manufactured drama

[EricM]

This manufactured drama is getting to me. It's gotten to me. I've

just tripped through some old threads and the tone was different. It

was rib poking fun. My tone has changed. A lot of people have. Is it

cabin fever? Can we just shut up and get along? Film, digital,

hybrid who cares? And if you can't even operate a scanner, stop

bugging those that can. There's less people on this forum and the

deletions are on the increase. Geez. Enough already. Shut up, shoot

and share. That's all.

[derek_stanton2]

It is what it is.

 

If you want to see pictures, go to www.altphotos.com. No one uses 'elite' cameras. Most of

the work (from Poland), is shot with 'hand-me-down' cameras, and it's consistently better

than what's usually shown here.*

 

Or, just look through the photo.net galleries. Or, go to magnum, or whatever.

 

When you're in a forum titled after a brand, you've gotta expect to hear a lot of prideful

prattling, and you're gonna see 'swordfights.'

 

 

 

*There are always exceptions, but....

[skeeter]

leica camera and lens<div></div>

[Spearhead]

Or just party...<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/twochix.jpg"><br>

<i>Fillmore Crowd, Copyright 2004 Jeff Spirer</i></center>

[EricM]

Derek, I'm not sure if your post is directed to me or the forum in general. I visit, and am registered with, altphotos. It also started and is based out of Vancouver, my current village. That's apples and this is oranges. This is a community of regulars that know and visit daily. Off line friendships occur. Altphotos does not.

[working camera]

just venting steam<div></div>

[dford]

``<div></div>

[working camera]

I must say, in amongst all the ...... there have been some very good pic based threads

develop recently. Its a healthy forum for that stand point.

 

C.

[derek_stanton2]

Eric, i agree with you. My comment was about the forum in general, and not critical of your

message. I just think that efforts to change the forum will be futile. The only way is for the

moderators to have a stronger hand in editing/censoring, and we really all should be adult

enough for that not to be necessary. But, i'm not an optimist, and "should" isn't usually

realistic. Which is why i 'take it for what it is,' and look elsewhere for other types of

content.

[travis1]

Leica photography is photography said to be done with Leicas.<div></div>

[EricM]

Forum Rule #6

 

Please be respectful and supportive of one another.

 

 

Forum Rule #11 (Jim Mcbride et all...)

 

Photographs posted for critique or display are allowed provided that they can be classified as fitting within the "rangefinder" style. It is preferable that posted photography be made with a Leica, but this is not a hard rule.

[huw_finney]

There is but one rule, obey all the rules!

[terry_rory]

To quote Monty Python...

 

"Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six."

 

(I cannot quote rule 7 or many of the other rules for fear of getting kicked out, as political correctness forbids.)

[leica ron]

Peter A - I've liked almost all of the images that you've posted here whichever way they're classified, whether they are film capture or otherwise. Keep it up !!

 

Just because we've been asked to keep it to 'our subject' doesn't mean that we can't talk about other rangefinders does it ? That'd be a huge loss. And as for digital - I'd rather see scanned film, but digital shots look great in the hands of someone who knows how to use a digicam.

 

The people who should pipe down are the ones who get into pissing matches for stupid reasons.

 

And in general, if you post an image up here be prepared for good and bad comments ... so prepare that thick skin ...

[socke]

<i>"Photographs posted for critique or display are allowed provided that they can be classified as fitting within the "rangefinder" style It is preferable that posted photography be made with a Leica, but this is not a hard rule."<i><br><br>

 

Leica copy with sonnar copy and film copy<div></div>

[tom h.]

<center><img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2895225-

lg.jpg"></center>

[leica ron]

I think that "Rangefinder Style" is purposely vague. I challenge anyone to define it and have more than 90% of this forum agree :-)

 

With respect to my own photography, I have two styles of photography, one is 35mm and the other is MF(6x7)+LF(4x5)+LF(8x10). So based on the ratio of the negative dimensions.

 

With my 35mm style, I have two facets 1) available light - with the M6 and 2) flash and strobe with my Nikon F100.

 

I'm sure all of the forumers can define there own styles in as many different ways.

 

Maybe Tony should have just told us all not to be so pissy with each other ...

[tom h.]

<center><img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2895273-

lg.jpg"></center>

[socke]

</i>Forgot to turn off italics, sorry

[Brad_]

<I>Can we just shut up and get along?</I><BR><P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images7/Meerkats1.jpg">

</center>

[jim_mcbride]

Some members (and some non-subscription users) seem to think there are a lot of things

wrong with the Leica Photography Forum. I do not agree, but I respect the opinions of

those who do not agree with me. I urge the dissenters to take up their issues with the

moderators and/or Bob Atkins.

 

I do agree that the moderators recently have tightened-up the degree of moderation. That

is not a bad thing, IMO. Even if the dissenters are unable to obtain satisfaction from the

photo.net powers-that-be, they still have viable alternatives without leaving photo.net

altogether.

 

I think the most important thing to remember is that photo.net is a "big tent" and there is

a place for almost everyone of almost any photographic persuasion. If any photographer

feels uncomfortable on the Leica Forum for any reason, there is almost always another

photo.net forum where a better fit can be found.

 

For those who say that they like to be where their friends are, I say that all the friends can

discuss their disagreement with the Leica Forum rules and then just agree to migrate en

masse to another photo.net forum where that better fit can be found.

[mangydog]

Peter, I've been worrying about the same things - keeps me up at night. I think you've hit on to something really important here 'what is rangefinder style' perhaps it is more of a sort of koan than anything and we ought to take the question deep into our inner selves.

 

It's probably something to do with 'it's the vision that counts, not the camera'. Since we've all been told this so many times it must be important - a deep and significant insight, obviously repetition is the key to true understanding. Maybe we can ask Jeff for just one more time...

[________1]

</i>You nitwits. Rangefinder style just means you can't photograph closer than 0.7 meters. Sheesh!

[stanley_rogouski]

<p>

 

<i>I think that "Rangefinder Style" is purposely vague. I challenge anyone to define it and have more than 90% of this forum agree :-) </i>

 

</p>

 

<p>I shoot a lot of street demonstrations, anti-war protests, and similar events and what I tend to see is this. </p>

 

<p>The wire photographers tend to carry two bodies, two D1Xs or two 10Ds or whatever. One one body, they have an 80-200 lens. On another they have a 17-35 lens. </p>

 

<p>This is what they look like.

</p>

 

<p><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2668088-lg.jpg></p>

 

<p>They tend to crowd together and they tend to take the same types of photos, tightly cropped headshots with the 80-200s and "interesting" wide angle perspectives with the 17-35s.</p>

 

<p>What you don't see is a lot of 35/50mm "normal" shots. As I said, they tend to bunch up in groups instead of wandering though the crowd by themselves. Now this serves a purpose, of course. They all want to sell their photos and the wire services want a certain type.</p>

 

<p>But it's very different from the kind of thing you see on Magnum Photos, where there are a lot of "normal" 35/50mm types of shots.

</p>

[socke]

Stanley, in your example I see a lot of red rings :-)

 

And on a digital as used by PJs a 17-35 is not wide. On the Canons in your picture the 16-35s field of view is more like 21 to 50 on 135 film and probably used somewhere in the middle. On a 1:1.5 Nikon it's even narrower.

 

Some day I'll get a replacement for my 35mm and 28mm needs, but it looks as if I have to wait another year.