Re: [Leica] Travel kit. More than two lenses.

[Donal Philby <donalphilby@earthlink.net>]

Jim Brick wrote:
> >
> >Sorry folks, taking only a 50mm lens just won't cut it! Lame idea. Maybe as
> >a local one day self assignment, ala Ted, but certainly not for serious
> >photography.

I simplistically classify photography into two broad categories.  

One is "event" photography.  In these photos the action and content are
paramount.  H C-B falls into this category.  Most documentary work falls
into this category.  Portraits, too. Most of the work by such people as
David Alan Harvey, Bill Allard, Gilles Perress, etc.  The camera is just
a window.  It is the event which has the power.

The second category is the "graphic" photography.  Most landscape falls
into this, also much sports photography which includes perhaps a peak;
moment, but the graphic presentation (super long lens or super wide
perspective) dominates.  Most travel photography is simply graphic. 
Maybe a little something is going on, but mostly it is a pretty scene,
nice light accentuated by lens effects.  Think of Pete Turner, Jay
Maisel, Eric Meola.

Of course there are cross overs and numerous examples to refute this,
but in general photography (and photographers) fall into one of these
board categories predominately.

Photographers such as Bruno Barbey and Harry Gruyaert come close to
merging the two styles.

So to limit one's self to a 50 has merit, especially if your main
concern is with "events."  For the "graphic" style, the 50 is going to
have severe limitations.  David Harvey's story in NG Traveler on Puerto
Rico that has been mention on the LUG is really an "event" piece. 
Wonderful events.  Occasional graphic appeal, but the whole essay relies
on the capture of moments in time for its power.  For contrast, study
the work frequently seen in the same magazine by Bob Krist.  Krist is a
hell of a shooter who concentrates on "graphic" style.  See especially
his book on the Carribean.  

I have gone from an original bias toward "event" photography to a
concentration on "graphic" style as my career changed from editorial to
more advertising work where graphic power is valued above content.  That
is not something I particularily like, but until I can change direction
back away from advertising (and still eat), it is part of the
requirement to get work.  

No doubt, the graphic style is most easily understood and appreciated,
especially by sales oriented art directors and editors.  The event style
is more difficult to sell, is more risky to assign, because it relies
heavily on serendipity.  Of course, some photographers have more
serendipity than others.  

donal
- -- 
Donal Philby
San Diego
http://www.donalphilby.com