Graham Watson, ie Lance Armstrong's personal photographer

  • Thread starter Boyd Speerschneider
  • Start date



Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > There are still lots of Giro pic around by better photographers than the
> > stale Graham cracker. Sirotti is but one who does excellent work. Too bad
> > Cor Vos is at the Peace Race.

> I know, that bugged me too! It's the Giro! He also left the tour of
> Switzerland a couple of years ago and there were no photos of the last
> stages.

When the new UCI ProTour is implemented, photographers will be
required to cover and complete all three Grand Tours in order
to receive UCI accreditation. No more cherry picking or
skipping races in order to cover so-called "training camps."
A sense of priority and respect for the sport must be foremost.

Furthermore, digital photography will be forbidden, and only
traditional film is permitted as in the days of Merckx. This
will also assist in the fight against copyright violations.
Riders' jerseys will carry UCI symbols and photographs thereof
will be considered property of the UCI (e.g. "work for hire"
under US copyright law), with single-use licenses granted to
UCI-accredited photographers only.

Regards,

Hein Verbruggen
 
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > I figure that Graham wouldn't have shadows across the faces of the
people
> > he's trying to photograph. Wouldn't you think so as well?
>
> Watson's my favorite. It's hard to beat shots like:
>
http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&04giroSt5

A perfect example of how artistic Watson is without most people being able
to recognize why.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>I figure that Graham wouldn't have shadows across the faces of the
>
> people
>
>>>he's trying to photograph. Wouldn't you think so as well?
>>
>>Watson's my favorite. It's hard to beat shots like:
>>
>
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&04giroSt5
>
> A perfect example of how artistic Watson is without most people being able
> to recognize why.
>
>
>

Well, I'd actually intended to show:
http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-009000

(caught by the frames)

But that one:
http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-001000

Is also good -- I agree.

Dan
 
Brian can find really fine distinction in the laws but somehow misses those
little detailed diferences in Watson's pictures. But that's why some people
are artists and others aren't. I KNOW I can't take a picture and can only
stand in awe of those who can. Some of Graham's work is worthy of the
Cistine Chapel cealing.


"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >>>I figure that Graham wouldn't have shadows across the faces of the
> >
> > people
> >
> >>>he's trying to photograph. Wouldn't you think so as well?
> >>
> >>Watson's my favorite. It's hard to beat shots like:
> >>
> >
> >
http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&04giroSt5
> >
> > A perfect example of how artistic Watson is without most people being
able
> > to recognize why.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well, I'd actually intended to show:
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-009000
>
> (caught by the frames)
>
> But that one:
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-001000
>
> Is also good -- I agree.
>
> Dan
>
 
Benjamin Weiner wrote:
> Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>>>There are still lots of Giro pic around by better photographers than the
>>>stale Graham cracker. Sirotti is but one who does excellent work. Too bad
>>>Cor Vos is at the Peace Race.
>
>
>>I know, that bugged me too! It's the Giro! He also left the tour of
>>Switzerland a couple of years ago and there were no photos of the last
>>stages.
>
>
> When the new UCI ProTour is implemented, photographers will be
> required to cover and complete all three Grand Tours in order
> to receive UCI accreditation. No more cherry picking or
> skipping races in order to cover so-called "training camps."
> A sense of priority and respect for the sport must be foremost.
>
> Furthermore, digital photography will be forbidden, and only
> traditional film is permitted as in the days of Merckx. This
> will also assist in the fight against copyright violations.
> Riders' jerseys will carry UCI symbols and photographs thereof
> will be considered property of the UCI (e.g. "work for hire"
> under US copyright law), with single-use licenses granted to
> UCI-accredited photographers only.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hein Verbruggen
>

You snipped the following, also very important paragraph:

All photographers will have to undergo UCI drug testing. The use of
stimulants and depressants will be strictly regulated. The following
limits will me imposed over each 24 hour period prior to one day races
or between stages of a tour:

No more than three shots of espresso.
No more than 2 glasses of wine or 3 50cL servings of beer.
(In combination 1 glass of wine will be considered equal to 75cL
beer)
Only UCI approved alcohol-free aftershaves and colognes may be used.

Further, bald or partially bald photographers must wear a cap, to
prevent riders being blinded by reflected light.
 
"Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You snipped the following, also very important paragraph:
>
> All photographers will have to undergo UCI drug testing. The use of
> stimulants and depressants will be strictly regulated. The following
> limits will me imposed over each 24 hour period prior to one day races
> or between stages of a tour:
>
> No more than three shots of espresso.
> No more than 2 glasses of wine or 3 50cL servings of beer.
> (In combination 1 glass of wine will be considered equal to 75cL
> beer)
> Only UCI approved alcohol-free aftershaves and colognes may be used.
>
The UCI already tried this in the past:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/apr01/apr01specialnews.shtml

Jeff
 
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, I'd actually intended to show:
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-009000
>
> (caught by the frames)
>
> But that one:
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-001000
>
> Is also good -- I agree.
>

But is Watson always behind the lens?

What about this one:

http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/edae669c6e575eda86256caa0062fd89/9b
d057445a2b5f3586256e93006593a4?OpenDocument

compared to this one

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/giro04/index.php?id=stage5/s-cunego-c
ambiobici3104

Jeff
 
Steven Bornfeld wondered:
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bushjobapproval.png
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/exp-percap.png
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp.png
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/fat-vote.png
>
> These are simply amazing!! Is the anonymous coward one of you two, or
> is he/she truly anonymous?

There's a little bit of anonymous coward in us all.

The plots themselves aren't that amazing -- they're pretty simple. What's
amazing is that so few plots are drawn in a way to make relationships
clear. Well, maybe not amazing; appalling is more like it. Most plots you
see in the newspaper tell you what happened but they hardly ever make you
wonder why it happened.

The idea for the Bush Job Approval plot was shamelessly stolen from
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/image003.gif
(since Pollkatz is no longer updating his plots) with the addition of
direct labeling; this is why Dan was able to pick out the consistent
pattern differences between Zogby and Fox. The Pollkatz plot is good
because it tells you what happened in a way that hits you between the
eyes--but see if you can spot the Zogby-Fox difference. The direct
labelled plot is better because it made Dan ask the next logical question:
"what's up with that?" Plots can't always answer "why?" but good ones will
make you curious enough to wonder.

You may have known that the US spends more than most countries on health
but the two plots of life expectancy vs. national expenditures make clear
how unusual the US situation is. Most plots that attempt to do this simply
show a histogram of per capita expenditures with the US way off at the
right, like this: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp2.png. The
two plots listed above show context for those expenditures, and made Dan
think about how much bang we get for our healthcare buck. That's a good
question. BTW, note how direct labeling adds context that is lacking in
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp3.png.

All of the plots above (plus these two:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf97-bmi.png and
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf.png)
use direct labeling to add data context or an extra dimension.
 
Dan Connelly wrote:

> 1. Fox registers consistently high numbers, Zogby consistently low.
> 2. Two clear spikes: 911 and Saddam capture. He needs to get Osama,
> or he loses in 2004 (Go, Osama, Go! [*])

For best effect, this sticker should be on the _front_ bumper
(like the "Run, Jesse, Run" campaign sticker from years back)
 
Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message

> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/giro04/index.php?id=stage7/6
> > :)

> I figure that Graham wouldn't have shadows across the faces of the people
> he's trying to photograph. Wouldn't you think so as well?

Poor Aristotle, what a piker! Had he a lever and a place to stand,
he would have moved the earth - yet in the world according to Tom,
Graham Watson could have moved the Sun itself.

It's the podium shot, the lighting is what it is. You can ask
whether Watson would have put it up on the web, but that's an
editing question (although, 90% of photography is editing).
Anyway, come on, I like these photographers, and Watson's
great at anticipating the right place and the right angle,
but it's not like he's Cartier-Bresson or Garry Winogrand.
 
"Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:40a9c9f9$1@darkstar...
> Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
>
> > > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/giro04/index.php?id=stage7/6
> > > :)
>
> > I figure that Graham wouldn't have shadows across the faces of the
people
> > he's trying to photograph. Wouldn't you think so as well?
>
> Poor Aristotle, what a piker! Had he a lever and a place to stand,
> he would have moved the earth - yet in the world according to Tom,
> Graham Watson could have moved the Sun itself.
>
> It's the podium shot, the lighting is what it is. You can ask
> whether Watson would have put it up on the web, but that's an
> editing question (although, 90% of photography is editing).
> Anyway, come on, I like these photographers, and Watson's
> great at anticipating the right place and the right angle,
> but it's not like he's Cartier-Bresson or Garry Winogrand.

