[Leica] Cine V still

[Alastair Firkin <firkin@netconnect.com.au>]

&&&&&&&&&&&
Ted wrote:
Which is the greater? This is for each to decide after viewing both at the
same time.
%%%%%%%%%%

Video cameras can now go where cameras have never gone before, and this can
add to the excitement of the event, or the intimacy of the result, but the
still image is often the one remembered, burnt into the "cortex". I was
"doing" the Robert Capa exhibition in Chicago last week, and there was a
video of his life produced by the director [a video I would love to
own----- must own everything ;-) ] showing in the lobby. In it, there were
cine and still images of the Spanish Civil war, and at first, I found the
moving images more interesting and "complete", but the still images stay
with you. The longer the video ran, the more impressed I became with the
Capa images, finding the cine segments more like fillers and explanations
for the weary. Then I remembered the Eve Arnold exhibition we saw before
leaving 4 weeks ago. She had dabbled in cine only to return to the still
images, not because the film lacked impact, but because the still image was
more personal. To produce a film you "must" have a crew, and we are
disappointed if you miss the finish or the touch-down, to produce the
still, you need to your camera, to be "there", and your ability, and
somehow this is reflected in the end result; the still seems to me to be
more personal, and the cine a team effort. Eve Arnold wanted to work alone
and returned to her N's.

Alastair Firkin,

http://users.netconnect.com.au/~firkin/AGFhmpg.html