are photogs nutcases or passionate fools? are they slightly more mental than your average jane/joe?

ok.  this is not so imporatant, but wants to see others' perspectives

here.  i recently saw AUTO FOCUS and ONE HOUR PHOTO and it seems in

the movies, that photographers are portrayed as nutcases or/and

passionate fools.  thinking back on differents films with photogs:

HIGH ART:  druggie : leica m4 GUINEREVE:  women lover? : hassy/ nikon

f2 METROLAND:   youth revolutionary :  nikon f/ rolleiflex/kodak

retina SPY GAME:   cia/sniper :  leica m4-p/ nikon fm2 BLOW UP: 

fashion shooter : nikon f? ADDICTED TO LOVE:  passionate fool meg ryan

with leica m6 AIMEE AND JAGUAR:  jew revolutionary / some leica

screwmount? UNDER FIRE:  pj with leica and bunch of nikon f2? YI-YI: 

kid with a canon leica copy? THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: 

binoche with a practika? these are off the top of my heads, i'm sure

there's more photog flicks.

so...are photogs slightly more crazy/passionte than the average

joe/jane or is it just in the movies? ps. i try to post this in the

general photo form, but it was rejected for reasons i don't quite

<<are photogs slightly more crazy/passionte than the average joe/jane or is it just in the movies?>>

 

Slightly??

And Southerners are slow, dumb, and lazy; Vermonters are crazy; business men are greedy and corrupt. These are stereotypes.

 

A habit is something a person can do without thinking (which is why we have so many) and a stereotype is something a scriptwriter can use instead of developing characters and plot.

Slightly more passionate? Well the good ones seem to fit that description,

otherwse I doubtthat they would work so obsessively.<P>The truly crazy ones

tend to eventually burn out.<P>And yes: lots of them are Jewish -- nothing

wrong with that, more than a few are politically revolutionary, some are

homosexual, aome are fools, some are young, some are old, some use drugs,

some are chinese ,, some are even (dare I say it?) Republicans. Some are all

of the above. Sounds like real life to me.

I'm both.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHEHEHEHEHEEHEHEHEHEHEHHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

 

HA.

Why is this post in the Nikon forum?

Shouldn't it be in the Canon forum??

Of the films you've listed, I've seen only Blow-up and Lightness of Being. I can tell you, however, based on my own blow-up and my own lightness of being - and thiose of at least one really scary photographer friend - that, yes, photographers are in general more passionate and more crazy. May it always be so.<P>

 

Cheers,

Don't forget "Bridges of Madison County": affair with married woman, don't remember camera type; and

Hitchcocks "Rear Window": photog. obsessed with whether his photos show

a murder in progress, Exakta. Re: "Under Fire"; all war correspondents

are crazy, ESPECIALLY the photographers.

Does it matter? And who really cares (outside of a few deviants here)?

Canons in "The Killing Fields" wasn't it? I think it was in Salvador and "Shooter" too. Leica's and Nikons/Nikkormats in 'Frankie's House". Generally speaking though, I seem to hear the click-schwirr of the MD4 motordrive on a Nikon F3 most of the time, regardless of whether the camera is motordriven or not.

I've deleted everything in this thread that needed deleting (ie, that didn't address itself to the questions raised). This is something I am loath to do, in all cases; but obviously as moderator my task, part of it, is to keep things at least somewhat on topic, and civil in the bargain, if only remotely. It's perfectly fine to be harsh, even insulting (if you're so inclined) - just so long as it isn't gratuitous.

Isn't there an F5 in Austin Powers?

What about "Full metal jacket"??? There were Nikkormats and I guess one Nikon too...

 

A whole episode of "From the Earth to the moon" featuring the shooting of the "Rising of the Earth" and a few other lunar pictures...

We were Soldier - Nikon...F2?