Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/11

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Photos on the Web
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:38:01 -0700

Well... I have images on the web. Go to  http://www.photoaccess.com/  then
to Gallery.

The first nine are mine. All Leica R images. 24, 28PC, 35PC, 35/2, 50/2,
180/2.8 . No apologies. Just scenic regional photographs. Scanned onto
photo CD, from photo CD onto the web.

Jim

At 11:59 PM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I know that I antagonized a lot of you when I first joined this list a few
>months ago.  Wish I'd done it differently, but I didn't.  Since then, I've
>met Tom Abrahamsson (sic) and Reinhold Mueller, had two fine cameras
>restored to optimal specs, and gone about my business, not in the
>rumenerative sense, but as the amateur that I am.
>
>What surprises me a little here is all the talk of Leica specs and how
>little whe actually look at each other's work; not in the sense of  some
>imminent judgment, but simply in the sense that the point of owning this
>gear is to capture light on an emulsion. What's the point of owning this
>stuff if it doesn't cause us to be better than we are, to capture more
>precisely and with greater fidelity the decisive moment, the prefigured
>print, whatever it is that drives us to carry and use a camera?
>
>I've checked out, for intance, several sites, where photos captured w/
>thousands of dollars worth of gear are indistinguishable from equivalent
>images that one might have shot with a disposable camera: flat, banal, mere
>reportage, which can be engaging if it reveals some sensibility, but, if
>not, is nothing more than an Instamatic's glimpse into the rich world we
>inhabit.
>
>It seems to me that the potential of the LUG is that we can exploit the
>resource that the web offers in an unprecedented way.  We all admire the
>-Family of Man-, for instance.  We could make it happen in a different way
>here, to capture and present, as it were, our own, unique worlds, the
>particular valence of our perspectives, share and comment upon them.
>
>Instead--and here I shall piss you all off again--we sputter and moan over
>red dots, serial numbers, the virtues of the Noctilux, and whether the RS
>series is the summa of "leica vindcated".  In the end, I suppose, the whole
>point of this is what do we *see*: collectively, individually . . . No
>amount of talking about the resolution of an aspherical lens equals the
>simple presentation of a compelling image captured with one . . .   
>
>yrs in the pursuit of light
>
>Chandos
>
>At 02:55 PM 6/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Right on, Tom. The differences are lost in the scanning and even the best
>>monitors are all but useless for subtle detail and tonality. Not to mention
>>the effects of lossy file compression...
>>However, I too love seeing what other photographers are doing. One of these
>>days I may get up enough courage to post some of mine.
>>
>>Mike Turner
>>
>>At 05:31 PM 6/11/1998 EDT, TEAShea@aol.com, you wrote...
>>>Some people seem to think that they can demonstrate the quality of a
lens by
>>>photos posted on the Internet.  While one may be able to tell the
difference
>>>between a disposable camera and a current generation Summicron 50 2.0,
it is
>>>simply not possible to distinguish between higher quality lenses by this
>>>method.  
>>>
>>>This is not to say that it is not interesting to see posted photos.  Such
>>>photos are often very interesting and can tell a lot about the style of the
>>>photographer and the subject.  Such photos, however cannot distinguish
>>between

>>>a current generation Leica lens and a 30 year old Minolta consumer grade
>>lens.
>>>Both will look the same.  
>>>
>>>When people seriously discuss the differences among reasonable quality
>>lenses,
>>>the differences are actually very small.  These differences are much
smaller
>>>than the resolution ability of posted photos / monitors.  
>>>
>>>Keep posing those photos.  I love to look at them.  But do not think that
>>they
>>>prove the quality of a lens.  They don't.  
>>>
>>>Tom Shea
>>>
>>>
>> 
>
>
>Chandos Michael Brown
>Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
>College of William and Mary 
>
>
>http://www.resnet.wm.edu/~cmbrow/
>