[Leica] McNally show--the actual images vs. the publicity/book images

["Martin Krieger" <krieger@usc.edu>]

    I went to the McNally show the day it opened in LA. What is striking to
me is the very big difference between the actual images and the images as
printed.  The printed images seem to have hyped-up saturation, a cleaned-up
whitened background, and do not feel at all like the Polaroids (which I
think are on the ER film). Could it be that the printed images (in the book,
in the ads, in the mags) are taken with another camera at the same time that
the Polaroids are? Or, have the Polaroids already suffered from fading (the
backgrounds have a distinct greenish tint). (Notice that Polaroid Corp is
never listed as a sponsor.  I wondered why.)
    By the way, the lighting is such that it shines into your eyes if you
get close to the image.  A big brimmed hat helps.
    Also, the Polaroids do not seem very sharp when you get close to them.
That infamous U2 lens they claim to have used seems to be not that good. I
know that the ER film is never so sharp, but I think the weakness here is in
the lens.
    Anyone know more?
Martin
krieger@usc.edu

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html