Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!
From: "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:16:22 -0700
References: <200006122106.OAA19032@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <017001bfd4bc$11446b60$a882e0d8@i928653> <001b01bfd4d4$71e12900$953d18d1@PACBELL.NET>

Tom,
anyone can use whatever one wishes to photograph whatever one wishes. If you
thought that I belittle the ownership of expensive equipment by non
professionals, I must not be able to make my point well enough for everyone
to understand (how is that for diplomacy D.B.?).

Once and for all my point is that there are a few, maybe more than a few,
maybe me included, who would abandon the current 135 Elmarit for the 135
Asph in hope that the change would make a huge difference in the snapshots
that they make. Again, this is merely an example, maybe even a metaphor.

My point is that when Jim Brick writes that the 75/1.4 is the "very essence
of Leica", I am sure that someone rushes out to buy one hoping that it will
lift his or her photography out of mediocrity without considering that in
photography, as in other of life's endeavors, it ain't what you got that
counts, it's what you DO with what you have that will determine the outcome.

Joseph Codispoti






From: "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com>

> Joe,
>
> While I definitely agree that this list is in great need of more
discussion
> of technique, who the heck are you to declare that anyone's family photos
do
> not "justify the expense"?  There are many of us for whom those
"snapshots"
> are more beautiful or important than any other work of photography that
has
> heretofore been created!!!!  I have photos of my family taken with
expensive
> equipment, Leica or otherwise, that could not have been taken with other
> equipment -- do you suggest those memories of my children growing up are a
> waste of the equipment as compared to the possibility that those lenses
may
> have been used by another to make a published  image that paid the
> photographer's rent one month and will be tossed out when the next week's
> issue of Time arrives?  That photo of the INS grabbing Elian will probably
> win a Pulitzer, but I doubt Ken Lisaka would trade his Noctilux shots of
his
> child's birth for it!
>
> Tom Schofield
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 3:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!
>
>
> > Duane and Pascal,
> >
> > Speaking for myself, I am simply saying that  the amateur photos taken
by
> > amateur LUG photographers could have been taken with any camera with any
> > lens. I am not being critical of the snapshots , merely of the amount of
> > money spent to take those snapshots.
> > Obviously if those individuals can afford the high speed lenses, more
> power
> > to them, but the fact remains that they are not being used in a way that
> > would justify the expense.
> >
> *  *  *
> >
> > Joseph Codispoti
> >
>
>
>
>

Replies: Reply from Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> ([Leica] Re: Positive vs. Negative)
Reply from "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net> ([Leica] Positive vs. Negative)
Reply from "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
In reply to: Message from "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Message from "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)