Interesting to combine C-B with Winogrand; the former finding the decisive
moment with ease and having a fairly high percentage of excellent shots per
roll with the latter compulsively shooting thousdands of garbage frames to
get one great one. When Winogrand hit, he was marvelous.
 
On 05/18/2004 12:40 AM, in article [email protected],
"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote:

>
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Well, I'd actually intended to show:
>> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-009000
>>
>> (caught by the frames)
>>
>> But that one:
>> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-001000
>>
>> Is also good -- I agree.
>>
>
> But is Watson always behind the lens?
>
> What about this one:
>
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/edae669c6e575eda86256caa0062fd89/9b
> d057445a2b5f3586256e93006593a4?OpenDocument
>
> compared to this one
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/giro04/index.php?id=stage5/s-cunego-c
> ambiobici3104



Does Graham Watson == Olympia Photo ???



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
 
"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCCF4FE5.31CBE%[email protected]...
>
>
> Does Graham Watson == Olympia Photo ???
>
Nope. Olympia = Roberto Bettini. But quite a bit of sharing goes on between
photographers. I'm not actually sure which one of them took this pic!

Jeff
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wondered:
>
>>>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bushjobapproval.png
>>>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/exp-percap.png
>>>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp.png
>>>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/fat-vote.png
>>>
>>These are simply amazing!! Is the anonymous coward one of you two, or
>>is he/she truly anonymous?
>
>
> There's a little bit of anonymous coward in us all.
>
> The plots themselves aren't that amazing -- they're pretty simple. What's
> amazing is that so few plots are drawn in a way to make relationships
> clear. Well, maybe not amazing; appalling is more like it. Most plots you
> see in the newspaper tell you what happened but they hardly ever make you
> wonder why it happened.
>
> The idea for the Bush Job Approval plot was shamelessly stolen from
> http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/image003.gif
> (since Pollkatz is no longer updating his plots) with the addition of
> direct labeling; this is why Dan was able to pick out the consistent
> pattern differences between Zogby and Fox. The Pollkatz plot is good
> because it tells you what happened in a way that hits you between the
> eyes--but see if you can spot the Zogby-Fox difference. The direct
> labelled plot is better because it made Dan ask the next logical question:
> "what's up with that?" Plots can't always answer "why?" but good ones will
> make you curious enough to wonder.
>
> You may have known that the US spends more than most countries on health
> but the two plots of life expectancy vs. national expenditures make clear
> how unusual the US situation is. Most plots that attempt to do this simply
> show a histogram of per capita expenditures with the US way off at the
> right, like this: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp2.png. The
> two plots listed above show context for those expenditures, and made Dan
> think about how much bang we get for our healthcare buck. That's a good
> question. BTW, note how direct labeling adds context that is lacking in
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp3.png.
>
> All of the plots above (plus these two:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf97-bmi.png and
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf.png)
> use direct labeling to add data context or an extra dimension.

Thanks for this. Of course the healthcare spending/life expectancy
plot can be spun any number of ways, but it certainly provokes some of
the right questions.
Thanks for sharing this!

Steve

>
>
 
Jeff Jones wrote:
> "Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>You snipped the following, also very important paragraph:
>>
>> All photographers will have to undergo UCI drug testing. The use of
>>stimulants and depressants will be strictly regulated. The following
>>limits will me imposed over each 24 hour period prior to one day races
>>or between stages of a tour:
>>
>> No more than three shots of espresso.
>> No more than 2 glasses of wine or 3 50cL servings of beer.
>> (In combination 1 glass of wine will be considered equal to 75cL
>> beer)
>> Only UCI approved alcohol-free aftershaves and colognes may be used.
>>
>
> The UCI already tried this in the past:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/apr01/apr01specialnews.shtml
>
> Jeff

How long did it take you to break free of the jelly-babies?
 
