Rangefinder photography legends.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" Meanwhile auto focus camera were appearing and still the rangefinder masters still stuck with what they knew"</p>

<p>Habit, nothing else....and the kind Leica folk. Bottom line he used the most advanced cam of the day.</p>

<p>Among the last photos taken of Henri was him using an auto focus minilux.</p>

<p>He embraced technology.</p>

[bruce_jones5]

<p>Looking at the 2 fine Lustrum darkroom books, you can learn how hard some very fine photographers worked at the technical issues of their time; same with W Eugene Smith. This is what makes photography fun, but the whole point of technique is to control it so well that it disguises itself. No different in painting or sculpture.<br>

To the original issue, I have always felt that there is a big difference between RF and SLR photography, especially in 35mm-RF embraces the world, let's it flow to the camera; SLR literally targets it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Van Gogh experimented and found the right combinations of pigments, Ansel Adams experimented with darkroom chemicals and films, and most others try out new and exciting equipment to determine if it gives them an edge in accomplishing their goal"</p>

<p>As already been posted</p>

<p>True great Artist do not limit themselves to anything... the opposite.. that includes simplicity.</p>

<p>Understand and read the history of Art.</p>

<p>A rangefinder cam made by Leica is nice. The end.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" big difference between RF and SLR photography, especially in 35mm-RF embraces the world, let's it flow to the camera; SLR literally targets it."</p>

<p>Really. Show me. And I use both.</p>

<p>A cam does what you want it to do. You are the master.</p>

<p>It is not alive...hello.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Some photos.....</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>So, my IPhone which is really simple enhances my vision better than my M8 or D7000 …</em><br>

<em>Best get some simple gear so as to be a better Photographer …</em><br>

There’s a measure of wilful misunderstanding and misinterpretation here, but …<br>

1) None of the cameras you mention ENHANCES your vision better than any other. However, a simpler camera means the opportunity to be more spontaneous. Preserving spontaneity while taking the time to hone technical skills to a high level is something that all professional artists (in all disciplines) have to learn. But of all the millions of pictures I have seen in my life, I have to say that the AVERAGE simple camera user gets more spontaneity and energy into his/her pictures than the AVERAGE owner of high-end gear (and I’m not talking about the extreme but not so rare example of guys walking aroung with 2 high-end DSLR bodies and 15 lenses who’ve never produced a single interesting picture).<br>

2) The second statement is easier to deal with – it’s broadly true! As an frequent teacher/mentor, my #1 recommendation for anyone suffering from creative block or complaining that their pictures lack creative impact is simple – choose one camera body and one lens (probably but not necessarily a standard FL), and go and take pictures, not thinking about the camera but concentrating on seeing. This invariably works!</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"AVERAGE simple camera user gets more spontaneity and energy into his/her pictures than the AVERAGE owner of high-end gear"</p>

<p>"But of all the millions of pictures I have seen in my life, I have to say that the AVERAGE simple camera user gets more spontaneity and energy into his/her pictures than the AVERAGE owner of high-end gear (and I’m not talking about the extreme but not so rare example of guys walking aroung with 2 high-end DSLR bodies and 15 lenses who’ve never produced a single interesting picture)."</p>

<p>Sermon on the mount.</p>

<p>Have you taken any pictures?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Nothing wrong with a little experimentation. It's when people start talking about getting rid of what you like to use that people get nervous. Generally the people making these sage pronouncements are ... well... to put it technically, dumbasses. We should probably ignore them more.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> </p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Show me Harper.</p>

<p>I'm simple I like the photos.</p>

<p>Then perhaps I'll understand.</p>

<p>Show me the magic of simplicity. Please.</p>

<p> </p>

[harper_westwood]

<p>"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." -Henri Carrier-Bresson</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." -Henri Carrier-Bresson</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

What's the point? You seem obsessed with issues about equipment. He's saying he's not.<br>

<br>

But he's just one photographer. That's all.</p>

[harper_westwood]

<p><strong>Photograph by William Eggleston</strong>. On my blog has over 50,000 Reblogs.<br /> Photo from : http://www.egglestontrust.com<br /> This is simplicity. This is a color photograph taken with a simple film camera. No gimmicks.<br /> Allen, This is the art of a photography. If you don't understand this, then I can't help you understand it.</p>

<p><b>Moderator's note:</b> Image removed. As per photo.net's Terms of Use, please do not post photos that are not your own.<P>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Technical aspects.</p>

<p>That is why he used the cutting technology of his time.</p>

<p>To get the photo and to create his vision. Wheels on a wagon, Harper. </p>

[harper_westwood]

<p>Allen, How is a rangefinger cutting edge technology in the mid 1970's??? Anyway, I really do think you're oblivious. I aspire to take a photograph that beautiful.</p>

<p>And it looks as if the photo has been taken down. I guess Photo.net does not let you reference photos from artist? This website is so weird.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> Boring.</p>

<p>And out of focus.</p>

<p>I don't do arse licking.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Try your own photos.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>This is simplicity. This is a color photograph taken with a simple film camera. No gimmicks.

Allen, This is the art of a photography. If you don't understand this, then I can't help you understand it.</i><P>

No one has said that you <b>can't</b> make artful photos with simple equipment. The points the various people have made, repeatedly, in various ways, are that photos are not artful because they were made with simple equipment, using simple equipment doesn't make your photos artful, and artful photos can also be made not using simple equipment. In other words, it's not about the equipment.<P>

It's not other people who are having trouble understanding.

[harper_westwood]

<p>haha, alright Allen. Whatever you say, dude. You let us know when MOMA contacts you for a show. I'll shake your hand in person.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Any Photographer/Artist call them what you want...</p>

<p>Does not care about anyone else's vision.</p>

<p>They do their own thing.</p>

<p>And if they think crap is crap good for them.</p>

[harper_westwood]

<p>Okay, man. We get it. I'm tired of your verbal diarrhea. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "You let us know when MOMA contacts you for a show. I'll shake your hand in person.</p>

<p>I do my thing, for myself,....I do not care a monkey about Moma or Dada.</p>

<p>But I have an interest in challenging BS.</p>

 

[harper_westwood]

<p>Well at least we know you're good at something. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>BS remover. Cool.</p>