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 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 >