Re: [Leica] It's baaaaaaaaaaaack--and frooooont

["Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com>]

Donna-Lee Phillips wrote:
>>> For decades I, like most of you, required a camera to 'capture the
> moment'. When I could no longer use a camera--a situation which may
> change soon-- imagine my surprise when I discovered that the moments
> happened anyway?<<<<<<<

And a whole bunch more.

Hi DL,
My  dear lady you are a breath of fresh air along this wonderful path of
Leica users. A calm and rational perspective, of which I'm going to say,
even at the possibility of being stoned as a "male chauvinist," the
wonderful perceptive of a woman. Thank you.
ted
>
> I'm tranquil.

Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "" <dlp@pacific.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] It's baaaaaaaaaaaack--and frooooont


> Ted Grant wrote:
>
> > That's all well and good Guy, but tell us the truth now, what are you
> on?
> > ;-)
> > ted
>
> I guess you are as confused as I am.
>
> > P.S. In Muslim countries with strict laws, a woman is likely to get
> >  stoned if she commits adultery. In Indonesia it's the other way
> around!
>
>                             =====
> > Ray,
>
> >  are you saying she will be stoned if she doesn't commit ;-)
>
> I think things are becoming clearer now...
>
> > To stretch an analogy to its limits, how would you feel if you were
> > strolling down the street past the local tailor shop, and the tailor
> > dashed out and took your inside leg measurement without permission.
> > After all, he must be allowed the freedom to practice his profession.
>
> In order to commit adultery in some Muslim countries, a woman has to be
> stoned. In others, the man has to be stoned. Personally, I've had times
> when committing fidelity went better if either partner or both were a
> little stoned, but what do I know?
>
> Sorry... I've just ruined my whole argument because I keep picturing
> Alan's stretched analogy. Damned difficult to stroll down a street
> without exposing one's inseam to any randy local tailor. Did I say
> randy? I meant random.
>
> Not having committed adultery OR being stoned, I'll return to a subject
> I've been following with some interest--the turf war between
> "photojournalists" and "street photographers". I think Alan's comparison
> of the compulsive photographer as a 'territory marker' is close to the
> mark.
>
> But even closer, IMHO, is the fact that photography requires placing a
> barrier--the camera--between the photographer and the event--or life. To
> me the usefulness of the Leica has always been that it interposed the
> least intrusive or distancing barrier, since at least as I used it
> putting the tool in front of my face wasn't usually required to make a
> photograph. Photographing often replaces seeing in the moment, as we can
> always look at what was there when we get home and develop the film.
>
> If you doubt me, trying taking a trip somewhere you are certain you will
> not ever be able to visit again, and going without a camera.
> Cold-turkey. It's an extremely interesting discipline. No, framing
> everything with your fingers doesn't count. I have a friend who isn't a
> photographer, but who constantly 'frames things' as we trek, telling me
> what would make a good photograph. He finally stopped when I threatened
> to commit bodily harm, but I can still see his eye darting around
> mentally composing the real world into 'shots'.
>
> No doubt everyone has heard the old joke about the proud grandmother
> wheeling the pram who replies, when the neighbor says "Oh.... what a
> beautiful baby!"... "That's nothing. You should see his photograph."
>
> It is amusing to listen to Photojournalists posture as though their
> profession was one for which ordination was usual, and Street
> Photographers respond like guerillas. I have never been comfortable
> photographing strangers, as I have always felt that it was an invasion
> of their private space, although this was how photography was taught me.
> I realize that the legal argument about whether someone is likely to be
> newsworthy or not is where the line is drawn on photographing people in
> public places... to the individual, his/her life IS newsworthy, whether
> star or stumblebum.
>
> In those 'primitive' cultures which resist being photographed because
> the image captures a piece of the subject's soul, there is an argument
> worth hearing, even though it is far too late to apply in most of the
> world.
>
>
> DL
>
>
>
>
>