Rangefinder style?

Sure Eric...

Yes, Matt, you made a pic, that's (respectfully) rather unremarkable - and used that with

major focus on the underlying technical attributes as a photographic litmus test of the

form "let's see you do this."

When I was in high school it was, "Yeah, but can your car burn rubber in 2nd gear?"

Photography isn't about that. I really don't care how Jeff gets his images. He just does,

and they're great to look at and comment on - that's what counts. You're just being

competitive in a not so healthy sort of way - time to give it a rest.

"I have a book from the early 80s that profiles a bunch of different photographers and shows many of their photos along with interviews. Many of the photographers had switched from rangefinders to SLRs, due to the introuduction of the Nikon F. Not one had photos that could be identified as pre-switch and post-switch."

=================================

If I'm recalling correctly Jim Marshall switched from Nikon F to Leica gear sometime during the '60s. I don't know why because he didn't explain in his book of contact sheets. However he mentions and thanks Leica profusely. Not much mention of Nikon.

Either way his photos are about the same. I love 'em. What made his style was access and personality, not a camera.

Interesting how when someone makes a mild but coherent argument, like Mat, the brat pack gets going again. Jeff, why not reread some of your posts to Mat? I think he has clearly shown some of your inconsistencies.

As for Brad, well! Do you find it impossible to communicate without condescending? I try not to comment on other's photos, unless I can do it positively. This is partly because I don't yet have access to a scanner in order to post myself and receive whatever anyone wants to dish out to me. When I do I might feel freer to do so. Even so I hope I never get to the stage where I feel that my judgement is the ultimate arbiter.

<i>Even so I hope I never get to the stage where I feel that my judgement is the ultimate arbiter.</i>

<p>I think that's the key here. Some people feel theirs is the only possible way of looking at [name a topic], and can't tell the difference between their <i>opinion</i> and verifiable facts. Some people feel deeply threatened when they find someone with the nerve to hold a different opinion, so they feel a moral obligation to straighten that person out - usually in a manner they wouldn't do face to face.

<p>Unfortunately photography is a lot about feelings, opinions, subjective this and that, so some posters feel that other people need to be re-educated until their opinions are corrected.

whoa. in comes jeff's buddy back up team and he's out the door.

c'mon brad. you can read. jeff made a statement that was both false and condescending in form. so i questioned it and got the song and dance.

doesn't matter if my picture is mediocre. i like it and others i've shown have liked it and not. welcome to the photography. my point was not to post a good picture for critique, but to post an image that i think would not be possible with a dslr and zoom.

Robert, your term "brat pack" is cute and certainly deserves a gold star. Your "pack," the

one that spends so much time incessantly dogging photographers that have strong

opinions about end-result photos over gear, should have a clever descriptor as well. I'll

work on that...<P>

You charge of being condescending is misplaced. I was commenting on the

<I>photograph</I> that was held up as litmus test for photography, not the

<I>photographer</I>, who is very accomplished. Unremarkable means just that, a photo

that is neither great nor bad. A <I>remarkable</I> photograph is one that is worthy of

remarking on; go to the recent W/NW threads, and look for some <I>remarks</I>. Some

recent examples are Eric's, Ian's, Takaaki's and Balaji's. If Matt held up one of his

<I>remarkable</I> photographs for the purpose of making a point, the carnival ride pic

is one that comes to mind, then his argument would have held water.<P>

You really need to relax a bit, Robert. In the end, many pix posted here are unremarkable,

including at least 9 out of 10 of my own. Why don't you throw a couple up rather than rag

on people who do?<P>

Matt, I hope my response to Robert covers your recent post as well - no slight to

<I>you</I> intended.

RJ wins the Leica Forum Ichyological Award for correctly identifying the muskie. Yes indeed it is the freshwater version of the shark. In N. Wisconsin (USA) they have been known to chomp people's toes, fingers and hands dangling in the water from boats, piers or when swimming. Wish I'd had a Nikonos in those days!

Getting an underwater image of a muskie attacking a human ... now that would be rangefinder style par excellance.

Brad, thanks for the gold star, I think I last had one of those from miss Weaver in class 4. I'll treasure them both. Thanks also for the other advice, I'll consider it carefully.

Yes you are right many pics here are unremarkable, therefore I would prefer not to remark on them unless asked to. I think Mat's picture was to illustrate a point, which I thought it did rather well.

I look forward to posting my own prints - I'm sure you'll have a field day.

Hey Brad, you little puppy, you're really snapping at peoples heels. And all that rant just because I said you were boring.

You can't even remember what you or the rest of your puppy friends have said on the self-same thread, so I wouldn't expect you to remember back to previous threads.

Ah look, another sockpuppet on the Leica Forum. Too bad this is an unmoderated

forum. Oh, wait....

See <u><A href =

http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm>Section 7.5</a></u>.