Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I guess maybe I haven't made myself clear here. Sorry, my fault. <snip> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>wrote: Jim, For every shot of HCB, there are millions of instantly forgettable ones taken with the same equipment. <snip> My point is exactly that! What follows from that argument is: it's NOT the equipment that matters but rather the PHOTOGRAPHER. Really! Sure it's important to have quality equipment in order to get good photographs, but 'millions' of people take photographs with 'the same equipment' and those photographs are 'instantly forgettable'. So constantly obsessing about whether one lens or one camera is better than another is IMHO a waste of time. Fun, for sure, but still a waste of time. Because a good photographer can take a great picture with almost ANY good camera and lens. That's my point. Period. Jim Laird On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote: > Well said. Just because HCB done it with Barnack, doesn't mean he wouldn't > have wished he has a Leica M Monochrom :-) > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at > gmail.com>wrote: > >> Jim, >> For every shot of HCB, there are millions of instantly forgettable ones >> taken with the same equipment. HCB was also using cutting edge equipment >> of >> his time, he was not fooling around with a pre war Leica or Contax either! >> It only feels like outdated equipment because 50-60 years have passed >> Cheers >> Jayanand >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:19 AM, James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > 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 equipment we would all consider 'outdated'.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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information