From: Sandy King (email@example.com)
Date: 08/29/02-04:46:30 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>Did I say "it takes hours"? I know how long it takes, having seen it &
>done it, and even if I cut the time in half, or down to 20%, it's a very
>different "take," including the fact that it's soooooo conspicuous.
I really can not imagine that being conspicuous would bother you?
>However the tripod has its uses. Phallic symbol, my dears -- that is, it
Now, now. I could easily take that as a sexist remark.
> One night I set up the tripod in front of one of those porn
>magazine & video stores, and just shot & shot, good view of well lit
interior & customers. Nobody, NOT ONE PERSON objected.
> If I'd just beenstanding there shooting camera, to my eye, they'd
>have clobbered me. Buta couple of folks asked if I were waiting for
>the rest of the videocrew. Seeing the tripod they assumed TV -- and
>loved the thought, I
>gathered: Wow, we're on TV !
Sounds like you could have done well there witha view camera on a tripod?
>As it happened, the light was so extremely contrasty those pictures never
>printed well. But if I ever get through this computer minefield I hope to
>make them right with photoshop.
Well, if you had been using a view camera, and knew how to expose and
print the sheet film to handle this kind of light, you would have
made good negatives.
>But my point is I rarely know that in advance. Wasn't Garry Winogrand the
>one who said he took pictures to see what something looks like
>photographed? You're making the decision in advance... maybe you can.
>Maybe you have a certain aesthetic that's run through your higher critical
>faculties avant la lettre. I can't tell until I see what the camera did
You are absolutely right. There is a different aesthetic involved. It
really gets down to what you are trying to do with your photographs.
Different format cameras are clearly more efficient for achieving
certain kind of images.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST