Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D., chaver, you?ve got to read what I write more carefully. I never said that Leica was the camera that "brought photography to the masses." I?d never refer to people as "the masses." I certainly am aware of Eastman and his Kodak. I wrote that "Leica in 1925 played a key role in getting good cameras into the hands of the people." I leave it to others to defend the proposition that Kodak?s cameras by 1925 were in any way good the way the Leica I(A) most certainly was. As for the disposable cameras (another Kodak-type thing, I believe), they made cameras throw-away, not photography. Most people only started throwing away their photos right after creation with the advent of digital. As for your other point about digital photography possibly leading to more better photos compared to the crap that?s been produced on film, yeh, that?s exactly what I said. Just like writing -- once the near-sacred preserve of classes of court scribes ? has been proliferated & maybe improved by the increasing *mass* of ink-stained wretches with cheap and ever-sharpening tools. A decade away from knowing what digital really means? Given that history has this funny way of repeating in its very tedious & predictable way? I say look back 2000-3000 years and see the future in the looking glass. Emanuel Lowi Montreal ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca