Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Now this is good smart thinkin'! You have made essential points. Standardizing and quite naturally defining quality as a certain property of the photograph tends to draw upon the idea that this certain aspect somehow exists in spite of, and on a greater scale than the content/effect of the picture. When I look at a picture I look at the picture. If the picture is 'perfectly' sharp does this effect it? Well sometimes those perfect pictures need to be flushed down the toilet. Not that one should 'desire' images of inferior sharpness, etc - but there's a difference in the person who makes the print with his camera, and the person who uses a camera and makes prints. The former is goal oriented and is nothing of a real-life event whereas the latter is, at its best photographic living. The process of photography - if not for observers - is for the photographer 'what' he/she does. As is clear below there's always something better. So this should have less emphasis. The 35mm camera needs to be perfected in what it does - without this hollow comparison. When a good shot is missed because one wasn't ready is not any honor for the photographer. When a good shot can be taken, and it is of very inferior 'quality' - the shot...was taken! Not to discount other formats, etc. But 35mm is a camera you can have on you while in an elevator. That says allot - and the M6 is I think the prime example of this sort of thing. This doesn't exclude the properties of the print and other details at all. It merely puts the emphasis on the right track so we all can still say Leica is better. And we've got enough to back it up, in any case. <<Look, guys, this thread is interesting enough, but at one time, first year photo students had knowledge of a few points (yes, Will, a "list" follows: 1. With 'realworld' films (this qualification necessary for Erwin, etc), and 'real world' handling (35mm in hand, 4x5 on tripod, 21/4 sometimes either) virtually ANY 2-1/4 camera will out-do the finest 35mm camera...yes, I mean a l955 Kodak Tourist, in perfect working order, on a tripod with verichrome pan film, at f-16, and a hood, will kick your Leica's ass. Period. (6x9cm negative) 2. Same conditions as above, that old Crown Graphic with it's (clean) Optar, will generally outdo the Hasselblad, Rollei, etc... 3. The "quality" of a photograph has little to do with it's absolute sharpness, and of course color rendition/contrast/freedom from flare is TOTALLY subjective... Give me a Smith/Capa/even HCB(!) anyday over the product of some anal-retentive "zone-ite" with his goddamn Linhof/Schneider/T-max100/Zone IV/Range-Rover/$2000 VC Head enlarger mounted on the requisite cubic yard of Granite..... 4. There seems to be little knowledge of "the tool for the job" today...hence the popularity of the "shift" lenses, etc.... Seriously, folks....the next time you run across a vintage "Box"....yashica, kodak, ciroflex, god-knows-what, buy it....shoot it...at f11 on a tripod...print full frame on 11x14 paper....compare it to an identical print under identical circumstances from your latest Leica ASPH-whatever.... The whole reason for using 35mm has been lost in these never-ending "quality" discussions.... Interesting story....A photographer friend of mine (yeah, he's famous but ya don't need to know) recently tried to get a "poor" lens for his 4x5.....I suggested a home-brew single element device, and he bought a bunch of meniscus lenses from Edmund scientific.....6-8" focal length, used 'em 'wide-open', about f 8 or so... ya know what? He not only DIDN"T get the effect he wanted, he laughed and said he could hardly tell the difference in the meniscus and his Schneider!!! Yes, it's a true story. Walt>>