Every once in awhile, the Times publishes photos that appear innocuous at first glance, simple illustrations of small facts. But if you stop for a second, other things reveal themselves.
What I learn from these photos is that there are some sharp shooters (and editors) on beats that could be seen as boring. In fact, I’d hazard to say that a photo like this is more potent than what the journalists in the White House press pool have been writing for the past six years.
This photo proves that you can do a lot with very little.]]>
but yeah i think you raise the always interesting point about what the photographer was seeing and what people bring into the viewing of a photo.
Does this make the subjects look decisive, ready, and on the move? In the middle of some action? Or does it make them look disparate? Looking at each other unsure or confused… without a single-mindedness or direction? Following each other… following no one. What does their environment add? Does Abe watching them cast an approving note or a shameful one on the subjects?
Or does it make them look like they’re playing musical sofa? Perhaps.
I’m sure some of that comes from what one brings to the image in the first place… but still, there’s power in the photography itself… including the cropping and editing. Thinking about that sort of thing is endlessly interesting to me.]]>