Tina wrote:
> Digital vs film or something else? They do look slick and produced instead
> of gritty and documentary. But then McCurry's work has always been posed,
> true?
I've read/watched enough interviews of him to believe that he doesn't
necessarily "pose" the images, but he is pretty clear about his taking
control of his environment. Maybe one difference in style between Tina
and Steve is that Steve doesn't sit still. He's always on the move,
shooting, moving in and out of a scene, revisiting, changing angles,
communicating with his subjects but not letting them control him. He's
certainly alpha-dog. It works for him, but he has ended up with a
distinctive style that shouts.
As to the sanitized images, I don't think that it has anything to do
with film vs. digital. He was developing this look many years ago.
What I am talking about is how the scene is too cleaned up and orderly
for reality. His work, to me, is more of an illustration rather than a
representation.
He's the Norman Rockwell of photojournalism.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|