As a general truth, it is safe to say that any picture that produces a moral impression is a bad picture.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I've never made any picture, good or bad, without paying for it in emotional turmoil.
When someone says to you, 'Oh, I don't take a good picture,' what they mean is they haven't come to terms with how they look. They take a fine picture, it's just that their image of how they think they look is not in touch with the reality.
The vast majority of English folk cannot and will not consider a picture as a picture, apart from any story which it may be supposed to tell.
Unfortunately, we have a tendency to see figures from the past as caricatures - either all good or all bad - when the truth is always much more complex.
As a cameraman, I am interested in images and truth. Today, people are conditioned to accept lies if they are commercial lies. What we don't see anymore is ethics.
We demand that people should be true to the pictures we have of them, no matter how repulsive those pictures may be: we prefer the true portrait in all its homogeneity, to one with a detail added which refuses to fit in.
It's too bad for us 'literary' enthusiasts, but it's the truth nevertheless - pictures tell any story more effectively than words.
More than anything, there are more images in evil. Evil is based far more on the visual, whereas good has no good images at all.
Our photographs are filthier and our stories are more disgusting. We make no effort to be artistic.
A good picture is equivalent to a good deed.