Someone mentioned in a comment here yesterday about the death of noted photographer Jim Marshall.  Here are two of his classic images:

Reading his obit in the NY Times, I was struck by the following quote from him.  “When I’m photographing people, I don’t like to give any direction.  There are no hair people fussing around, no makeup artists. I’m like a reporter, only with a camera; I react to my subject in their environment, and if it’s going well, I get so immersed in it that I become one with the camera.”

That is of course a very different approach from that taken by photographers such as David LaChapelle. (Here’s one of his recent photos of Lady Gaga.)

In my mind, one approach is not better than the other; they are equally valid and I admire both photographers.

Someone had left a comment a week or two back, when I’d written of how much I enjoy the results I get from Lightroom, something about editing or digitally altering photographs not being valid.  To me, every approach is valid, everything represents choices and tools are there to be used or not be used depending on the decision of the photographer.  And then I ran across this interview with photographer Art Wolfe and found this bit of commentary worthwhile:

I think that people have this perception and certainly within the bastions of nature photographers, there’s this perception that photography is real, and that whatever you aim the camera at is a pure recording of reality and I’ve never maintained that. I’ve never maintained that whatever I was photographing was absolutely real. I could alter its content by compression through the use of telephoto lenses, I could conversely distort the angles by using wide angles, I could change the color depending on the film I chose, I could change the reality of the image by what I chose to include in the composition and exclude in the composition.

For instance, if there was a telephone pole along a beautiful patch of forest if I just simply zoomed in, and eliminated it from within the frame, it would just imply purity and pristineness. So I’ve always looked at photography as no different than any other medium of artistic endeavor. We have so much control and photography has always been really a reflection of how the artist could use that tool. I think Ansel Adams was exemplified – the fact that he could take an image and through the black and white process, burning and dodging in the zone system, really make that image, that perhaps was very bland in initial capture, and turning it into something magnificent and artistic. Had he been alive today he would definitely have embraced the digital technology.

Of course, people like what they like for thousands of reasons and it’s not my intention to tell that commenter he’s wrong – if he prefers a certain style of photograph, for him he is absolutely correct, even though others may differ.  (And of course I’m not trying to compare myself or my photographic efforts to Ansel Adams or Art Wolfe.)

Speaking of digital photography software, the 2nd beta of Lightroom 3 is available as a download; it’s said to be much more ready for prime time than the first.  Get it here.  Adobe has also announced that CS5 will be released in April.

Last but far from least, David duChemin is someone I admire both as a photographer and as an author of photography books.  I love this recent blog post of his and you should check out the whole thing but here’s an excerpt:

People ask me about how to use their flash in two groups balanced with ambient and I stare awkwardly at them and give them Joe McNally’s email address or home phone number and beg them to (a) never tell Joe I sent them and (b) never to speak of this ever again.

I have long forgotten everything I knew about the zone system and now expose purely in reverse. Shoot first, look at the histogram, then get it right, instead of the way I learn which was the more sensible “meter twice, shoot once.”

My eyes gloss over when people start talking about channel-specific curves adjustments in Photoshop or Keywording in Lightroom. I should know this stuff. But I just want to make images, man.

And really, a so-called pro should know better. Except we don’t and the ones that say they do are lying. Thing is, I’d rather get so distracted by the things I am shooting, and lose the odd shot to my distraction and crappy exposure, or, God forbid, a high ISO, than get distracted by the tech-stuff and those things a pro “ought” to be doing, and never see the moments, never experience the wonder.