David Alan Harvey’s photos of Elton, MD in the new NG:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/02/01/html/ft_20020201.7.html

He used his flash a lot.

David Enzel

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), January 19, 2002

Answers

You don't notice the flash, though. At least I didn't.

-- Ken Kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

I think DAH ought to try some Provia 400. It might have improved these pictures a lot. I've looked through his Cuba book quite a few times and I just don't know. Cheers!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

I noticed that the "Trouble with Iran" shot listed available light with flash supplement. Really? Could've fooled me!

Did DAH use flash in this shot or is someone at the National Geographic HTML Dept. snoozing on the job?

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

He shoots everything 1/15th @f1.4? He gets an amazing DOF for f1.4. None of my lenses can do that.

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), January 19, 2002.

Hmmmm. I'm not sure I trust the 1/15 @f/1.4 on the street scene at dusk either. The stop sign in the foreground and the shops in the background are all awfully sharp for 1.4. I'm also surprised they let him get away with cutting off the couple feet in font of the chapel, as well. And, that nice green florescent cast in the barber shop shot? I'd have to say not NG's best on this set. But then, I'm not getting published in NG, so perhaps I should keep my trap shut.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 19, 2002.

I was confused by the page which lists this photo data:

"Camera: Fujichrome Provia 100 Film Type: Velvia film"

They seem quite careless, although I think the pictures on the web pages are better than the ones that got published in the printed magazine. But if they think Provia is a camera type, maybe their information on exposure is a little off too.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), January 19, 2002.

Hey Ralph,

Its the internet man! Its free!

Admittedly, this body of work is NOT the crowning achievement to date for this Magnum photographer but we sure aren't paying anything to see these. DAH's gotta make a living too and I suspect his better work will have a "price of admission" tacked onto it. It think DAH's work in Spain was his crowning achievement (at least to my eyes).

DAH is still my personal hero.

Regards,

-- John. (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

I recall that Vince Musi's zipUSA online pictures didn't get a popular reception here either. Or are the photographers with Leicas too caught up with the available light mystique and not pounding their subjects with enough flash? Having said that, the online exclusive pictures are probably some of the best of the NG print edition rejects so the photographers would have better examples of their work elsewhere.

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

I agree, I too think DAH's best work is behind him. Some of the material he did on Spain in the NGM April 92 and Barcelona (NGM Dec 1998) was very good. This crop of images though is very lazy - looks like he just couldn't be bothered with changing lenses or film to suit the subject. One uber-wide + slide film fits all. Oh no it does not. Sad...

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), January 20, 2002.

I think the one camera one lens thing wears a bit thin after a while. It means you can jump around like a firecracker shooting shooting shooting but in the end you don't get the variety of perspectives and approaches.

He's a great talent, though. Maybe he's been seduced by his own reputation.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 20, 2002.

I take it all back. What a mediocre collection of second rate snaps. There's hope for us all yet! Absolute crap. The only one that stands out at all is the wedding fever picture.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 20, 2002.

"What a mediocre collection of second rate snaps. There's hope for us all yet! Absolute crap. The only one that stands out at all is the wedding fever picture"

Ha! I think the picture editor at National geographic may beg to differ.Hey Rob,maybe you could take over when and leaves.What kind of photography would you put in? The superb social documentary portraiture doesn't seem to be to your liking I see Rob.

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 20, 2002.

when HE leaves that should read-I get so excited when I come in here I can't tupe proper........oooh,don't forget the smile;o)

-- (philkneen@manx.net), January 20, 2002.

Phil, I can see you're on a roll here! I liked Harvey's Cuba book, although the limited range of focal lengths made it a bit monotonous, IMO, but this recent set of snaps is way below par. Again, IMO, crap. Whether I can do better than this set myself is irrelevant.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 20, 2002.

I guess this goes to show that even if your a seasoned pro with a stellar record you still have to "work it" to keep it. In this regard, I really respect photographers like Sam Abel at the NGS. He's always subtly re-inventing his style (nay, evolving) and finding newer ways through tiny tweaks to make his images more compelling with the limited equipment that he carries.

I'm sure that even HCB and Philip "Shim" Seymour (another of my favorites) didn't just wave a camera around and magically get keepers.

And therin lies the hope for the rest of us (as Rob alludes to...). If you "work at it" you might get it but ya gotta keep "workin' it" to keep it. God frowns on sloth.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002.

i think the information on the photos are inaccurate on the lighting information...i think the 2nd to 4th shots did not use any flash at all...especially the 4th one...unless DAH used prototype big-a$$ Vivitar flash.

i wouldn't trust the exposure information, either.

on defense on the 5th image: green cast you say? look very closely that this is a mixed lighting condition, and he is using slide film which is not best-suited for mixed lighting...and using FL-D filter wouldn't have helped...'cause you would have magenta cast.

mediocre images? dam* it: read the caption then look at the picture (or vice-versa)--doesn't the story on the caption "matches" the image perfectly?! these images are no different from the ones published in "Cuba" book. if you liked those and hated these, you must be out of your mind. and you know there's no way any of us could've done better.

nothing personal. please don't flame me. i love you all very much.

