[Leica] Re: Camera or photographer?

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Lawrence Zeitlin offered:
Subject: [Leica] Re: Camera or photographer?
>>> You mean to tell me that it is the camera that makes the photograph,
> not the photographer. That any boob with a Leica, even me, can  produce 
> prize winning works.
>
> Come off it Ted. You are certainly such a competent cameraman that  you 
> could take good pictures with any equipment, Canons, Nikons,  Argus C3s, 
> or even Holgas. Don't perpetuate the myth that it is the  equipment, not 
> the eye, imagination and judgment of the photographer  that determines the 
> artistic quality of the image. Otherwise you  sound like a Leica flack.<<<

Larry mon ami,
I'm the last person in the world to be looking like a Leica flack! Simply 
becasue the company per say has pissed me off no end on occasions over the 
years and quite probably me them . That's life! :-)

Now we have that established don't you think your interpretation of what I 
wrote is a bit heavy? I didn't say the camera made the photography look good 
because any idiot knows the equipment doesn't see the moment the person 
holding the camera does! It's the handling and comfort of machine in hand 
that makes a major difference in the swiftness of handling without thinking 
and reaction to the moment.

I mean we have enough fools in the world who think just becasue they made an 
exposure with a Leica they've now captured  the greatest living moment in 
photographic history. Which of course we all know is a rediculous 
assumption. Quite frankly let's be honest....... it's bull shit!

>>Come off it Ted. You are certainly such a competent cameraman that
> you could take good pictures with any equipment, Canons, Nikons,  Argus 
> C3s, or even Holgas. <<<<

Thank you for your compliment on my ability much appreciated. I have used 3 
of the mentioned pieces of equipment during my career as well as my Leica's. 
You are quite correct, the equipment doesn't make or break the moment.

However, from the time I began using M type Leica's, my picture taking 
improved amazingly. Simply because I was driven by the work of HCB, Capa, 
Eisenstaedt as my heros and if they could do that kind of photography why 
couldn't I?

It became a driving force in how I appproached my assignments, sure the 
above shooters didn't teach me word for word as I still had to have the 
ablity to "see!" Even with only one eye! But I'll never be convinced other 
wise that from the beginning of using Leica cameras my ablity as a 
photographer improved. Why?

Well I'm sure as hell not going to say it was the camera only! But I feel 
very strongly because of it I paid far more attention to the subjects 
actions and without question the light. Along with the many variables that 
make or break an interesting photographic moment.

Now that's a fair comment given I've shot with Speed Graphics, Rollies, 
Nikon, Canons, Argus A2's and C3's. But I know without question from daily 
experince and certainly without sounding like a flack for Leica, the M 
cameras made a major difference during my career and the results in my 50 
year plus adventure as a photojournalist.

I trust this makes my earlier comments a small bit clearer.

ted