A shame, and what are my granddaughters gonna show their grandchildrenlarge digital slrs have pretty much destroyed the concept of "candid photography" in the news business. Bring out one of those monsters and people automatically perform.
Decades ago the dictum of LIFE photographers was that you had to become invisible -- and with a small Leica or Nikon, both very quiet, you could. It is impossible to do so with a massive lensed DSLR, or even a film SLR, and while they do get a lot of different shots than you can with a small rangefinder, the is an intimacy that is lost. LIFE's brilliant photo story by W. Eugene Smith about a day in the life of a country doctor would have been impossible, or at least a lot harder, to shoot by a photographer loaded down with the usual couple of hulking giant lensed cameras.
Of course, very few photographers today are W. Eugene Smith, too. I keep saying, great photography is 5 percent what yu shoot with, 95 percent you.
how much you? The article says that Smith spent several days with the doctor taking pictures with no film in the camera so the doctor could get used to Smith, and he spent several weeks on this one assignment. There is no news publication in the country today that would spend that kind of staff time/money. Maybe a freelancer could do it, I dunno. And then nobody publishes that sort of photo essay any more either, so what does it matter?