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". 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. Is it staged if only one of the subjects is "in on it"? Two or three among a larger crowd? Think of Doisneau's The Kiss: even though the lovers were "in on it", the rest of the passing crowd wasn't. Indeed, passionate though the kiss was, it's the reaction (or lack thereof) of the passersby that made the photo. And that wasn't staged. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
