RE: [Leica] Ansel's Holga (was: Erwin Qualifications)

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Peter,

Your point is very good. Except in your choice of example: some 
photographic masterpieces do require extremely high imaging qualities. What 
I know of Ansel Adam's work is based on a mixture of very sophisticated 
composition, exposure and printing techniques that truly benefit from the 
very high resolution provided by his equipement (generally using film much 
larger than 35mm wide).

OTOH, many other photographic masterpieces did not and do not require such 
high imaging performances, and could have been made with very low end 
equipment.

But, the fact that they are not usually made with such equipment, because 
such equipment is not usually used by the creators of those masterpieces, 
maybe has some signification as well, don't you think ?

There is nothing wrong with choosing the minimalist way, and there is 
nothing preventing the talented Holga or Lomo user from creating great 
images. But I do feel my own limited talent is safer with Leica ;-)...

Alan

On samedi 15 mai 1999 8:01, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) 
[SMTP:peterk@lucent.com] wrote:
> David,
>
> That is your opinion.  Mine is that if I used a Holga and got a great 
image,
> it would be better than a poor image, albeit sharp, captured with a more
> expensive camera.  In other words, if Ansel Adams were using a Holga, his
> photos would still be great!  If a Joe Shmoe were using a Leica, he would
> not be Alfred Eisenstadt. :-)
>
> Peter K
>
> > ----------
> > From: 	David W. Almy[SMTP:dalmy@mindspring.com]
> > Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Sent: 	Friday, May 14, 1999 6:09 PM
> > To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: 	Re: [Leica] Erwin Qualifications
> >
> > "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
> > >
> > > This is being said politely, so please do not read any more into this
> > than
> > > is intended.  I will even add some smiley faces as everyone has 
taught
> > me.
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > I believe that Alfred Eisenstadt, the legendary LIFE Magazine
> > photographer,
> > > had indicated that he didn't believe in other people's lens tests. 
   He
> > > tested his own new lenses by using them.  If he liked it, he kept it.
> > He
> > > succeeded in helping to define photography during this century 
becuase
> > he
> > > was busy taking pictures and did not care about what someone else
> > thought
> > > about his lenses. ;-)
> > >
> > > So if one is happy with a lens, use it.  If not, try another.  In the
> > end,
> > > it is the image, not the resolution that will capture the attention 
of
> > those
> > > who see it.  :-)
> >
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > A) This (above) has nothing to do with Erwin's qualifications.
> >
> > B) Good for Eisenstadt. I'm glad for him and his contributions. Just
> > because it was good for him, however, doesn't mean it was right for
> > everyone. This is not THE method I choose to use to select lenses.
> >
> > C) If lens performance has no bearing on the image, then we all should
> > be using Holgas and concentrating only on the image. But photography is
> > a technical as well as aesthetic exercise. The materials and processes
> > we employ profoundly effect the images we capture. This cause and 
effect
> > is not subtle. Until such time as all of our materials and processes
> > perform equally, I will continue to seek to advance both my technical
> > and aesthetic advantage. This involves the accumulation of a scientific
> > consensus concerning the performance of lenses, of which Erwin's views
> > are a part. His reports are not gospel, but they are generated by a 
fine
> > mind whose scientific results often mirror my own practical, real-world
> > experience.
> >
> > Erwin helps. This is his contribution. It is substantial and
> > appreciated.
> >
> > David W. Almy
> > Annapolis
> > Leica photos online at
> > http://www.nasm.edu/GALLERIES/GAL104/bwings/bwswph.html
> >