Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?
From: digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:49:29 -0500
References: <CAMGHw9B=aWixmXOd4ESpQ3JEeNkKXZmpuCKStbxTSdMk7-vuHw@mail.gmail.com> <E2DE03A5-8D17-487A-90A5-070AA6D35B6A@mac.com> <CAMGHw9CiSMkmdXtYK21xO8=koMU1zNFpMf6bPRybRRyYKoppbg@mail.gmail.com> <F3CDA5FE-EBDC-454C-8CE7-EC7C30CC1962@gmail.com>

Jayanand,

I agree with your sentiments but I cannot agree with your conclusions,
sorry. Why was HCB able to take such timeless photographs with
equipment we would all consider 'outdated'. He is most often known for
using an M4 with a collapsible summicron, but I'm sure he used all
manner of equipment over his lifetime. And I'm sure he peered at his
negatives with a loupe like we peer at our pixels on our laptop or our
iPad.

But I have a feeling, and I'll be the first to admit that I could be
wrong, that it was not the 'sharpness' of the image he cared most
about, but rather the composition and the beauty of the image, not
whether or not he could see the Truman Capote's eyelashes or the
shoestrings on the 'puddle jumper's' brogues. We have all been
'fascinated' with images taken with 'outdated equipment', because they
are good photographs. They may not technically be 'state of the art'
but they're great images nonetheless.

I just think that obsessing about equipment 'for it's own sake' can be
in the end counterproductive. We should all be out taking pictures,
not worrying about whether or not our cameras and lenses are the
latest and greatest. After all it can get totally ludicrous at
times...I mean $7195 for a Summicron? Really? I think even HCB might
balk at that! ;)

Jim Laird

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Jim,
> Actually, I do care. At any time, you buy the best tools that fit your 
> need, within your range of affordability. This rubbish about "Who cares" 
> is misleading, as every top pro I know personally is very up to date with 
> his equipment. The fact that they can take better photographs than I can 
> with outdated equipment does not preclude the fact that they are, in 
> effect, always kitted out in the latest and greatest. This fascination 
> with outdated equipment, is, I am afraid, an obsession with amateurs and 
> luddites.
> Cheers
> Jayanand
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 19-Jun-2012, at 1:22 AM, James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> George,
>>
>> Of course he cared about his tools. He chose them well and they served
>> him well. What I was talking about is this infernal pixel-peeping that
>> we see so much of on the LUG (and elsewhere) every day. Do you really
>> think HCB would really care if the Nikon 800E could resolve just a
>> whisker finer than the 800? Really? That's what I meant by WHO CARES.
>> OF COURSE we all choose the tools that we think are best for us. But
>> it's the picture that counts, not the camera or the lens.
>>
>> Jim Laird
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at 
>> mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2012, at 3:24 PM, James Laird wrote:
>>>
>>>> WHO CARES?
>>>
>>> The artists and craftsmen and women care.
>>>
>>> Art and craft objects evolve out of countless choices.
>>> Choices of tools and materials among them.
>>> Every painter I've known has cared about his tools and materials.
>>> Every sculptor I've known has cared about his tools and materials.
>>> Every musician I've known has cared about his tools and materials.
>>> Every writer I've known has cared about his tools and materials.
>>> Every photographer I've known has cared about his tools and materials.
>>>
>>> HCB (and every other great or not-so-great)
>>> chose his tools, film, location, composition, focus, and moments of 
>>> exposure.
>>> They (we) choose our printers (whether humans or machines),
>>> papers, inks, developers, et al.
>>> Each choice is important, organic, fluid and subject to change;
>>> for aesthetic, conceptual, economic or other reasons.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> George Lottermoser
>>> george at imagist.com
>>> http://www.imagist.com
>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?)
Reply from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?)
In reply to: Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] OT: Are we Anal or what? "The Puddle Jumper" / Re: How about this one?)