Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]And could it be B.D. that we only see 10% of what he's actually exposed? As professionals(and they are ones in extreme harsh conditions) we know that the "perfectly exposed" negative does not happen all the time. You are right about the lens though. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "B. D. Colen" Subject:Leica R lenses on Canon Digital Bodies > Could it be, Mark, that he is a far, far better photographer than you > (or I, or anyone on this list - no company excepted), that his > negatives contain more information than yours, absolutely perfectly > exposed, and that his printer puts you to shame? Salgado is nothing > if not the consummate photocraftsman working today in black and white > documentary photography; the only other photographer who comes close > is Nachtwey. To suggest that the difference between his prints and > yours might be a Leica macro versus the Nikon macro is such utter > foolishness it boggles the mind: It is, in fact, an absolutely > classic example of someone suggesting that "if I had me one of those > Leiky cameras I'd be as good as that Hank Breson dude, but I've only > got a crappy Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Minolta." ;-)