Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have a mid-day shoot, so this is my last (maybe) comment, before I have to get on the road. Having said all that, it's great that you're taking the effort to look at images with a degree of study. One great thing about digital, is that the learning curve is so short. When the SLR was dumped on the market, it took forever to get that 35mm signature down. As the DSLR is based on that previous experience, from hardware to the very software (for post production), it was able to do so after the "format" had time to settle for over 2 generations. The best shooters resisted that sirens songs, producing some of the best images within photography for those years.: i.e. David Bailey, Arnold Newman, Bill Brandt, Imogen Cunningham, etc. Never mind the studio, wedding and mass market photography. What digital has done was the crossing of a threshold whose implication we are still coming to grips with.... I'll end there, as nothing on these things takes 5 minutes. S.d. On Apr 16, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Vince Passaro wrote: > I thought that too. He was probably given five minutes. I still like it. > V > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:30 AM, slobodan Dimitrov > <s.dimitrov at charter.net>wrote: > >> I collect wire photos, especially the ones dealing with Labor. >> So I know what you're saying has some grounding in reality. >> But even by those standards, this image is a disaster. >> By the way, AP, TIME, etc., do not give up rights on an image, ever, and >> never. >> >> The only revelation I see here, is that the photographer got punked by an >> uncooperative subject. >> It's the kind of image that a novice would make when confronted by a >> difficult sitter. >> >> When one is out on a shoot, there's the best case scenario and worse case >> scenario. For each you have a plan, plan A, plan B, etc., and that's >> coming >> in cold. For this shot, there had to be prior notification. A lot of >> going >> back and forth over his schedule. All that busy stuff that an assigning >> editor had to do to set it up. In the image you're showing us, I don't >> think >> Stevens gave the photog more than a minute. I don't think the photographer >> had any plan either, judging by the shot. >> If you look in the AP style manual, it addresses such a situation. >> Obviously the camera operator did not read it. >> S.d. >> >> On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: >> >>> What flare in which corner? >>> >>> Do you guys know how AP photographs worked? They came in over the wire >> and >>> were recomposed at the paper; that print then is kept in a library (at >> some >>> papers) until being digitized, probably in like 1997, badly; you're so >> far >>> from whatever the original was to discuss its sharpness is silly. If the >>> image came last week from AP directly that too is how it would have >>> survived; it's only marginally possible that anyone worked with the >> original >>> print again after it went out over the wires in 1976. But I suspect this >> was >>> in the Times' library and then digitized because I believe AP's photo >>> library was sold to Bettman or Getty at some point so if the image had >> been >>> bought last week it wouldn't have said "AP" I don't think. I could be >> wrong >>> on that front however. >>> >>> In any case you ain't looking at it like human bein' . A thousand more >>> technically correct headshots wouldn't reveal the man in quite this way, >> or >>> at all, and I happened to look at a lot of them in the wake of becoming >>> interested in this photograph. He was superficially a dull man and not >> easy >>> to "find" but this picture does -- in part by getting (literally) >> underneath >>> him. It's beautifully composed. >>> >>> Nathan I figured out the "flare" you indicated. If that were flare it >> would >>> mean the trash can was on fire. It's not flare; it's damage to the print. >>> The light's coming fron entirely the other direction. >>> >>> You guys better not go to the HCB show at MoMA. A lot of his pictures >> aren't >>> so sharp either. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:17 AM, slobodan Dimitrov >>> <s.dimitrov at charter.net>wrote: >>> >>>> It's from the very worst period in photography, when the 35mm SLR >>>> manufactures jammed the public with their trash. >>>> S.d. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: >>>> >>>>> That was my reaction to it as well. Unsharp, lots of flare in the >> corner. >>>>> >>>>> Nathan >>>>> >>>>> Nathan Wajsman >>>>> Alicante, Spain >>>>> http://www.frozenlight.eu >>>>> http://www.greatpix.eu >>>>> http://www.nathanfoto.com >>>>> >>>>> Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 >>>>> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws >>>>> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 16, 2010, at 6:57 AM, slobodan Dimitrov wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You're kidding, right? >>>>>> It's a hideous image! >>>>>> S.d. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:39 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This picture ran on the front page of the New York Times the day >> after >>>>>>> Stevens announced his resignation. They still have it on the lens >>>> blog. >>>>>>> It's an uncredited AP photo. I like it a lot, I think it's a great >>>>>>> photograph. I wonder what others think, and, specifically, what size >>>> lens >>>>>>> people think it was taken with. I'm thinking 35mm or even 28mm and >>>> cropped >>>>>>> but I don't know nothin'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People's reactions would be of great interest to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the url: >>>>>>> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/04/09/us/20100409-stevens-slideshow_index.html?ref=politics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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