paulstenquist Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I use my Pentax LX as much as I use my Leica. In fact, if it's a shot I really need to nail, I use the LX with its 5 fps motor drive and off the film metering. Of course my Leica is a screwmount IIIf, so it's not quite in competition with you wealthy fellows and your M's :-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Matt, you have to write in the HTML code for each link. <a href=www.cinematography.com>like this</a> <a href=www.steadicamforum.com>and this</a> <a href=www.olga.net>and finally, this</a> <I>Then</I> select the HTML option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 ...and the HTML code is: <a href="address">"your title"</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I aquired Godfrey's Leica (and his lenses) a long time ago! <grins>, but I still shoot with my Hasselblads, although not for everyday stuff. I suppose I'd start using my wifes EOS Rebel Sii. Small, light, quiet, good lenses. Not as "in your face" as the EOS 5's have been for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Forget it, Ray. Neither Jeff nor Brad nor Grant gives a rat's a*s for the opinion of anyone outside of their clique. They finish each other's jokes, speak in shorthand, and drop in occasionally to mock these proceedings. They are a self-licking ice cream cone. The irony that the only forum on this site that allows such free-form discussion and such liberal picture posting privilges happens to be the Leica forum seems to continually escape their notice. Likely, as you pointed out, because it doesn't suit their arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?q=evil+empire&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=">"microsoft"</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 whoa! it worked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 If i could not use contax, I'd use leica, if i couldn't use leica ... i'd find some way to use contax :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 <I>The irony that the only forum on this site that allows such free-form discussion and such liberal picture posting privilges happens to be the Leica forum seems to continually escape their notice.</I><P> Kevin why are you so rude to me? Your tiny rant aside, can you further elaborate on your quote above? I'm having a difficult time understanding it. Am I violating some privileges with respect to picture posting? What is the irony you refer to?<P> In general, you should try and lose the anger. One more time, why are you so rude to me? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Guys, Im only asking for a camera brand next to youe Leicas. If you have one, state it. If you don't, see what others are using .. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 travis- I am not sure what it is about photo.netters, but they sure love a good contraversy, even when there isn't one. Sucks that your post got thrown to the "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" BS. It's high and mighty, I guess people feel like they are a "real" photographer by saying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Sorry, Brad. I unfairly lumped you in with Grant and Jeff. Now that I think about it, it's usually Grant who's been interjecting the "ZZzzzz's" and other assorted juvenile comments into otherwise amiable discussions. But I should know better than to get involved with this sort of stuff by now, so again, my apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayton_p._strickland1 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 My Olympus XA. It's the one camera that hasn't gotten traded for something else in the past 16 years (Canon T-90, Nikon F-5, Nikon N90s, Canon EOS-3). Or my trusty Nikon D100 just back from three weeks at the Nikon farm in Melville or my newly aquired Nikon F-4S. The more mechanical the better. The less LCDs, menues, etc., to deal with, the better. But for me, batteries are not a problem. Sorry, just had to say that. As a side note, my 5-year-old granddaughter and I went on a short photo safari with her 2-year-old sister the other day, all three of us with cameras. She kept asking to see the picture on the back of my M-6ttl (I usually have the D100 or my Oly 5050 with me). I told her that was the fun of photography, the waiting game and practicing so you aren't disappointed.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 i think the difference between what most of you are talking about and what grant is talking about when the subject of camera equipment comes up is this: (and it shows in the way travis asked the question...."if not this camera, then what camera") which to me is implying that the camera is at the top of your artistic pyramid of decision making, that eventually leads to the final image........and the reason, the impetus, the need, the desire..........the aesthetics are secondary............equipment then aesthetics. That is what i believe your order of priority in taking a picture is..........at least that is what i "read between the lines", the implied thought i hear, when you talk "gear". grant implies that the aesthetics should come first......the reason, the impetus, the need, the desire............and that is what should be talked about more often. Yeah, gear has to come in there, and i know grant does not dismiss gear lightly........but it is just a tool. Anybody with enough money (or credit) can buy the best camera that the equipment manufacturers can make. Understanding how to use the equipment and the differences between seemingly like hardware is also relatively easy to see and learn