Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/28

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

Subject: [Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:59:10 -0600
References: <20121128173812.RIOY29905.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo209>

On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:38 AM, jon.streeter wrote:

> A friend of mine told me in the '70s that art directors didn't take 
> photographers seriously unless they were shooting with Nikons, 
> Hasselblads, and a few other well-known brands.  I never worked with an 
> art director, so I took his word for it.  

> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Greg Rubenstein" <gcr910 at gmail.com>

> Simple explanation for all this tech and test stuff: use the right tool 
> for what you're trying to accomplish regardless of brand. You know what 
> works for you -- and your clients, who hire vision and results, not brands 
> and data sheets.

both statements have proven true in my experience.

"Art directors" hire "talent"
More often than not the "best talent" use the "best tools"

sometimes the art directors (and their agencies and clients) can't afford 
the best talent.
they then try and hedge their bets by specifying that at least "the talent" 
use "the best tools."

Regards,
George Lottermoser 
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist







Replies: Reply from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9)
In reply to: Message from jon.streeter at cox.net (jon.streeter) ([Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9)