Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's "the rule" in documentary photography, Bob? Whose rule? What examples, and what number of examples, can you provide to prove that it's "the rule?" And while putting your "proof" together, keep in mind that many of the great documentary/pj stories of the past - I think particularly of those that appeared in LIFE - contained posed, artificially lit, photos that weren't "staged moments," rather than decisive moments. Sure, any jerk with photoshop can screw around with a photo and easilly do what I'm sure it took the great - and I hold him in the highest regard - Eugene Smith some time to do in the darkroom when he sandwiched two negatives for a portrait of Albert Schweitzer....(sp?) But the reality is that photography has always only been as honest as the person holding the camera - and so it shall continue to be. If you don't like digital, and prefer film, more power to you. But no amount of pointing to what you see as digital's faults is going to change the reality that it is THE dominant photo capture medium, and becomes more dominent with every passing day. If I remember correctly, about two years ago you were telling us that digital was but a passing fad; you seem to be playing variations of the same tune to this day. So go take your images on film, arrange to have them stored in that underground facility in Pennsylvania that now holds what hasn't deteriorated in the Bettman, and the world will rest easy, knowing that they will be with us for generations to come. Now, where in hell did I put those 40 contact sheets and negatives I shot at the 1964 Newport Folk Festival - the ones I haven't been able to find for years and undoubtedly never will? Or where did Newsday put the negatives I shot in Somalia, the ones they can't find despite having a normally great filing system, library, and extensive storage facility? Oh, they're lost forever? Damn - I shot have shot them on digital; then I could blame technology for my loss. :-) -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Afterswift@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:43 AM To: gna@netspace.net.au; MyOlympus@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Leica] Re: [MyOlympus] a link for Bob.... In a message dated 1/11/05 5:37:43 AM, gna@netspace.net.au writes: > thought u might like this link about deception in documentary > photography > from the old days...not that I feel like re-starting that conversation! :) > > http://larrysface.com/deception.htm > > Gary > ------------------------------------------- Now every Tom, Dick and Mary can fake a photograph. It's no longer the exception to the rule. It is the rule. And you can't even track down a negative! Now, even if you could, the negative could be a forgery. The problem is the sea change that has come over photography so that it no longer has credibility by the public because the public itself is practicing deception on itself. A technology outside photography has invaded photography for good or ill. Each of us as individuals must now wield our own notarized stamp of veracity: Our Reputations. There is no other agency. But, then again, ethics always was the domain of the individual. So I'm still optimistic. As long as a special embattled few remain to keep the faith. Bob _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information