ramig

Rob, that is just a proof that the same thing can be said in very different ways. Thanks for the

advice.

Dear Ken, I like the folder the way it is, with the mess it has. You can give any comment you

like, criticizing my photos, describing my poor photographic abilities, or just avoiding any

comment. In any case, for start, it is always a good idea to speak in the single, rahter than in

the plural. However, to be honest, I did not ask for any pedagogical comments, I am too old

for that. Next time, try to keep your rudeness relevant, please.

recently, I added pictures to my photo.net gallery. Although I hardly use my Leica bodies any more, I am

mostly using my R-D1 with Leica glass. Couple of years ago I posted here, on the Leica forum, a critique

request and the feedback were very helpful. I would highly appreciate comments, criticism, suggestions,

etc.

Thanks.

please note, if anybody is sensitive, some casual nude photos are in the link.

http://www.photo.net/photos/RamiG

(I posted a similar thread on the R-D1 rangefinder's forum, not knowing which is a more appropriate

location.)

congradulations! I love mine (R-D1, not s).

if you wish, check that link for an illustrated calibration instructions. Some generous guy did

it himself and posted instructions for the world to see. It is not complicated at all:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18901

I got many R-D1 photos on my portfolio, if you are interested:

photo.net/photos/RamiG

it will be very disappointing if Leica will change the rumoured price of 5000$ in the USA, but

I cannot say that it is absolutely unexpected. Leica tends to price their products just above

what one was willing to pay after deciding it is worth donating a kidney to buy a new product

; >) 6500$ leaves a lot of space for R-D2 and Zeiss or anybody else to compete on the

market. VC will certainly make a lot of profit from a decently priced 17mm lens. I was already

planning to place a deposit for the M8 but at 6500, if verified, I will keep on using my R-D1

and my 5D (with my M7) for a little longer. I hope the M8 will not be delayed as the M7 was.

john, so history is taught in Chile nowdays using the websites of the CIA? very critical-

highly intelectual! ;>) Shall we read some Pinochet as well? no, I was not claiming that

"missing" is much more than an American movie, which tried to present an important

historical event in a blockbuster.

Marcelo Pandolfo wrote:

"Yes, "Missing" is fiction, good fiction, but fiction. Like J.L. Borges stories, is dressed with

small particles of truth, just to make you doubt."

To follow the OT thread: "small particles of truth"?, indeed, there is a "story" (i.e. fiction)

on the personal level, in the "missing". It is indeed not a documentary. But that just to

make the real story told (Henry Kissinger's role in the millitary overturning of the

democratically ellected Salvador Allende, the role of the CIA and the pressure of american

firms located in Chille (forgot which, but still a major company) on the CIA to support the

Chillean army, the mass murders of opposition civilians in the stadium and elsewhere. If

you call all these "small particles of truth" then it seems that your being a Chilean does not

give you much command over your own history, as well as over the history of your far

neighbour in the north.

I don't see your point even in your "apples and mango". the D50 and the D2x are not that

different in image quality but in body buit. Yes, D2x has more pixels, but many prefer the

CCD in the D50/D70/R-D1 over the CMOS in the D2x or even in the D200. If you are

asking about lenses- (another German vs. non-German questions?) then I use my leica

lenses on the R-D1, which, as I said, have the same sensor as the D50 (was it an apple or a

mango? one, I guess, is suppsoed to be superior to the other). Bokeh? I like my Canon 85

1.2 very much, as well as the 135f/2, in that respect, better than some Leica M lenses.

Seriously, the difference is really about the style of shooting. That is why I use much my R-

D1 in the same way that I use my M bodies. The R-D1 clearly not as good as my Canon/

Kodak etc bodies, but it is a rangefinder. If Leica is not "better" will you stop using your

Leica?

David, although it is not my cup of tea I happened to hold the panasonic you are taking about

(the one that has a Leica version). You obviously did not. It is a full, and a very impressive,

metal body.

btw, as others have pointed out, I cannot help the original poster since I am a happy user of

non-German lenses, such as the Leica Summilux 75, (made in canada) which, I guess, is not

good enough for the poster. Guess a german digilux will do better.

Erik, on the rangefinder forum, in the R-D1 section there is an extremely helpful illustrated

thread on how to recalibrate the rangefinder. Don't send it back. you are likely to get the

same problem again. it is very easy to calibrate, I did it on two different bodies and I am not a

tech guy. Note that epson do not calibrate it themselves, they will simply send you a new

body. if you have only a focus problem with the camera you are risking yourself. BTW DAG

camera also calibrates Epson R-D1 rangefinder.

didn't notice the poll, anyhow, I believe most users of Leica are not regular members of this

or any other forum and many of them will buy one and can afford it. I am definitely going to

get one as soon as it comes out. presentily I am using the RD-1 almost exclusively (going to

get a second body) and leave home my Leica M7/M6ttl/M6ttl Kodak slr/c full frame and

canon 20D. after thinking of getting the canon's 5d I decided that I will use much more a

second RD-1.

