Now we're getting into definitions. Anything can be called a "slice of life." But once the photographer interacts, he or she is no longer an observer but becomes a participant. It's a different situation. It's not necessarily better or inferior, but it's different. Although I shoot both ways, I prefer to be an observer, because I don't want to change what would have occured without me and my camera. I've seen memorable photographs achieved both ways. Neither is right or wrong. But there is a distinct difference. Paul
> I disagree completely .... but perhaps one must define what a "slice of > life" is. Isn't an encounter with someone a slice of life, a piece of the > whole pie, as it were. In this case I'd agree with Godfrey - you can get a > candid when you're close and interacting with people. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > True. But the moment is contrived. The photographer has arranged it by > starting a conversation and creating a photo-op. A true slice of life is > achieved only when the subject is unaware. > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > ...If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance > > > > of capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. ... > > > > > > Absolutely untrue. The trick is to see when to click the shutter ... > > > which is when they are NOT "posing". You can take candid, unposed > > > photographs in the course of a lengthy discussion or on a brief > > > encounter, if you keep your eyes open. > > > > > > Godfrey > > > > >
