Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/07

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

Subject: [Leica] WWII veteran (OT Gear)
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Fri Apr 7 06:34:38 2006
References: <20060407123048.55501.qmail@web25502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Nick

:-) ;-) :-P :-D O:-)

Walt

Nick Roberts wrote:

>Walt,
> 
>Just struck me that you might be trying to tell me how to go about shooting 
>it, in which case apologies for misunderstanding you, but then as it wasn't 
>me that shot it in the first place, the advice is misdirected - I'm purely 
>an observer in this case.
> 
>Nick
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Nick Roberts <nickbroberts@yahoo.co.uk>
>To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>Sent: Friday, 7 April, 2006 12:39:35 PM
>Subject: Re: [Leica] WWII veteran (OT Gear)
>
>
>Walt,
>
>Yes and no. There's hugely more to it than that, and I'm sure you know it. 
>Some pics can and do tell the entire story and have no need for words (some 
>of the excellent shots you yourself have recently posted fall into this 
>category, as does the majority of Ted's very fine body of work). Some 
>simply can't possibly tell the whole story, and I contend that by ignoring 
>this fact, it's you that misses the point completely. How can either of the 
>pictures in question tell us about the past of the veteran? In themselves, 
>they can't - only the words do. It's then a question of which picture fits 
>with the story - the straight portrait, or the symbolic one? I contend that 
>in this case, the sum of the words and the action shot are not only greater 
>than the parts, but greater than the other shot too, notwithstanding the 
>greater freestanding impact of the straight portrait. For me, just those 
>few words make me care about the subject in a way that the portrait 
>couldn't possibly do, and
>produce a different set of emotions, as I've explained. By all means 
>disagree with me, it's just my opinion, and I am in no way a PJ or even 
>portraitist. But it's my honest opinion, so if you don't like it, tough, I 
>don't really care. Ted asked a question (admittedly of someone else), I 
>answered it. End of story. If you're telling me I have to think the same as 
>Ted because he's a brilliant PJ and I'm not, I will courteously, sincerely 
>and happily acknowledge the fact of Ted's superior photographic ability 
>(and yours as well, for that matter, you're a terrific photographer), and 
>respectfully file your advice where I normally file instructions on how I 
>should think. ;)
>
>
>Nick
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com>
>To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>Sent: Thursday, 6 April, 2006 5:07:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [Leica] WWII veteran (OT Gear)
>
>
>Nick:
>
>One of the golden rules of photographic story telling is to do just 
>that, namely tell a story. To rely on an image which requires an 
>explanation to make it understood misses the point completely.  In all 
>honesty, your rationale seems to take the point well past breakage and 
>then some. Ted has had more than his share of fine portraits published 
>all over the world. I'd consider that and maybe try and learn a bit from 
>him.
>
>Walt
>
>.
>Nick Roberts wrote:
>
>  
>
>>If I may, Ted, I'll tell you why I think the combination of the story and 
>>the first picture is stronger than that of the story and the second 
>>picture - in the second, you've got a frail old man - lovely portrait, but 
>>just a frail old man, a picture that leaves me faintly sad. The first one, 
>>though, shows him alive, doing what he loves - and it's a poignant 
>>reminder of wartime watchfulness, but now for joyous reasons, not fearful 
>>ones. So the first picture to me is one of hope and happy endings, the 
>>second isn't. That's no reflection of the isolated photographic merit of 
>>each, just how I feel the words and images work together.
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
>>To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, 6 April, 2006 3:54:42 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Leica] WWII veteran (OT Gear)
>>
>>
>>PHC offered:
>>Subject: Re: [Leica] WWII veteran (OT Gear)
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>http://www.geebeephoto.com/2006/06060.htm
>>>>
>>>>http://www.geebeephoto.com/2006/06061.htm
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>
>>Paul said,
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Don't listen to them Graham! The first one is definitely the better 
>>>picture. Fabulous!<<<<
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Paul I'm not sure why you could say that? Would you mind explaining as a 
>>photograph you think number one is better than the second as portarit type 
>>photo with such beautiful light an his face? Certainly compared to the 
>>back 
>>of his head holding a camera pointing out a hole in the wall?
>>
>>Much appreciated if you would, thank you.
>>ted
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>

In reply to: Message from nickbroberts at yahoo.co.uk (Nick Roberts) ([Leica] WWII veteran (OT Gear))