Historically, photography has persuaded many of its value as an art form or form of communication in the works of photographers who have aptly brought to a two dimensional image the "big view", be it of grandiose natural landscapes (Ex. The "Half Dome" of Adams), impressive manufactured or human landscapes (Ex: those of Edward Burtinsky), cityscapes, panoramas and other images containing multiple objects or subjects. At the other end of the scale, Ralph Gibson and Michael Kenna excel at images of restricted content, often preferring or concentrating on details from much larger scenes. On the weekend, the pioneering Canadian feature film producer, Gilles Carle, came to the end of his nearly two decade battle with Parkinson's disease (a State funeral is scheduled this week or next). This 80 year old cinematographic artist exploded with creative dreams, many realised, many unfinished. When it was suggested that he might have benefitted more from greater financial resources and the opportunity to make more epic films had he plyed his craft south of the border, he replied that his fascination was more with details than with the big scene, that his goal was to "see things that other people don't see". He echoed from a cinemaphotographer's point of view what Kenna and Gibson apparently attempt in their photography. Carle's approach seems to me to be one of great appeal for photography as well as cinema. I took a photo I remade in October in Georgia and reframed it so as to concentrate on one of its aspects, a detail of the original image. The two photos appear at the end of this post. The reframed image is just one of many possible examples that I or another might offer based on a detail, of a fragment (we know that "fragmentation" is an approach loved by some contemporary painters) of an overall scene. My objective is to raise the question of the validity of my expression, "the power of less", in photography, and implicit in the approaches of Gibson, Kenna or others in seeking out fragments of a scene (Kenna often photographs expansive scenes, but reduces the elements by selective focus and other techniques including blur). Do you think that "seeing things that others don't see", and concentrating on details, is of some importance in the evolution of photography and the art that sometimes accompanies that? Visually meaningful, or simply decorative? Is there a significant power of less? Does less interact better with the viewer?