Comments on: Revisiting Fleishman and Lucky http://www.dvafoto.com/2009/01/revisiting-fleishman-and-lucky/ Matt Lutton and M. Scott Brauer share their work and others' Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:59:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Matt Lutton http://www.dvafoto.com/2009/01/revisiting-fleishman-and-lucky/comment-page-1/#comment-1072 Matt Lutton Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:58:45 +0000 http://www.dvafoto.com/?p=1128#comment-1072 Slander is much too far: I related a comment that was placed on our site, open for all to see already, after it seemed that its contentions were confirmed with this interview with the photographer. That was the point of this follow up post. As for why to bring it up in the first place, I think it is obvious (and reflected in the reactions of others): it was a weird shoot presented in a strange way. It confused me, and others. We're not photographers, or bloggers for that matter, to only deal with the great and perfect pictures .. we need to be challenged and called on shit sometimes. And this work isn't shit, but it isn't perfect either... hence a discussion. Slander is much too far: I related a comment that was placed on our site, open for all to see already, after it seemed that its contentions were confirmed with this interview with the photographer. That was the point of this follow up post.

As for why to bring it up in the first place, I think it is obvious (and reflected in the reactions of others): it was a weird shoot presented in a strange way. It confused me, and others. We’re not photographers, or bloggers for that matter, to only deal with the great and perfect pictures .. we need to be challenged and called on shit sometimes. And this work isn’t shit, but it isn’t perfect either… hence a discussion.

]]> By: matthew Salacuse http://www.dvafoto.com/2009/01/revisiting-fleishman-and-lucky/comment-page-1/#comment-994 matthew Salacuse Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:23:08 +0000 http://www.dvafoto.com/?p=1128#comment-994 I find it a bit repulsive that some photographers feel it is alright to slander a good photographer without knowing the facts. What you say here has real world results. You could potentially be hurting someone's career by writing what you may have heard from an assistant that a) the photos were staged and b)there was potential child abuse. The second accusation should not be tossed out lightly on a blog. Nor should the first for that matter. This was an ASSIGNMENT. Assigned from a magazine to shoot a fashion story in Ms. Fleishman's own way. She chose to shoot it like her other work. For other examples of this see Bruce Gilden or Martin Parr(both Magnum photographers) or Jeff Mermelstein. They shoot for magazines like Details, and Blender and even XXL in the same style they shoot their personal documentary work. On a blog like this you should be celebrating good photography and not spreading hearsay. I find it a bit repulsive that some photographers feel it is alright to slander a good photographer without knowing the facts. What you say here has real world results. You could potentially be hurting someone’s career by writing what you may have heard from an assistant that a) the photos were staged and b)there was potential child abuse. The second accusation should not be tossed out lightly on a blog. Nor should the first for that matter.
This was an ASSIGNMENT. Assigned from a magazine to shoot a fashion story in Ms. Fleishman’s own way. She chose to shoot it like her other work. For other examples of this see Bruce Gilden or Martin Parr(both Magnum photographers) or Jeff Mermelstein. They shoot for magazines like Details, and Blender and even XXL in the same style they shoot their personal documentary work.
On a blog like this you should be celebrating good photography and not spreading hearsay.

]]> By: M. Scott Brauer http://www.dvafoto.com/2009/01/revisiting-fleishman-and-lucky/comment-page-1/#comment-579 M. Scott Brauer Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:08:41 +0000 http://www.dvafoto.com/?p=1128#comment-579 I think you're right about the uneasiness you feel about a "documentary" approach to "set up" shots, especially when they feel so real. I've always felt it necessary and important to maintain distance between my style of what I'd call a portrait and what I'd call documentary. When you get into the realm of "action portraits," i.e. telling your subject to do something that looks real, but which you can write off as a portrait because every picture is basically an environmental portrait anyway, you start treading a very fine line that undermines the credibility of everything you see in the news. Not to say that there's much credibility left in the news, but when something like this essay looks sooo real and genuine and it turns out to be all set up, I feel misled and deceived. I think you’re right about the uneasiness you feel about a “documentary” approach to “set up” shots, especially when they feel so real. I’ve always felt it necessary and important to maintain distance between my style of what I’d call a portrait and what I’d call documentary. When you get into the realm of “action portraits,” i.e. telling your subject to do something that looks real, but which you can write off as a portrait because every picture is basically an environmental portrait anyway, you start treading a very fine line that undermines the credibility of everything you see in the news. Not to say that there’s much credibility left in the news, but when something like this essay looks sooo real and genuine and it turns out to be all set up, I feel misled and deceived.

]]> By: Paul Treacy http://www.dvafoto.com/2009/01/revisiting-fleishman-and-lucky/comment-page-1/#comment-545 Paul Treacy Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:36:34 +0000 http://www.dvafoto.com/?p=1128#comment-545 For me, I despise fakery. Period. And this smells of fakery plus plus. It's also highly pretentious, is it not? Dreadful shenanigans. For me, I despise fakery. Period. And this smells of fakery plus plus. It’s also highly pretentious, is it not? Dreadful shenanigans.

]]>