Comments on: It’s good to have contacts

By: Tammy

Tammy — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:40:26 +0000

ooooooo I think ur incredibly brave Robyn!!! U go girl xx

By: Robyn

Robyn — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:44:33 +0000

John: Extremely satisfactory . Thank you for your detailed description but even more so for making it understandable. About the contacts: as long as you follow the cleaning routine (that’s if you have monthy lenses instead of daily one-use ones) I think eye infections are rare unless you’re prone to them anyway. I’ve only been doing it since Saturday and although it does take a lot of perseverance, it is worth it. At the beginning, I just kept blinking them out or not keeping my eye open long enough to get them in but now I can get them in after a couple of attempts and the same for getting them out. And I can’t feel them at all when they’re in and I’ve been wearing them for a whole day (yesterday and today). The only problem I’m still having is that my eyes are red and watery for about 5 minutes after I put them in but they soon settle down and it’s fine. If you know your prescription and you have a Specsavers near you, I’d definitely recommend the trial.

By: John

John — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:37:37 +0000

I’m rather jealous of your contact lenses. I am truly hating my glasses. But I’m still scared off by the tales of eye-infections and general hassle of the things. Are my fears unfounded?

There’s a can of worms to be opened with ‘reportage’ though

Reportage just means in a documentary style. So an individual view of something without interfering with the subject. Supposedly it would be objective (but is there such a thing as true objectivity?) and unbiased.

Recently there’s been a trend for wedding photographers, especially, to claim to have a ‘reportage’ style. What it really means is they’re trying to sound ‘cool’ and with the times. So it doesn’t really mean anything. They might adpot a reportage approach, or they may have rebranded their old interfering ways as ‘reportage’.

In theory though, they’d just observe events and snap away quietly in the background rather than arranging epic group photos (well you have to do a couple…) and posing everything, disrupting the phlow of events. So a reportage approach to wedding photography is a ‘good thing’.

A practical example in wedding photography would be that a reportage photographer might suggest that the couple ‘take a walk in the gardens’ after the service (while he bombs around and about with the camera snapping away, but not really interfering). An older approach would be to lead the couple out and pose them on benches, sitting on the grass, or whatever.

A ‘reportage’ style could also work with wildlife photography or event photography etc etc. But in my cynical opinion it’s mostly just a buzz-word that doesn’t mean very much at all when photographers use it :happy:

Hope that helps.