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:40a9c9f9$1@darkstar...
> > Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
>
> > > > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/giro04/index.php?id=stage7/6
> > > > :)
>
> > > I figure that Graham wouldn't have shadows across the faces of the
> people
> > > he's trying to photograph. Wouldn't you think so as well?
> >
> > Poor Aristotle, what a piker! Had he a lever and a place to stand,
> > he would have moved the earth - yet in the world according to Tom,
> > Graham Watson could have moved the Sun itself.
> >
> > It's the podium shot, the lighting is what it is. You can ask
> > whether Watson would have put it up on the web, but that's an
> > editing question (although, 90% of photography is editing).
> > Anyway, come on, I like these photographers, and Watson's
> > great at anticipating the right place and the right angle,
> > but it's not like he's Cartier-Bresson or Garry Winogrand.
>
> Interesting to combine C-B with Winogrand; the former finding the decisive
> moment with ease and having a fairly high percentage of excellent shots per
> roll with the latter compulsively shooting thousdands of garbage frames to
> get one great one. When Winogrand hit, he was marvelous.

The scattergun approach was what I was first taught for
photojournalism: the film is inexpensive and paid for, go use it, take
lots of pictures. The only expensive picture is when you come back
with only one and it's lousy.

At the very least, placement of a podium should give it good natural
lighting, but I have no clue whether the organizers give that the
consideration it deserves. At the Sea Otter the podium had the sun
behind it.

For my pictures of the Cats Hill Classic I considered where the light
was and positioned myself for the best view, not the one that would
keep the most sun off me.

Graham seems to get about most on a motorcycle, but sometimes I swear
the guy must have his own personal helicopter to get all the places he
does.
 
"Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > Interesting to
combine C-B with Winogrand; the former finding the decisive
>> The scattergun approach was what I was first taught for
> photojournalism: the film is inexpensive and paid for, go use it, take
> lots of pictures. The only expensive picture is when you come back
> with only one and it's lousy.

That was taught by some. But remember, Winogrand was not a photojournalist
in the sense that Cartier-Bresson was. I would liken Winogrand more to
Dianne Arbus or Robert Franck. IIRC, when Winogrand died, he left serveral
thousand rolls of 35mm film shot over many years---all undeveloped. He was
known to be an obsessive-compulsive shooter. The contact sheets of
Cartier-Bresson that I've seen, show a far more deliberate photographer.

As for Watson, IMO, his work became rather stale over the past 5 years or
so. His photos were too often flat (probably due to overuse of fill flash)
and lacking in the raw emotion of a Cor Vos, Sergio Panizza and now Sirotti.
And he ain't no landscape photographer either. But, this season, he seems
to have reverted back to his earlier, more emotive style and has produced
some exceptional images.
 
"Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message > The scattergun
approach was what I was first taught for
> photojournalism: the film is inexpensive and paid for, go use it, take
> lots of pictures. The only expensive picture is when you come back
> with only one and it's lousy.

I just thought of a workshop of Gordon Parks in which he posed a question
for the students. I can't remember it exactly but it went something like
this.

You're a photojournalist and you are at the scene when a young boy is shot
and killed. You have only one frame left in your camera. Do you photograph
the boy or the greiving mother?
 
B. Lafferty wrote:
> As for Watson, IMO, his work became rather stale over the past 5 years or
> so. His photos were too often flat (probably due to overuse of fill flash)
> and lacking in the raw emotion of a Cor Vos, Sergio Panizza and now Sirotti.
> And he ain't no landscape photographer either. But, this season, he seems
> to have reverted back to his earlier, more emotive style and has produced
> some exceptional images.
>


Dave Lawrance WAS my favorite, but he hasn't gone stale, he's gone
away. Nice example:

http://www.cyclingphotos.freeserve.co.uk/bigpic/tdf2001_1a.jpg
http://www.cyclingphotos.freeserve.co.uk/bigpic/millara.jpg

No flat lighting here.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Graham Watson, ie Lance Armstrong's personal photographer
Replies
68
Views
4K
Road Cycling
Badpauly
B
P
Apple Profile: Graham Watson
Replies
2
Views
412
Road Cycling
[email protected]
R
M
Graham Watson shop: Vintage posters
Replies
9
Views
779
Road Cycling
Hardwarelust
H
M
Graham Watson shop: Vintage posters
Replies
5
Views
367
Road Cycling
HardwareLust
H
M
Graham Watson shop: Vintage posters
Replies
9
Views
688
Road Cycling
HardwareLust
H
Top Bottom Back