[Leica] Fwd: Professional use and Professionalism

[imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)]

On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> George you know damn well there are times you need a bigger neg. or
> whatever. Trans... Sensor.  Other times a bigger neg/ sensor than that. You
> know it, the art director knows. The client knows it. The printer knows it.
> Everyone knows it. 35mm did not always cut it. Is it different now with
> sensors? Don't think so. The format size defines pretty much the camera and
> the job at hand. In film days certain things were clearly:
> 1. Large format jobs (sheet film) and what size sheet maybe. I only ever 
> had
> 4x5 I know you went to 8x10.
> 2. Medium format jobs. (brownie film) hasselblad whatever or roll film back
> on view camera.
> 3. And 35mm jobs. Leica. Whatever. Sure sometimes things are a matter of
> opinion there are gray areas. But plenty of times the writing is on the 
> wall
> on the format job which is being spoken of.

I certainly appreciate acreage Mark.
I worked myself up to 12x20 inch negatives
(and included 11x14 along the way).
It was an awe inspiring experience.

However!
We also need to recognize what 24x36 Panatomic X (or Techpan) was capable of
with the finest lenses and techniques.

Your hammering on bigger is better ALWAYS
does break down as technology refines the possibilities;
especially when considered along side other realities and necessities.

When I began mopping floors in a commercial studio at age 14 (1960)
the ad agency art directors demanded 8x10 Ektachrome for 90% the work.
And that included both product and work involving models.
You can see this in the photographs of Avedon working with a Deardorf on 
fashion work of those days.

By the time I left there in 66 or 67 - the work was 50% 4x5, and 50% 2.25.

Through most of the rest of my years in the field - product photography was 
4x5
and people photography was 2.25"
with a lot of cutting edge fashion work (during the late 70s, 80s and 90s 
being done on 35 mm Kodachrome.

I like lots of real estate on film and/or sensors - whether I can afford it 
or not.
Yet I also appreciate that the technology (whether film or sensors) has 
allowed ever better
on ever smaller.

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