[Leica] Still vs Motion

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

While still photographs do represent a moment, o.k., a decisive moment, they
can still express motion and time.  I often look at photographs and imagine
how they express events before and after the actual shutter trip.  Also, my
photographs are often blurred, albeit with great bokeh, because an instant
of sharp focus does not tell the story I want to capture.  This may be
heretical on the LUG, but I believe that a nice blurry picture sometimes
tells the story better than that mica-crisp shot at the highest shutter
speed.

My vote goes with B.D.'s

	Buzz


> "B. D. Colen" < BDColen@earthlink.net <mailto:BDColen@earthlink.net>>
> >Still photos can have unparalleled emotional and visual impact - far 
> >greater than that of film because they are in front of us longer and
> >can be observed and contemplated longer.
> 
> Dear Alexey,
> I agree that some images or scenes--like a downhill ski run greatly
> benefit from showing the motion and speed. However, "Ran" was long and
> boring. About halfway through I felt that I would vomit if I saw one more
> arrow strike one more breast. It got boring. I did have emotional
> impact--I don't think any photo could have bored me so much, or for so
> long. Sometimes showing the motion helps, sometimes motion obscures  the
> impact and design of an image. Just depends. I don't see how one is
> "right" or "best," and the other is "wrong" or "not so good."
> Sincerely, 
> Joe Stephenson 
>