A postscript to this; "Voyeuristic" is an obviously judgmental term.
Paul
On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:27 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't necessarily mean to suggest that Capa meant that one should
use long lenses. But I do believe he was talking about filling the
frame rather than being close to the subject. I have found that
"initimate" results can be obtained with a variety of focal lengths.
My remarks were in no way meant to be condescending and juidgmental.
Paul
On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Sorry, Paul Capa did not mean to fill the frame using long lenses.
getting
in close gives more intimate results. You seem to like a more
"voyeuristic" approach to photography - that's fine for you. Getting
close
does not mean getting in someone's face - depending on what you mean
by
that. your remark seems rather condescending and judgmental. one
can work
close and catch the subject unaware. it's a learned skill.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
I could be wrong, but I always took Capa's comments to mean "fill the
frame," rather than "get in someone's face." I've had good luck with
both long and short lenses on the street. It depends on whether one
wants to catch their subjects unaware or record the reaction to the
camera and intrusion. I think both can be good.
