[Leica] Technical detail--why? ok! here's why! :-)

[hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)]

Cedric that sounds like a fairly harsh remark regarding amateur 
photographers and discussions here. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be? I 
think that you have enjoyed participating in discussions here since you've 
joined.
Do you also have work on-line that you would like to share? That is the very 
best way to show your credentials and fellow photographers can see which 
areas they may have in common too.

You are probably aware of Ted's lifetime of accomplishments and he has been 
an active and inspiring grand old teacher for so many of us.

Be assured that he regularly brings all of us down to earth if the 
discussions lose focus into the technical ;-)

By way of disclaimer, I find my EXIF data to be a very useful tool and I've 
been known to indulge in the technical discussions here. I do try to 
remember what cameras are for though and continue to learn from generous 
teachers here such as Ted.

cheers
Geoff

On 26/03/2013, at 12:47, <tedgrant at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Cedric Agie offered;
>>>> All professional photographers I know (but they are
> few) work the same way and sometimes compare their results. I guess
> amateurs never or seldom do so and prefer endless discussions about
> subjects, in fact articles, they have just read somewhere and that
> they take for granted.
> 
> When a professional photographer reads something new, he has an
> attitude of prudence, he first wants to know  what and why, before
> accepting (buying) anything. Even with Leica and Hasselblad.<<<<<<
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Well Cedric old buddy you haven't been talking to this old fart 
> professional photographer whose first news photo was front page Ottawa 
> Citizen in Ottawa. The National Capital of Canada 17 September 1951. And 
> published quite probably every week since. :-)
> 
> Oh yeah and as we speak I would like to point out, in case you don't take 
> me serious? The photo collection of my photographic experience in the 
> National Archives of Canada is 280,000 images. And down the street in the 
> National Gallery of Canada there is another 100,000 images from 
> documentaries across our great land! And some of yours, the USA I believe.
> 
> And you are a professor. Great, so am I.... It's Dr. Ted Grant, Honorary 
> Doctorate of Laws due to my rather wild and crazy life as a 
> photojournalist, university lecturer, author and heavens know what in 
> photography!  If you care to read more at the moment do try:  
> TEDGRANTPHOTO.COM  my website. Thank you. Remember I didn''t write that 
> stuff because when I read it. I asked, are you folks writing about me?  
> Yeah I know it's hard to believe. But then I was always the "Silent 
> Observer"
> 
> Then come October 2013 wait for the biography release of a 55,000 word and 
> 135 photographs book. No I didn't write it, I just sat there for half  a 
> year being interviewed by the author. Then she went off across Canada 
> doing interviews with ex-Prime Ministers and many publishing folks.
> 
> Now before you get all ranty I would like to point out that this "writing, 
> reading and making notes and keeping track of details and for why?" Is 
> obviously a face to face conversation at best, not for internet 
> conversation simply because the internet isn't  fast enough in carrying 
> rebuttals and quick discussions!
> 
> It's a topic of rebuttals, faster than the internet can cope with and the 
> subject should be while we are all sitting at a round table, obviously a 
> cold beer in hand to keep it civil so we can go back and forth without 
> snarling at each other in stupid discourse what is right or wrong as we 
> see unfortunately on the screen?
> 
> OR? Maybe a broader explanation of whom each poster is and their back 
> ground in our delightful world of photography of a million various venues!
> 
> You good Sir are, I believe involved in the major side of technical 
> understandings of glass in lenses and the likes? ERGO, a major reason to 
> keep notes and that's no problem as it's life in the development of fine 
> optics. And you use your notes for a completely different side of 
> photography than many of us who have slightly more than a few years 
> experience as published professional photographers. Where keeping notes, 
> other than for captions is all that's necessary. Technical stuff? Very 
> rarely as a working photojournalist.
> 
> And I respectively offer. Keeping notes on what we gear is a complete and 
> utter waste of our time.
> 
> By the same token, many of our folks like to keep notes as that's part of 
> their way in doing their photography. Then there's me! :-) Heck man I just 
> shoot everything that turns me on that has anything to do with the 
> assignment subject from Open Heart surgery to cowboys of North America  
> and or the Olympics wherever they maybe in the world.
> 
> Technical conversations are without question far more interesting and 
> understanding of each of our ways of being involved in our particular 
> field of photography when we are face to face chatting about it.
> "BEEN THERE---- DONE IT MANY MANY TIMES. AND ENJOYED IT IMMENSELY AS I 
> ALWAYS LEARNED SOMETHING. FACE TO FACE!"  But on the internet? All it does 
> is create on some occasions "bad feelings?" And or e-mails of ridiculous 
> wastes of time! As I'm sure some of the crew today will chastise me for! 
> :-)
> 
> There now good Sir, I trust I may have cleared? Or completely screwed 
> everything up Royally so it'll take several "Single Malts" to clear the 
> air and we can all understand each others meaning of and how we do our 
> photography. NOTES OR NO NOTES! :-)
> 
> OK there you are lads and lasses. Thank you and good night! :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Dr. ted :-)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information