tom h. Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I'm still with Ray.Other than specific aspects of a specific lens for a specific intent, i don't see summicrons,summiluxes, "L"s, "FD"s,distagons,tri-elmars,variogons,biogons making ANY difference to most of the photographs shown here. they are what they are because of photographic intent (at all levels of ability), not because a of some "jewell-like" len's "signature".I can't quite believe that someone who wants to make good photographs could put a camera to their eye with the primary motivation of "can't wait to see the creamy midtones at f2 with this baby....". Cos if you are, it's not gonna be very rewarding for you. Or it is.I have no idea anymore. Jesus we SO need a photo competition round here. Travis? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Agreed Tom, but I know I will gladly use a cron 50 wide open because I know that I'll get a nice background and the subject will pop if I do it right and the lighting etc is there. That's all. Its really no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenotar28 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 The best lens is the one used with competence and sensitivity. It resides in the mind and heart of the photographer. $10,000 worth of Leitz can yield a pile of crapola, and a cheapo Diana used with intelligence can yield a masterpiece. How many angels can dance on an air bubble of a Tessar? Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 "...and a cheapo Diana used with intelligence can yield a masterpiece." which reminds me, did anyone see Sam's wedding shots? A Russian (?) couple saw his holga work here on PN, flew to NYC to get married and contacted Sam to have him shoot it in his style. Very cool pics. There was a pint in this thread where I ment to bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Eric, do you have a link? I would love to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r s Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Tony wrote:<br> <i>"Threads like these are great for at least one reason. They invariably morph into a kind of buffet table for the likes of poeple like me. Kind of like a piece of meat at the top of a stick in a pail of water to kill bees. Stats: 1 person suspended; 1 person banned. :-)"</i> <br><br> Tony, why is that a great thing? Buffet table? Smiley face after the statistics on how many got banned? Are you saying it's FUN or a GOOD thing to suspend and ban people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Here you go Andy, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=530957">S. Liu's wedding pic's.</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Many thanks SP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Rich and Kevin: I'm sorry that my post wasn't taken very well by you. In hindsight, I realize I should have kept quiet about it! Kevin, just doing my job. Rich, nope, I don't get my kicks that way. Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Wow, this is more entertaining than....... Well, we all now know quality lenses have a signature. Great photos can be taken with any lens but a bit of quality can add. Digital gives a boost to an average lens...center sweet spot. P/S is the great balance for digital. A Leica lens or 24 million pixels does not create a better photographer. Gear snobbery pixel count is the sadness of photography. Just a few thoughts. There, some help for the sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 No worries, Tony, I was just curious. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 I must have missed something. the original question begged to show a definable and observable difference between a well-composed/exposed frame from a Leica lens and one from a similar offering from Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax -- the SLR old-school. or at least, that is how I interpreted the post. seems no one offered anything of import, nor convinced anyone that the thesis was flawed. three-hundred postings later, and we are all still beholden to our original assertions, and unmoved by anything contrary. I think this is good -- we are moving forward and understanding more what makes a photograph sing, or scream, and coming to know the fundamental reasons why a lesser-photograph remains mute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Every time I flip through "The Americans," I'm always just a little steamed Frank didn't pay more attention to his gear. With better sharpness and contrast he could have snagged some really great images. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 no one offered as there's nothing to offer...and no need to convince. Ray already know the answer before he posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Brad, maybe Frank did look out for sharper lenses but then his book couldn't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Brad, Frank's "Americans" was widely hailed as a milestone in photojournalism at the time. It wasn't "fashionable" back then to print contrasty B&W photos. Look at the work of Bruce Davidson, David Douglas Duncan, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or other notables of that era. If you ever get the chance, look at original prints, not book illustrations, and especially not computer screen images. Photographers shot B&W film with silver prints in mind, and the guy with the process camera tried his damndest with bump and flash exposures to capture the full scale on the screened Kodalith half-tone negative. But his target was to come as close as possible to the print he was working from. Any "creative" manipulation ("post processing") at that stage and he'd be looking for a new job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 <i>Every time I flip through "The Americans," I'm always just a little steamed Frank didn't pay more attention to his gear. With better sharpness and contrast he could have snagged some really great images.</i> - Brad<p> I'm sure Frank would be heartened to hear that. A little more attention to gear and we'd have had a winner . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 I think Brad was being a tad ironic about Frank's 'gear'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Thanks, Trevor. I just examined my irony ear and, sure enough, wax buildup. Pretty thick wax, too. Cheers, Brad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 4, 2005 Author Share Posted December 4, 2005 Petey, you must not have considered your keyboard gear though, yer letrets aer all jmublde. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_todd_faulk Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Al, it appears that you are not very familiar with Davidsons work. WTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 4, 2005 Author Share Posted December 4, 2005 I read somewhere too where Robert Frank was into expensive motorcycles, golf, and wild women... heh, jus't ribbin' you. ;) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 4, 2005 Author Share Posted December 4, 2005 Now, do I get some kind of lottery sized cash award for starting the longest thread ever known to Leica forum? I think so. Tony?<p> You say sharp stick in the eye? <b>What??</b><p> btw who got banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 yeah, who got banned? It would be nice to know what sort of behavior is out of bounds and such? someone caled someone a sl*t way back, maybe they got booted? and they should with that mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Recommend Robert Frank's <i>Storylines</I> if for no other reason than that he's included the proof sheets for most of the shots in <I>The Americans.</I> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now