Re: [Leica] Leica cameras and toy pictures

[Doug Herr <telyt560@cswebmail.com>]

On Thu, 15 June 2000, Martin Howard wrote:

> 
> 
> I've been thinking about quality of cameras and quality of photography since
> Kyle posted his message about the Toy Camera people.  First off, I don't
> think that it's necessary to justify the purchase of a Leica anymore than
> the purchase of anything else.  We live in a consumer society.  If you want
> one, buy one.  If you don't, don't.  Who cares what pictures you take with
> it, or if it only sits on a shelf and collects admiring looks from jealous
> acquaintances?  Some people buy a $4000 camera rig to take close-ups of
> blooming flowers, a genre of pictures that bores the living daylights out of
> me, but I don't feel that I have the right to judge their expenditure of
> money.  Everyone has a different reason and arguing that one is more noble
> or worthy than another is like arguing that people with red hair make better
> citizens because they eat less peanut butter than fat kids:  It doesn't make
> sense.
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> I think that one of the most fundamental differences between good
> photography and bad photography (or indifferent photography, which may or
> may not be the same thing) is whether or not the photographer cared for the
> subject they were taking a picture of.
>
<more SNIPped> 
>
> I don't know what the answer is (short of selling all your possessions and
> travelling the world taking pictures of people in plight to inform conceited
> Western audiences in an attempt to educate them of the reality outside the
> range of MasterCard, but that would mean having to drop the PhD studies and
> I wouldn't be able to get that six figure income job in California that I'm
> hoping for in a year's time) but my way of tackling it is to set myself
> photographic assignments.  Some get carried out, some don't, but it focusses
> my photographic efforts.  Caring for the subjects then follows as a
> secondary reaction as you are forced beyond the first five rolls to start
> looking at things properly and thinking about how you might portray them.
> 
> So (and this is where we break from our previously formulated
> epistemological efforts), how do *you* deal with this?
> 
> M.
>

Very few LUG posts have caused me to reach for the dictionary as much as this one has. <g>

Over-simplifying the question, it's "Why would any of us spend money on anything beyond basic nessesities like a used refrigerator box for shelter, a fig leaf for clothing and a couple of mouse traps for catching food?"

I justify spending money on Leicas the same way I justify spending money on a weather-tight house instead of a cardboard box, Goretex instead of coated nylon, and a balanced meal instead of a box of macaroni & cheese: it makes my life more enjoyable.  Nobody besides me knows what my priorities are, and criticism of my expenditures is a reflection of the critic's priorities.

I enjoy using Leicas, I like the photos I can make with the camera, and my use of such an expensive camera doesn't jeapoardize my family's health, safety or education.  No other justification is nessesary.

Doug Herr
Sacramento
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt
___________________________________________________
The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
 Better!  Faster! More Powerful!
 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
 http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/