----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest > portrayal of > a subject when they know they are going to be photographed and start > "performing" for the camera? I suppose it could be in some situations, > but > perhaps not all. What are your thoughts on that? I agree with that statement. McCurry has to watch out for the performers as does/did HCB when he thought he wasn't being noticed. > > I've made numerous photos by engaging the people I've photographed, and > the > results have often been wonderful, but it seems that you feel there's no > time > when a candid shot is appropriate. Let's step back to HCB for a > moment. You > never did address the point that much of his work (as was the work of > many, many > other photographers) was candid, or voyeuristic, and without that > approach > there'd probably be just a small pamphlet of his work, rather than > volumes. And > just to be clear, I am not comparing myself to HCB ... Honestly, of the photographs I've seen from HCB, the ones that are more engaged or where the subjects knew their picture was being taken, appeal to me more than his more voyeuristic shots. It's all about personal preference here. > > And then we have the situation where a photographer has been given > permission to > photograph some one, but still grabs some candid shots when the subject > isn't > "engaged." Where does that fit in? > Permission was given. They knew they would be photographed in some way. Christian
