Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I would not argue with anything you say, Kyle. It's not quite the way I've been hearing the statement made, but maybe that's my hearing, not their saying. Maybe we agree to this: A good photograph will stand on its own as visually successful, but it does not have to tell the whole story to avoid failure. ric On Dec 12, 2010, at 10:20 AM, kyle cassidy on the lug wrote: > I think people are sometimes misinterpreting the concept of what an image > needs to be a success. The photo needs to be good by itself. It needs to > be worthy of hanging on a wall and being successful as a visual object. > Steve McCurray's Afghan Girl photo is a successful photo whether or not > you know who she is and why she's where she is, Thomas Franklin's photo of > the Firefighters raising the flag in the rubble of 9/11 is a beautiful and > poignant image regardless of whether or not you know the exact > circumstances. This doesn't mean that we don't need or want to know the > circumstances or that they're not part of the story. > > The thing to keep in mind is that at some point in time your image will be > viewed without the textual context, without your name, possibly without > any real frame of time reference. Next time you walk through an art > museum, look at the anonymous medieval and renaissance portraits. Imagine > your photo on those walls. If it needs a tag next to it saying "Fred and > Joe the first time they saw one another after being rescued from a sinking > ship in 1944" in order for people to say "my, that's a nice photo" -- THEN > it's failed. If they say "look at that beautiful photo, I wonder what's > going on" then you've succeeded. But the fact that National Geographic did > a story about Afghan refugees doesn't hurt Steve McCurray's photo -- it's > already a good photo, it's already a success. > > I haven't looked at the Best of Time photos yet, but I'm certain that > every one of them is a good photo without the caption. > > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Ric Carter wrote: > >> and, if a writer needs a photo with his piece, he's failed to tell the >> story? >> >> This is something we get a little carried away with here from time to >> time. >> >> If this were true, we'd not need writing. Time Magazine could thin up and >> go with a single photo per page. (Would they need headlines?) >> >> A picture that carries its story is wonderful, but one that carries the >> whole story is (so far as I know) non-existent. >> >> Our world is full of wonderful, beautiful, successful photographs that >> are improved by a caption and occasionally full-fledged, long-form >> writing. >> >> ric >> >> On Dec 12, 2010, at 4:20 AM, Marty Deveney wrote: >> >>> If you need to add words, you've >>> failed. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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