Andrew Wrote:

I?m not worried about whether Francesca?s work is original or not. I am more concerned

that you have to talk in terms of ?accusation?. Gee, can?t someone make an observation

without someone else screaming ?J?accuse?! :)

Andrew:

sorry if I have insulted your values of a "decent polite conversation". However, that might

be the result of the fact that english is not first language for everybody writing on this

international forum. Probably, "criticism" would have been a better choice of words.

Bee,

Andrew said:

Personally speaking, I am uncomfortable with the amount of nudity in these pictures. I

would like to think that this is not because I am a prude but because I believe there needs

to be a valid reason for it. Sex sells, whether it's in art, advertising or whatever. To bare

her soul did she really need to take her clothes off? Is it that simple?

My points were: what does nudity have to do with sex?

and also: what is this thing about "taking off one's clothes"? I cannot see anything but

puritanism in being "uncomfortable by an amoung of nudity." What does Andrew mean by

a "reason" to take off one's clothes? Why the hell does anybody need a reason for that?

unless, of course, we think that there are good reasons NOT to do so. I cannot think of

such besides puritanism, of one version or another.

anyhow, I agree that taking off one's clothes need not make bad art into good art, but one

need not take one clothes off to be a bad artist. The act of exposing oneself, both

metaphorically and literally is very central to contemporary, as well as to art in most of the

recent history. It probably feels very personal to people and make them feel they are

sincere, which is somethign many artists are craving for. Of couse, as such, it is a mistake.

If someone is not a good artist, so getting naked, as well as talking about his childhood

experience, will not make him an artist but rather a candidate to show in some tabloid. I

don't think anybody thought that this is ALL there is in the work of the artist we discuss

here. The accusation was that it is not original, not that it is nothing but nudity.

Andrew,

what the hell does sex has to do with nudity? much of the actual sexual intercourse in the

world is done with cloth on, only glimps of nudity out there, not open to any third party's

point of view ; >) Much of nudity has nothing to do with sex. THere is nothing but

puritanism in being bothered by nudity, and it is so happened that America is among the

only places that one is likely to come across such view, although they are related to

puritan views that are associated with the three monoteistic religions. anyway, if you are

bothered by nudity avoid it. I find the amount of comments about such psychological

disturbances quit offensive, given that they are related to our own natural bodies, and to

many of us, are connected to our profession as photographers. (and although many of us

deal with nudity, as photographers, very few of us would ever be dealiing with sex as our

subject matter.)

I, for once, agree that I have seen much related work before. Anna Gaskel, Araki,

Moriyama, Nan Goldin, even recent Sally Mann (in fact, her still life work, more than her

earlier family work reminds of that). what is wrong with that? where did the absurd myth

that an artist has to be creative as if he is a tabula rasa and not influenced by other's work?

what other field, within or out of art is supposed to be like that? Most of the stupid art I

come across daily come exactly from people that are obsessed with being "original".

my take on her work is that I like some of the pictures, some I feel I have seen before,

some I don't like. In general I know of much more famos artists that I like much less of

their works. It does look to me a work that can easily be found in one of the great recent

(mostly European and japanese) photography magazines.

I have seen the exhibition last year in NY. It was the really a unique experience. Something

woth traveling for. the designs of the books are very beatutiful too and I bought few of

them, they are really little pieces of art themselves, but nothing like the very large prints. At

some stage I was wondering how the pictures were made, with people getting so close to the

animals (l was little worried since I don't like animals' abuse in art). The answer was very

comforting: very patiently- it took the photographer over 11 years to complete the project. I

am very much a contep' art lover etc, but this is clearly the most beautiful exhibition I have

ever seen in Chelsea.

Mark, that's true, however, the chips in those cameras are not made by Kodak. Prior chips

(14N model) were made by Kodak, to the best of my knowledge.I own the recent slr/C

14mp by Kodak in Canon mount and I love the clarity of the image much more than with

my canons. Kodak share philosophy with Leica in not using AA filters and finding

alternative software solutions for Moire and noise. From my use with the Kodak camera I

find that fact a very happy one. To me the use that Canon is doing with strong AA filters

turn any fantastic L lens into a decent but not great Sigma or Tokina lens. I believe the lack

of AA filter, and hopefully, a CCD rather than a Cmos, is essential to get the benefit of the

character of Leica glass. (I used R glass of Kodak and Canon and the difference is clear).

Leica's version of MP3 is called digilux ; >)

Owning only M6ttl and M7 I will leave a more serious answer to others.