Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/12/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Ted, May I beg to differ?
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)
Date: Sun Dec 11 14:12:14 2005
References: <439C78FC.5060306@waltjohnson.com>

Walt Johnson offered:
Subject: [Leica] Ted, May I beg to differ?

> Ted,
> Appreciate the nice comments on  recent uploads but must disagree on one 
> thing. Having worked for quite a few dailies over 30 years and several 
> reasonably big-time  photo agencies taught me at least one thing. There 
> are no rules, except one I taught myself. Honesty. Be honest and every 
> thing else falls into place. Be honest in your approach, be honest with 
> your self and most importantly be honest with your subjects.<<<<

Walt you are not alone. My first published news photograph was 17 September 
1951! And like you, I've worked for any number of newspapers, magazines and 
wire services on assignment or staff. One thing has always been my guide 
since I started. That is, my pictures as a photojournalist are what you see 
is what you get! The truth of the moment!

My books and documentaries for example do not have a posed picture in them, 
whether cowboys, doctors, people, industry or politicians. They're all real 
time, real life! If they weren't then I'd be a bloody hypocrite of what my 
photography illustrates and stands for, integrity of image!

Shooting on a commercial level it's a whole different ball game!

> Eye contact with a subject certainly doesn't automatically denote a 
> set-up. Of course, even a set-up photograph does not (at least to me) mean 
> dishonesty. Unless it's hard news most images we see are arranged. I'd 
> guess about 60-70% of what we look at in  the major news mags is set up. 
> They give you an assignment, you go do it. Done it many times, and never 
> thought I was faking it.<<<

> Eye contact with a subject certainly doesn't automatically denote a 
> set-up. <<<

Obviously not! However, in some cases the direct eye contact spoils the 
picture, read "not always!"
The little girl and the cross came across just as I originally explained... 
"it looked like she was told to stand there, put her hand on the cross and 
look at the camera!" Sorry if that weren't the case but that's exactly the 
way I took it right off!

> The little girl with the cross wandered over to see what I was doing. She 
> looked at me, I looked at her and managed one frame with an old Nikon F. 
> She was part of a very poor community near South Phoenix and the families 
> has sort of a potter's field for their departed.

After all it's pretty hard to understand why this young girl would be 
standing hand on cross and looking at the photographer. Hands on a doll? 
Yeah and looking at the camera, but a cross? I read your explanation above 
now I know what happened. But she still looks like I described! Sorry mate, 
that's life.

> Here  is a prime example of "eye contact" by  Jake Engel which speaks 
> quite well of  honesty. Hope he doesn't mind me illustrating a point with 
> it. Eye contact that seems to take us right to the heart and soul of a 
> subject. Absolutely beautiful and real.
> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/engelpaw2005/steph27<<<<<

Now we're talking about two different things, as this is a directed posed 
picture and we see this a thousand times a year in portraiture, fashion and 
many other straight forward people photographs. And yes it's an extremely 
beautiful and well executed photograph.

>>> And if I may beg to illustrate eye contact one more time and then get
> back to my Sunday chores  :)
> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/Images/beg <<<<

A beauty because the eyes ad to the effect of the beggar whether she's 
looking directly into the camera or not, as it's part of an over all 
recognizable expression with the out reaching hand.. But again this is an 
entirely different photograph than the effect of the child and cross. It 
tells it's own story without explanation.

I suppose this may fall into a category where we'll agree to disagree or 
something like that. ;-)
Here's a question to ask. And it could be applied to the three shown 
photographs.

Picture 1... little girl...

"Is this one of your all time greatest 10 pictures?" Whether comparing the 3 
subjects or not the answer surely would be ...."No."

Now the same question applied to the other two and I bet every one of us, if 
having had the opportunity to shoot them could very easily say ... "You bet 
your sweet bippy they're in the 10 best!"

ted

Ted Grant Photography Limited
1817 Feltham Road
Victoria BC  V8N 2A4 



Replies: Reply from cochranpr at mac.com (David Cochran) ([Leica] Are my postings going through?)
In reply to: Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Ted, May I beg to differ?)