frank theriault wrote: > > On 4/26/05, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Likewise, Ruth Orkin's photo in Italy... > > > > another sigh - > > > > annsan > > > > Yeah, that one I heard was staged as well. Now, maybe someone knows > the story, but wasn't the girl paid to walk among the learing men > while Ruth took pix, but the men were unaware? Or were they part of > the "staging". > I'm pretty sure only the girl was in on it.
> Which of course raises an interesting question: How staged does a > photo have to be before it's not "spontaneous"? That may not be an > important question for most of you, but doing the type of photography > I do, spontanaety is an important part of most of my photos. and mine, as well, for a very large part. THough I confess to asking someone to "redo" what I missed capturing because someone happened to block the view suddenly appearing in the frame. It was just a matter of asking him to go back and look in a window again and ignore me... But it was only that once. > > Is it staged if only one of the subjects is "in on it"? Reminds me of Candid Camera.. :) ann > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
