Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry, Don, but horse hooey. The more one shoots, the more chance one has of actually improving. And if digital provides anything, it is freedom from the economic and time constraints imposed by having to pay for, and wait for, each frame of film. I am doing infinitely more personal work than I used to do, and could never have afforded to do my subway project with film. ___ Sent with SnapperMail www.snappermail.com ...... Original Message ....... On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:19:13 -0500 "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: "Larry, "In an ideal world you are correct. But in a Zen like way, sometimes it is "better for it to be hard. With a digital work flow, a beginner can shoot "two thousand images and then not have the ability to edit that to something "that is good or even interesting. Back in the bad old days, when you got to "frame 20 on your last roll, you started to think about what you were taking "and you concentrated on what you wanted to finish with. In a digital work "flow you just delete some images based on a itty-bitty screen and move on, "no thought involved. " "Especially when you are learning something, there should be some discipline "involved. There should be some conscious choices about what you are doing "and why. It can be done in the digital work flow, but you have to be a lot "more mature and work against some of the true benefits of the digital work "flow. " "Don "don.dory@gmail.com " " "On 3/21/06, lrzeitlin@optonline.net <lrzeitlin@optonline.net> wrote: "> "> "> B. D, Colen wrote: "> "> << Give a beginning photographer a cheap camera "> with inferior optics, and you may get different results than if you give "> that same person an easy to use, well designed camera with superior optics "> - "> and I don't mean a Leica M because many beginning photographers really "> struggle with rangefinders. :-)>> "> "> ------ "> "> There is much truth in this. I am one of those mossbacks who learned "> photography in the Jurassic age of total manual control. As a stringer for "> the Boston Globe in the early 50s I was handed a scruffy well used 4x5 Speed "> Graphic, six film holders and a Heiland flash gun and I was sent out on "> assignments to sink or swim. "> "> Over the years I learned how to estimate focusing "> distances with reasonable accuracy, how to judge the light, the shutter "> speeds that were necessary for stopping various kinds of action, what "> filters to use to get the effects I wanted, etc. In due time I gained "> sufficient experience in the technology of photographny that it became "> "> second nature and I could concentrate on the esthetics of the picture. "> "> Then the manufacturers encapsulated all my hard won knowledge in a "> silicon chip the size of my little fingernail and made cameras "> automatic. Now any boob could possess what I had learned by plunking "> down a few bucks at the camera store counter. Like most phiotographers of "> that era, I resisted the change. It negated my years of experience and "> forced me into direct competition with newcomers who would be totally lost "> if their batteries died. "> "> And, of course I was wrong. Photography isn't about technology. It is "> about creating images that others want to see. The neophyte with a mistake "> proof camera is free to concentrate on the scene on front of the lens, not "> the camera settings. Artistic interpretatikon is something totally apart "> from technical proficiency. Fortunately for the real artists amongst us, a "> very good quality camera encapsulating all I learned in 20 years is "> available for less than the 1954 pric "> e of a Leica IIIf. And I venture to say that in the hands of an average