Look at page 384 here. I spent about 1/2 second thinking about it, just shot. Afterwards, I came to recognize some interesting aspects. The building is light, the girl is dark. The building is 'classical' and orderly. The girl is disheveled, barefoot, with torn jeans. Tradition vs rebellion. Age versus youth. Dark versus light. None of this was in my mind at the time I took it. Because the girl's long hair is hanging in her face, she is anonymous. She represents college youth in rebellion. This was taken about 1971. There is nothing 'affected' about it at all.
Of course you're right, editing has a great importance. I never said that it's necessary to be always total aware of all the meaning of the photograph when you shoot. This awareness can gel also during editing.
This has nothing to do with 'editing'. Quit trying to twist and distort what I say! There is no 'editing' on that photo. It's a straight print. What I am talking about is something completely different. What I am saying is that you can often identify a good photo possibility without always understanding it at the time you take it. It can later turn out to have more 'meaning' than you saw at the time. The point is to take the damn photo first and ask questions later. Don't think, just shoot, just 'react'. If you think too much you ruin everything. You can 'train' yourself to do this, to 'recognize' photo opportunities without thinking. I did. This is one of my favorite photos, simply because it's so simple yet effective, because of the rich interpretive possibilities, none of which occurred to me at the time I took it. It's not luck, it's the aptitude to identify and capture things that make good photographs, and do so instantly.
Last edited: