[Leica] Re: Mundane wasted film

["Doug Richardson" <doug@meditor.demon.co.uk>]

We’ve heard some talk recently on the LUG about "art, soul, and
content" (and implied lack thereof) and how  "an awful lot of people
who produce really mundane wasted film with literally tens of
thousands of dollars worth of equipment."

On Sunday I’m going to a dog show in Paris, and will be taking
pictures with my Leica of my favourite breed. The results will go to
the UK breed club magazine, in the hope that the editor and the
readers will be interested in seeing the best contemporary specimens
of this particular (French) breed.

These folks aren’t going to want to see ‘art’ or ‘soul’, they’ll want
to see a side view of the dog standing in the classic show pose so
that they can get an impression of its build.

36 pictures of 36 dogs standing in near-identical poses - how’s that
for mundane wasted film? And the poor quality of reproduction on the
printed page will make concepts such as sharpness, bokeh and
microcontrast totally irrelevant. The cheapest point and shoot would
get the job done equally well, but I choose to use a Leica because it
gives me pleasure to use a Leica.

Much the same will go for all the pictures I take at a trade
exhibition during the following week - straightforward views of the
new hardware on show so that readers of a trade magazine can see the
products. One again, no ‘art’ or ‘soul’ will be needed, just good
general views which show the product, and close-ups of any interesting
technical features.

And if I take those dog or product pictures with my Noctilux, I doubt
if they will have any "pictorial merit [which] would justify the
enormous expense of such a lens". What justifies the cost of the
Noctilux is getting the pictures on the page.

A camera is an simply an instrument for recording an object or scene.
I use the same photographic skills whether I’m trying to capture the
patterns of light streaming through a mediaeval window or to document
the handling procedures for a nuclear weapon. One subject might win me
a prize at the local camera club, while the other would not. Yet 100
years from now a historian might place very different values of the
same pictures (if they survive), while a film showing the winners of
the June 2000 Paris dog show – however dull and mundane they might
seem today – could be a valuable historical evidence of the history of
the breed.

If we are lucky, history may assign a value to our pictures. In
practice however, they will probably end up as landfill. In the
meantime, let’s just enjoy taking them.

Regards,

Doug Richardson