----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An
important step)
> Hi Tom,
>
> I will take a gamble on this ( tell me how wrong I am Bill ),
I suspect Bill is
> referring to considered composition not simply grab shots
(like Bill's
> sucessful PUG entry to which you refer)? For many PJs the only
image that
> matters is one that has the main subject smack in the middle
of the frame
> and covering most of it (=happy editor). This maybe one of the
differences in
> perspective that seems to cause irritation between the
> PJ/portrait/street/macro/scenery shooters?
>
> All have differing agendas. In my style of shooting zoom
capability would
> rarely be advantageous whereas a for PJ whose job depends on
frame filling
> in-your-face shots a zoom capability might be mandatory (as
may IS)?
What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got
played immediately, like as if that is the only way to
photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems
to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I
think that it is cheating the subject to work that way.
It may be the way the modern photojournalist has to work,
but this says more about the ethics of modern photojournalism
than about quality photography.
Photo journalism used to be about photo essays. It was about
exploring the subject with the lens, it was telling their story.
Now it seems to be the visual equivalent of the political sound
bite. All form, no function, and no content. Little more than
page filler for the vacuous minded (there's a Mafudism for
you!).
And how many of us (that "us" is people with cameras in
general, not people on this list) are working photojournalists?
Most of us don't make a living with our cameras. Mostly we
are shooting for pleasure. So why fall into the modern PJ
mentality? Why not fall into the older PJ mentality where
pictures meant something about the subject?
As amateur photographers, we have that option. We can do it
better. We can tell the story. We don't have to play Rambo with
our cameras. We can do it for love, which is where the term
"amateur" originated.
The grab shooter may get the best picture they can from a
particular situation, but that does not mean they have gotten a
good picture. I let more pictures get away than I shoot, simply
because I am not willing to deliberately take bad pictures on
general principles.
As a bit of evidence relating to getting the best of a bad
situation, I invite you to click on the following link:
http://www.accesscomm.ca/users/wrobb/general/tipover2.jpg
It really isn't a particularly good photograph. Just the best I
got in the situation.
I am sure that a "real" photojournalist would have done
better. They could hardly have done worse. But a real PJ also
does it for a living, day in and day out. I don't. Perhaps this
says my skill level isn't up to snuff, and I would agree. My
forte is in the field or studio with large slow moving cameras.
It is what I enjoy, as a photo hobbiest who does the occassional
(and getting more so every year) paying job, I have that luxury.
I think most of us do, if we care to admit it.
Thanks for reading
William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
