> > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/03/11 Fri AM 09:13:22 GMT > To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: PAW: Shabby Chic > > On 11/3/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >Frank, I knew you wouldn't do anything so tasteless and I hope that most > >people's first impulse would be to go to the assistance of someone in > >distress, rather than take their picture. The problem I am trying to > >elucidate is the difficulty one has when one's images are protrayed to a > >large audience in such a technically degraded fashion. It is all too > >easy for someone to jump to the wrong conclusion - because there _are_ > >people out there who photograph people in unhappy situations, against > >their will - and then do something about it. > > > >If you were showing the print/slide to your mates, the problem would not > >exist. > > > >So: given that the picture has the potential to give an unintentional, > >initial, wrong impression, is it a good one???? > > Forgive me for playing devil's advocate for a minute here Mike, but isn't > the impression a photograph 'makes' in the eyes of the beholder? Surely a > work is presented, and it is up to the viewer to determine what's going > on in the pic, what emotions it creates, what reaction it engenders? > > The shabby chic may have been a passer-by in the street, or it may have > been a carefully crafted top-dollar shoot for an album cover, complete > with extras and hired-in props, even closing off a busy street for half a > day. My point is, a picture is presented and looked at, and admired or > rejected. However - I fully understand that Frank (by placing it in this > forum as a PAW) is expecting viewer comments and crits and so your > remarks are legit in that context. > > I simply say that 'so what if anyone jumps to a conclusion, wrong or right' ? > > Discuss :-)
OK. 8-) It's not the impression per se that I am concerned about, it's the possibility of a seriously "wrong" impression. Like the accusations of child molestation that can come from picturing your kids in the bath. The medium is to blame in this case more than anything, as the print looks considerably different to the electronic image. I would love to expound on this but I've already had a detailed, long critique of Marnie's stuff time out on me so I'm not going to risk it again. Suffice it to say that, while I'm using webmail, my comments and responses are going to be rather short of my full two penn'orth. mike ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked by McAfee visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
