[Leica] (Leica) Process Not Product

[PhotoWrite <PhotoWrite@intercomm.com>]

Mr. Dave R:

I think you have something.

I will preface my comments to the group by stating that I am very new to the
Leica M system and the LUG (less than three months). In addition, I also
know that it is the end result that matters and that we all want great
photos. Still, maybe there is room for another person out on Dave Rıs
limb...

Dave, your remarks about the ease of the digital process and the possible
cheapness or short-term nature (my words) of digital images, whether true or
not, are very interesting. You commented that the end appearance is not the
ONLY important factor when we judge an image, as close copies can be
technically as good in most cases but are Œnot originalsı. I think one of
the reasons this is important is that our subjective opinions about how and
why things are made (including photos) affect how we think and feel about
them both short and long-term. Iım even willing to take the digital vs. film
Œcaptureı out of the argument for what Iım going to say below.

Your comments bring to mind a theory and lesson I refer to often from a book
titled "Zen in the Martial Arts". One of the lessons is "process, not
product", (Iım paraphrasing as I canıt find my book and the stories were
read long ago)  

'process not product' If one is solely focused on the desired result you may
not attain what you desire (partially because of your frustration and
eagerness). Whereas if you focus on the performing the correct process, with
the proper intent, the product will come in due time.

So if Œthe Leica wayı works for someone, it may be because the manner in
which these people practice and perform the process of making photographs
with a Leica is an important part of their art (or learning process).

Yes, the cameras are merely tools, but tools are not without impact. The
manner in which a tool is mastered or works well for one operator but not
another is directly related to the tools output.

PhotoWrite
James Langan 




Martin, 

>>Like most areas of technology, what drives development is economy.<<

I enjoyed reading your post. Very thought provoking and anything but
nonsense. Certainly anyone involved in photogrpahy today has a decision
regarding when to use what tools, and why.

Speaking for now of b/w only, I can't get past the feeling that conventional
photography has more value than digital photography. I'm going to step out
on a limb and say that it's not about the appearance of an image. I think
the "appearance is all that matters" argument is flawed.  A perfect
reproduction of a Monet isn't worth as much as the original, even though it
may look identical to all but a handful of experts. (Maybe that's a reach of
an analogy, but it's food for thought). I think the main reason a lot of
people have a low opinion of Ansel Adams' works is that they're sick of
seeing cheap reproductions hanging in every poster shop in the country.

Maybe low cost and ease of production aren't neccessarily good things.
Digital is good for "here-today-gone-tomorrow photography". But film and
chemical printing is still the best choice for longevity and lasting value.
I wish it were otherwise, because working at my computer is more fun than
spending hours in the darkroom. And I don't smell like fixer when I'm done
making Piezotone prints.

High quality silver prints have value because conventional b/w printing is
extremely difficult to do well. Lugger Mark Rabiner, btw, is one of the best
b/w printers I've ever seen. He's an absolute magician in the darkroom.

DaveR            

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html