:-)

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

Well, sorry to have offended the Harvey worshippers. I still think it's second rate photography!

One thing about Harvey I've noticed is a certain lack of intimacy, which is a quality I personally prize very highly. It's noticeable in quite a few photographers' work: Salgado, Raghubir Singh are two who come to mind. Singh in particular has a fearful or fastidious approach to his subjects (a bit like VS Naipaul, they were big fans of each other's work), as if the camera was an alibi for him, to explore realities that frightened him, whereas Salgado is so caught up in his giant themes that he seldom touches the intimate human reality (and his best and most characteristic pictures, in my estimation, are the epic human landscapes). I don't know what it is about Harvey, it's hard to put my finger on it. Perhaps this is a feature of street photography which doesn't really delve deep into a subject. He's pretty good at what he does, but I think this style is unsatisfying in the long run.

Again, whether anyone here can do better or not is completely irrelevant. The only literate person in a community of illiterates isn't a great writer by virtue of the fact that he's the only one who can write.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 20, 2002.

lack of intimacy?! look at the 3rd image, again. do you think he could have just done a HC-B like style of photography here?

The only literate person in a community of illiterates isn't a great writer by virtue of the fact that he's the only one who can write.

that appears to be a really intelligent remark but that doesn't apply here--after all, we all do photography here; we are all "literate."

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

...and for you to say that DAH has lack of intimacy on his subjects shows that you are ignorant about DAH's style of photography. have you read the "Cuba" book? start with that.

again, nothing personal. i still love you all vey much.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

Dexter, I don't want to be loved by a total stranger, thanks. I'm very aware of Harvey's style and have formulated an opinion about it. Try to accept that I disagree with you on this one. He may be your personal hero, but he isn't mine.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 20, 2002.

If you went to one of his exhibitions(lets just say you would even though you will say that you wouldn't.....).IF you did would you say to him,to his face "David,What a mediocre collection of second rate snaps.Absolute crap. The only one that stands out at all is the wedding fever picture".Would you?,no.Because he would punch you in your face.You didn't 'formulate an opinion',you insulted.

[posted by 195.10.104.25 - same as Phil Kneen above]

-- David Alan Harvey (daveharvey@star.org), January 20, 2002.

Mr. Harvey,

I very much admire your work and am sure many others on this list do as well. I saw the exhibition at the NG of the photos you made in Cuba and I had never seen anything so beautiful. The soft colors in the backgrounds left a lasting impression. I know it was not the equipment that was responsible for what I saw but I must say that after seeing your work I went out and bought an M6 and the 35 summilux and have never regretted it. I don't have images in your league but at least the equipment does not stand in my way.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), January 20, 2002.

Wow! we have a proper heated debate going on,great.

Being a fan of a photographer is like being a fan of the Beatles-they were a superb band,but they did churn out a few....how shall I say?.....flops.

Can I also ask people to stop mailing me with insults and then blocking my return mail.I don't mind nice mail,but if you want to flame me,do it in public.Thankyou so much ;o)

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 20, 2002.

Philip, you should be commended.

Obviously you are a little miffled about the response to your last thread (dealing with an exchange program between 2 photographers) but in my eyes it looks like you're trying new things to help evolve your photography.

New things will always be look upon with fear and suspicion, just ask Sam Abel about his early experience as a NG staff photographer. But we must continue to evolve, to "work" the art.

You have clearly chosen the dynamic path over stagnation. We need people like you on this board.

PLEASE STAY.

With very high regards,

John.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002.

That's very kind John,Thankyou. The thing I like about this forum is there isn't a group of people who stick together to massage each others egos.Everyone flames everyone!I could say that my camera is black and I know that at least 1 person would disagree.

My 'photo-exchange'project may not have seemed like a sound plan to some,but plans have been made and airline tickets have been payed for.It has been in the pipeline for months,I didn't just wake up one day last week and think "I have an idea,think I'll post it on the Leica forum". I would also like to add that a few of my posts have been placed by 'another Phil Kneen'if you get my drift.I work all day and as I have said to someone privately-I look forward to getting home to see what my 'alter-ego'has written.If you do need proof I was in the back of a police van for 2 days last week.........

-- Phil Kneen(Isle of Man) (philkneen@manx.net), January 20, 2002.

Well, Dave, if you're pleased with those snaps then I suggest you need a long rest. You're capable of far better.

-- Henri Cartier-Bresson (hcb@photo.com), January 20, 2002.

Sure I'd go to one of your exhibits, David. I just hope you wouldn't be showing that snap of the blurry car and the lightpost, or the woman in red against the wall, that's all!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 20, 2002.