about...........and is probably why it is so often talked about...........it's easy to do. Aesthetics on the other hand.........as noted above........can be incorporated into a picture with the cheapest piece of crap on the market.....a throwaway cam......... BUT........that is not so easy to discuss, is it? But it should be.........it is what makes the difference.......not a hassy or a leica......but a "sight" that can do what it wants, 90% of the time, with the camera that is presently available........the technical may not be perfect, but if the aestheticsof the image are......it really doesn't matter..........i can think of a few Masters of Photography that prove that point. I guess the arguement could go on forever........but......what would be more beneficial to discuss..........leica lens quality over Nikon..............or, how do you make an image say "wet"....or "sorrow"....or "joy".....heartache, loss, love........or just that this is what i saw today that caught my eye......and make it interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Actually, I'm honored to be lumped in with them! You may not like their directness, but you'll be miles ahead considering their thoughts and views if your real goal is to improve your photography. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 "grant implies that the aesthetics should come first......the reason, the impetus, the need, the desire............and that is what should be talked about more often. Yeah, gear has to come in there, and i know grant does not dismiss gear lightly........but it is just a tool........"<p><b>WE KNOW THIS ALREADY! WE'VE GRADUATED! NOT SECOND GRADERS! SUCH SIMPLISTIC BS! HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ALL ARE???? IS THIS SOME PROFOUND IDEA HE INVENTED? TELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW IT! GET A CLUE! IT'S NOT TRAVIS YOU WANT!</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Ray . whats with the space and dot........anyhow? i can only comment with regard to what i read on this site........the majority of the discussions revolve around equipment. assuming you are correct, that you all know it..................why not discuss the aesthetics at least 50% of the time vice the present 3% (a guess)............ i'm not "after" anybody...........least of all travis.........it's just grant was questioning why so much talk about equipment, and not aesthetics (in his own "gruff" manner ;o)...........and i was asking the same thing in my much more eloquent manner ;o) so...........why is it that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Thomas, thanks for your input. If I'd wanted to discuss about the Art of seeing and nothing else, I'd start a thread on it. If I ask a simple question for the brand of a gear that you guys'd use besides Leica, Im looking for some brands of camera as answers and not some lectures. It's like asking XYZ: "If MAcdonald's is out, what would you rather have to eat?" TO which XYZ would say : "F*** U! It's about filling your stomach! WHo gives a shit what food!" True. But those who are interested to know could just name the F***ing food and that's about it. You think majority of us don't already know that food will fill one's stomach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Thomas, I'm all for discussing aesthetics. I've discussed it. Travis has discussed it. I've discussed it with Travis, Andrew, Beau, and others here. I agree plenty of people need to hear Grant's viewpoint. I just don't think Travis is one of them. And he's already heard it. Just read what I've written above before my response to you, if you want. I'm too tired of this argument to repeat it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choen Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 travis, you really started a monster here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 btw, the space dot at the end of my name is a way I could technically list my first name without including my surname.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Brad, "directness" isn't the issue to me, the constant rudeness is. FWIW, I like Grant's photography, but if, as he says, the vision and the picture itself are all that matter, then he should take his own advice and let them do the talking for him; they do a better job, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Can someone teach me how to paint? Ray? Marc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Travis, just buy a lot of painting gear and it'll come to you. It's about the image. Aesthetics rule. I prefer natural bristle brushes verses synthetic ones. I always buy raw canvas to prep and stretch myself...only old ladies buy prestretched ones. I mix my own pigments with various mediums, tubes are for pussies. The best way is to use no gear at all. Just your hands, pigment and a surface that won't rot . Watch out, Thalo blue stains your fingers like a mother f**ker. And there is one of the reds that is a deadly poison, so don't pick your nose or lick your fingers. Cadmium colors are all poisonous, but they'll just make you puke. Which is okay if you puke on the canvas. It's quite colorful when the Cadmium colors mix with last night's dinner. Good luck, post some results when ready...if you're still among the living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Marc, ever thought of setting up your Online Painting Class? If instructional lectures are placed on web, Im sure there are many people like me would like to try it out, step by step. It takes a photographer to teach another? ;) DO consider. 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