So are you saying you can't get a candid shot when you're interacting with someone? If that person is unaware that you're making a photo, isn't it a candid? And if I understood you correctly, you were equating slice of life with candids.
While a photographer may be interacting with someone, when that person's attention is elsewhere - perhaps talking with another person or enjoying the view of a handsome person walking by, isn't catching his or her expression while they are unaware of you making the shot as much a "slice" or a candid as anything done with a longer lens. And what about the times you've been talking with someone while slyly snapping a pic every now and then, unbeknownst to them? They are neither posing nor aware that the photo is being taken - they are acting naturally within the context of their interaction with you, the photographer. And I don't see the moment as being contrived necessarily. I think we're just going to have to disagree here, Paul, although I will admit to your being wrong ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > Date: 6/27/2005 12:13:48 PM > Subject: Re: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) > > Now we're getting into definitions. Anything can be called a "slice of life." But once the photographer interacts, he or she is no longer an observer but becomes a participant. It's a different situation. It's not necessarily better or inferior, but it's different. Although I shoot both ways, I prefer to be an observer, because I don't want to change what would have occured without me and my camera. I've seen memorable photographs achieved both ways. Neither is right or wrong. But there is a distinct difference. > Paul > > > > I disagree completely .... but perhaps one must define what a "slice of > > life" is. Isn't an encounter with someone a slice of life, a piece of the > > whole pie, as it were. In this case I'd agree with Godfrey - you can get a > > candid when you're close and interacting with people.
