Re: [Leica] I missed it.

["Bruce Feldman" <brucef@waw.pdi.net>]

Claes,
To my knowledge, Smith never tried to hide the fact that he set up many of
his shots.  For instance, it was always well known that his Minamata shot of
the mother bathing the handicapped boy was set up; I believe he  described
how he did it in an article or interview I read somewhere.   In addition,
one of his darkroom assistants described to a friend of mine how he liked to
burn his prints way, way down in the darkroom.  The Minamata shot was taken
in broad daylight, I understand, yet it looks like it was shot in
candlelight.

There's a lot of manipulation in documentary photography.  I believe it's
called "craft."  I don't think that if a shot is set up in a studio it's
okay but on location it's not.  Documentary photography subjects don't have
to be untouched by human hands.  Charbonnier, Doisneau, Bill Brandt, a lot
of guys who did big photo essays for the picture magazines set up their
shots.  The real question is *how* the shot is set up.  Does it convey the
situation honestly and revealingly, and appealingly?

Now if you set up a shot and pretend that you didn't -- and it's important
that you didn't -- then that's a different story, I think.  That's
DIShonesty.  But I've never heard of Smith doing that.  Smith was brutally
honest.  That's why he died poor rather than put up with a lot of
*inappropriate* manipulation by idiots and fools.  It doesn't mean that he
didn't set up some shots, though.

Regards,
Bruce Feldman
Warsaw


 Original Message -----
From: Claes-Göran Bjernér <claes.bjerner@pi.se>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] I missed it.


>Eric wrote:
>
>> And, for the record, was totally set up. He had them go back and forth
>> several times until he got it right.
>
>Eric,
>
>I take it you were with Gene Smith at the time and saw this with your own
>eyes. What really intrigues me is what possible reason you might have to
>smear his name and reputation at this time?
>
>Since you were there I have no reason to doubt your disclosure. But my own
>personal impression of W.Eugene Smith is somehow different. Never have I
met
>a more honest, uncompromising and compassionate photojournalist. The Truth
>was very essential to Gene! And it was his resentless search for the truth
>that eventually killed him.
>
>Claes
>