douglas_mcbride

I've re read the original question and we are going away from it a

bit..the second bit is however about problems so..

There seems to be two camps, one for amatuer and one for

professional..from my point of view its a shame that not all good

productions are covered by folks with a better technical skill..then

the pictures do just become a record of events..it takes a

focused eye (sorry for the pun) to get good images..that is

usually a professional whose clear about his/her intent in taking

images that go beyond just a record

My main problem here in Scotland is there's no money in theatre

which means that I have to do other commercial work but would

love to just do theatre, I see some great theatre but rubbish at

front of house..Photographers cant always be of the same

standard but why is it that some body'd pal taking pictures is

acceptable to folks who should know better, being creative souls

Thats my favourite rant..My pal has a camera he can take the

pictures...Bah...

If your listening Brent thanks for your comment..shame your in

Canada..lovely place..<div></div>

I'm a professional theatre photographer and find that

those involved with the production undervalue the contribution of

the photographer..When the production if finished and gone

how would you know it took place..the photographs have the

power to keep the images created by the cast and director in the

audience's head and if the photographer has not captured that

feeling

then they've failed and the piece is gone and lost..did anyone

see the wonderful Medea by Theatre Babel, can you convey the

power of it without images.I only hope that my images will

endure and keep it alive

Check out my web site www.douglasmcbride.com to see some

of the images that I've taken of theatre during the last few years

I like the story of General potemkin(a wee soviet

reference)..whoosh you blink and he's gone..so is theatre unless

you snap it well...