sal_ortega Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 HCB, J.Koudelka, E.Erwitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_schmid Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Alfie;-) By the way, what happened to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Glenn Travis, Alfie Wang, Travis, and others like them who initiate discussions that end up being learning experiences for others on this group. Bob Guccione comes a close second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 "I believe that W. Eugene Smith used a Nikon SP..." Gene used a lot of stuff - from Rolleis to Nikon Fs to Minolta SRTs - over the years. Pittsburgh was shot with 5-7 Canon screwmount bodies. "Nurse Midwife" and "Spanish Village" (shot when LIFE was paying for the equipment) were Leica work. No doubt he used an SP sometime in his career - but not prior to 1957. It didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angus_ngtg Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 My favorite on this list is Roberto. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djphoto Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Elliott Erwitt, B.A. King, Robert Doisneau. These three, along with Fritz Henle, who was specifically *not* a Leica photographer, taught me to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masatoshi_yamamoto Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Walt, I'm puzzled by your remark that Smith's Minamata photos are "rabidly political." Smith himself was, and his intention was certainly to promote change, but the photos themselves seem extremely personal and human to me. Perhaps I have a different reaction. I recently saw, for the second time, an exhibition about Minamata. It has some original prints of Smith's photos, along with photos from other photographers, news footage, and scientific information. The other parts of the exhibition made the photos even more powerful, and they stood out as the most human and personal (and thus, I think, the most powerful) element. That said, Smith is my hero and favorite photograher because he had the courage to do things I wish I would do. It almost shames me to edit my latest roll of street photography, because it seems so trivial compared to what Smith did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_britt1 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Jim Marshall... nobody does music photos like Jim, Jazz... Rock and Roll... and some things in Apalachia... you don't want him as your room mate, but you sure do want some of his photos. www.marshallphotos.com take a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Mike Dixon and Douglas Herr. (But I like Winogrand too.). :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j m shaw Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Sebastiao Salgado / Robert Cappa...and many more:)....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I've never categorized photographers by the cameras they use. I usually think about their photos. Maybe I've had the wrong mindset, I should just find out what cameras they use and not bother with the photos. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted March 4, 2003 Author Share Posted March 4, 2003 Jeff, that wasn't quite the point. 35mm or Leica usually denotes a certain style of photography, as in street, for example. But you're welcome to give me your favorites regardless. 8x10 even. Matters not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I shoot in the street with 6x7. I figure what I do is street photography, not "Mamiya photography." Bravo shot in the street with large format, handheld. But that doesn't make his photographs different from what other people shot with 35mm. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 "Leica usually denotes a certain style of photography" I bet most people here shoot more pix of their kids, cars, blonde wives and their rolexes more than they shoot people they dont know on the street.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Damn, I forgot to get a blond wife. Now I know what my photos are lacking. Don't have a Rolex either. I have a digital watch with a stopwatch so I can time my pinhole camera exposures. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 jeff, i think u shud duct tape that pinhole cam to your yugo and try to find a russian mail order bride....its better than stroking your red dot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_reid1 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Ralph Gibson, David Alan Harvey, Jesse Alexander, William Allbert Allard, Me. Check out the ones you don't know. :) Andy P.S. to reply to the rolex comment, my leicas assist me in paying my mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 Jeff, I don't have perfect knowledge of the use of punctuation but my understanding is that a word in single quotes refers to that word in a general, not specific sense. So 'Leica' was intended to mean any Leica type of camera- meaning small, and not specifically the brand. This goes back to the discussion of whether the type of camera influences the photography or not, and I believe you and I have different views on that. If you shoot 6x7 in the street then that's very nice for you, but my guess is you're part of a small minority. The idea of developing cameras from their early primitive stages to the technology of today has been at least to some extent intended to extend the possibilities for the photographer. The general idea of using small cameras is that they are fast to work with and portable, and since they are more convenient to move with, are usually the choice of photographers doing street work. I could have titled this "Favorite Street Photographers" , but I wanted a broader category than that. I wasn't particularly interested in work people usually do with large cameras on a tripod, however. This is the "Leica Forum", and since people here strongly relate to Leicas, it seemed a good way to communicate the idea. At any rate, I don't think it productive to look down on the people on this forum enmasse, or to stereotype people. There is an awfully lot of good work made by photographers here, be the subject their blonde wife, or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Jeff Spirer and his little sidekick grant - always there to make a positive contribution to the discussion. I too find disappointing the occasional reference here - a clubby nudge and wink between participants - to Rolex and other status brands. But it goes with the territory - a territory made up as much of thoughtful people as of insecure bourgeois. From here, Jeff, your "anti-Leicaist" stance looks an awful lot like base resentment. My guess: if you could afford Rolex and Leica-as-jewelry, you'd be even more insufferably smug than those you try to torment. Give it a rest. If you were truly interested in your photography, you wouldn't waste your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Rolex watches use to be a favorite among the Washington PJ corps and among foreign correspondents. The favorite was the GMT which had a 24-hour bezel that made for easy "figuring out what time it is back home". I don't have any idea if they're still popular there anymore. (Disclaimer: I do not own a Rolex, but a Casio G-shock.) How did this thread go from favorite photographers to Rolexes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I know something (not much, but something) of the illustrious history of Rolex - but I also know the Rolex company's response to miniaturized electronics was to transform themselves into something that isn't even the shadow of what they once were. And that, now, they are more the pervue of people with excessive (new) wealth, than of those whose sole criterion is quality. If Leica continues on its path toward becoming a boutique brand, it will end up in the same spot - in their case, being to photography what Liberace was to music. I'd rather see the company closed.<P> As for me, I don't wear a watch. I do however carry a little black Casio pocket clock, measuring about 1" X 1.5" X .25". The model number painted on its face long ago disappeared, but this thing has been around the world with me, under the most trying of conditions, always keeping accurate time and always buzzing loudly when I needed it to. The other day, I heard something banging about inside the clothes dryer. When I looked inside, it was my Casio time piece - washed and dried and still ticking away. I think I paid ten bucks for this little marvel, in a San Francisco electronics store about four years ago. So far I've gone through a single set of button cell batteries. <P> We got onto the Rolex topic because, let's face it, an ostentatious show of wealth is important to some folks. Sometimes that means a Rolex; sometimes it means a Leica M. In the first case it has little or nothing to do with telling time, and in the second case little or nothing to do with taking pictures.<P> If I could find a rangefinder and lenses that gave the same results as Leica, and lasted as long - and for a lot less money - I'd buy them. (Too bad Casio doesn't direct their efforts toward this.) (Although I am still considering the Hexar. It's the contentious question of M-lens compatibility that gives me pause.)<P> But back to the question at hand: It's easy to pick out a favorite Leica shooter - because most of the shooters of note use(ed) Leica. My favorites include Ralph Gibson, William Eggleston, Gueorgui Pinkhassov . . . and a newer name (and girlfriend of Trent Parke), <a href=http://www.in-public.com/autiofolio.html> Narelle Autio</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joaquim_mota Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Vey easy: André Kertész,H.C.B.,S. Salgado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Doug, I'm not really intested in Rolexes, but thanks for the link to some nice work and providing some photographer's names- That was the reason for the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Sorry to tread on your thread Ray - guess I did . . . <I>digress</I> there for a moment. I always like these "favorite photographer" threads - invariably I find new names, as well as having the opportunity to flog my current favorites and discoveries. Thanks. 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