Graham Watson, ie Lance Armstrong's personal photographer



"Boyd Speerschneider" <bspeerscREMOVE_ME@ME_TOOyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:FGaqc.34935 [email protected]:
>
> >
> > "Boyd Speerschneider"
> > <bspeerscREMOVE_ME@ME_TOOyahoo.com> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Is it just me or is Graham Watson on LA's nuts?
> >>
> > Maybe Graham sells more Lance pics and posters than any
> > other?
>
> Maybe you need to read more than just the first line of
> my post?

So you answered your own question? Nice....
 
"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/updateframesetca-
> ll?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.
 
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]
> > gy.com...
> >
> >>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
 
"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/apr01special-
news.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/edae669c6e575eda86-
256caa0062fd89/9b
d057445a2b5f3586256e93006593a4?OpenDocument

compared to this one

ww.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.p-
> > > hp?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:ttp://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/photos/04giroSt5-
>> 009000
>>
>> (caught by the frames)
>>
>> But that one:ttp://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/edae669c6e575eda-
> 86256caa0062fd89/9b
> d057445a2b5f3586256e93006593a4?OpenDocument
>
> compared to this one
>
> .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
 
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/apr01specia-
> lnews.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/ind-
> > > > > ex.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.
 
"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/ind-
> > > > > ex.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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Graham Watson, ie Lance Armstrong's personal photographer
Replies
65
Views
2K
Road Cycling
BadPauly
B
P
Apple Profile: Graham Watson
Replies
2
Views
414
Road Cycling
[email protected]
R
M
Graham Watson shop: Vintage posters
Replies
9
Views
783
Road Cycling
Hardwarelust
H
M
Graham Watson shop: Vintage posters
Replies
5
Views
368
Road Cycling
HardwareLust
H
M
Graham Watson shop: Vintage posters
Replies
9
Views
694
Road Cycling
HardwareLust
H
Top Bottom Back