Try to accept that I disagree with you on this one.

to each his own, i guess. ok, we'll leave it as that.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

All of this to prove what we've all known for a long time; once the press tells the public that you are good/talented, you are. Submitted as examples; Brittany Spears, Any Warhol, Julia Roberts, Geraldo Rivera.

Harvey can produce crap just like the rest of us. Just because he can produce quality as well, and works for NG doesn't change that.

What about Steve McCurry? Takes the picture of the Afghan girl and now everything he touches some people think is life fulfilling.

(As an aside on McCurry I saw on NG Explorer a few weeks back a segment on him scurrying around New York right after 9/11. One scene had him photographing in a Mosque. The Mosque leaders each had a copy of the NG with the picture of the girl on the cover. Can you believe this guy? 14 years after that issue and he still hands it out to gain access. Must be tough to have your best stuff long behind you. But no tears from me, he's well paid for everything he does which proves my initial point.)

-- Steve (solsen@weathertop.com), January 20, 2002.

Hey there. Don't insult Julia Roberts. I like her a lot and to put her in the category with Britney Spears is horrific. I enjoyed Pretty Woman and Ocean's Eleven.

About Steve McCurry I can partially agree. But at least, he's not complaining about his lifestyle. If he can evoke emotion in lots of people that's a good thing I believe.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

One thing I noted in this "I HATE DAH" tirade is lack of intimacy,fresh viewpoints and lack of various films.The pictures are close-up and personal.Sit and study them.I have purchased used NGS, torn the pictures out and placed them on a wall.I se the whole layout as well.I've done it for a few DAH stories.His work is stunning. True I too like most of you,use the Leica box.I am amazed at his composition,the angles,the feeling you are there!Why should he have different colors because of different films?... My photographs published and appreciated worlwide BUT not in the league of DAH also lack impact!!!Thats what you dislike. They the images are timeless.You can look at them over and over. I find new things all the time. I have learnt by studying photos,not the "tech data".Try feel where he stood,his position,the light,and finally the moment of push the button.Stop thinking like the advertisers trying to sell more lenses. I know from teaching,the ZOOM,is possibly one of the worst things a photographer with limited experience can purchase.There is never a real Viewpoint. Ease up and try it for yourself.One lens,one body for a couple of months...its real fun.I can take my rig anywhere.I use the 50mm mostly.Occasionally the 135mm.Thats about as long as I can really hold steady. Anyway gave me insight to why I work the way I do....I enjoyed all the fire and storm.Its healthy.

-- JASON GOLD (LEEEU72@HOTMAIL.COM), January 21, 2002.

Jason, believe me, I have tried the one lens thing for extended periods of time (6 months with the 50, 2 months with the 24) and for me it doesn't work. I need the change of rhythm and that's something I don't see in DAH's work very much. For me, it's the 24 and the 35.

Personally I have no opinion on the film he uses or anything else. I look at his pictures and I think they often fail to meet the high standards I'd expect of such a celebrated photographer. When he's good he's very very good. But not always. This recent set of pictures bears this out, to me at least. I think they're lazy and uninteresting, with the exception of the wedding fever picture.

As for DAH smacking me in the face because I don't like his snaps sometimes as another poster suggested, do you really think he cares what an unknown like me thinks of his pictures? I doubt it!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 21, 2002.

Well I think his photos are perfectly OK, but nothing thrilling. I do feel that I probably could have done this pretty well like him under these circumstances. That is OK, even superb photographerss cannot make great pictures if there are not any. Perhaps he could have got closer,used different film or used faster film or flash more effectively, but who knows, we were not there to see what opportunities it presented (or lacked). I think it is a bit hard to call them "crap". I am sure Harvey would never consider these his best work, but then I suspect this subject hardly inspired him either.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

As a press photographer, I think Harvey had the same problem I often have when I go on an assignment.......lots of times you've got to get in and out in ten minutes. Harvey is a great photog and obviously he didn't spend a whole lot of time in Elkton, MD. Another consideration might be for the picture editing here. Was he present for that, or was he on his way back to cuba? These photos are not the best work of Harvey or the Magazine, but sometimes goodenough has to do.

-- Thomas M. Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 22, 2002.

Hmmm...

I think the NG staff messed it up a bit. I do not believe he used flash, 1/15 and f:1.4 for every single one of these pictures. The depth of field is too much for f:1.4 and there are no evidence of flash in some of the pics.

-- Halldor Thormar (halldorh@skattur.is), February 22, 2002.

Lots of nitwits in this thread. No, being the only literate doesn't necessarily make you a great writer, but the illiterates aren't in a position to judge it either way. As for the particular nitwit that referred to the "uberwide," Harvey uses a 35mm 90% of the time.

-- John J (jj@jj.com), April 07, 2002.