understanding that it's possible to be there and >>>>> not have >>>>> absolutely any influence on the subject or subjects is in direct >>>>> ratio to >>>>> your inexperience! Certainly compared to a photojournalist of some >>>>> merit in >>>>> this field regardless of the subject and time. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you all for listening, but for crying out loud get with the >>>>> program >>>>> and listen to experience! >>>>> >>>>> Have a nice day! >>>>> >>>>> ted >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>> information >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information