Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bernard a ecrit: > Tom Schofield wrote: > > > who the heck are you to declare that anyone's family photos do not "justify > > the expense"? > > > I doubt Ken Iisaka would trade his Noctilux shots of his child's birth for > > it! > > I can't believe how you would need a nocti in a hospital. Isn't that people's > workplace? Aren't there laws in the US stating how bright the light should be at > people's workplace? Wouldn't a hospital be a well-lit place, practically per > definition?! And the man has to use a nocti and ISO1600 film... who are you > kidding! A 2.8 quality point and shoot would have done just as nicely, and it's > a lot quieter yet. Hospital is also where most mothers give birth, and birthing mothers dictate how much light there is in their room. The picture of my wife in labour, looking at a newborn, held by a graveyard shift nurse, did not require a Noctilux, strictly speaking. It was taken at probably 1/60 sec. at 1.4, or thereabouts. However, other pictures in the series in http://www.iisaka.org/Sara certainly required the lens to be used at wide open. No, these are not Pulitzer winning pictures. I would even doubt they are worthy of publication. They mean much to me personally and to my family. If the lens helped me capture the moment, the lens was worth it.