lawrence_beck1

Lawrence Beck,

Pacifica, California

"Anyway, Jim Brit, your site address is not working or is a false

one. Thought you'd like to know."

Try: jimbrittphoto.com for some "heavyweight images".

Lawrence

"It's bad enough that we're getting all of these desaturated b&w

photos, now we're treated to digital art too?" By this comment,

Mr. Travis, you imply that there is such a thing as "digital art". In

fact You state it !

"Are we ready for the future? Digital can be art as well?" You are

such a provincial "wannabe" that you don't realize that English is

not Mr. Jordan's first language... that by asking "Digital can be art

as well? " Jordan meant "Can digital be art as well?"

This went in one ear and out the other, Mr. Travis. SEE SPOT

RUN. Capish?

Learn to read before you critique. That Jordan has a better

sense of composition than you is no reason to get your

bloomers ruffled! I don't remember reading anywhere on this

forum that I had to enter your "exclusive club" of Republican

Leica owners by submitting my images for your approval. I

wrote in my previous post: "Jordan asked a question, posted

some images, and you arrogantly replied that he should take a

community art course. I might suggest you do the same as I

found all but his sky manipulation far more interesting and

artistic than anything I've ever seen you post." My opinion. And

probably the opinion of many on this forum...

"So before you critique either of us and have me take your

seriously, I need to know more about your background, beside

your ostentatious display of ignorance and ill breeding." When

did you become the director of this forum, Glenn? I didn't realize

I had to answer to you before I was privileged to post on your

forum. Suggest you make that clear, in the future... as I wouldn't

be reading this forum if I knew the moderator were a lemur.

Digital will replace you, Mr. Travis... as you are clueless.

very sincerely yours,

Dear Mr. Travis,

You obviously have a very inflated opinion of yourself. Jordan

asked a question, posted some images, and you arrogantly

replied that he should take a community art course. I might

suggest you do the same as I found all but his sky manipulation

far more interesting and artistic than anything I've ever seen you

post.

Jordan asked:

"Are we ready for the future? Digital can be art as well? Why most

digital manipulated photos look so "shouting"?"

How and where does this imply that he's created art? And why

the chip on your shoulder?

L.Beck

Patrick,

The Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II you mention is a 2820 dpi film

scanner. How do you figure this is a "higher dpi" scanner than

the Canon or Nikon... both of which are 4000 dpi scanners?

<p>

Lawrence

Jason,

If you feel the need to ask that question after shooing Leica for

"well over 35 years" and you need others to tell you whether you'd

be better off with a Pentax, or something else... I think you've

answered your own question.

<p>

This forum is filled with testimonials. Read them. But if, after 35

years, you need the "forum" to make up your own mind... you'd

probably feel better with an other marque. Best of luck.

<p>

Lawrence

Excellent answer, Ralph. Sounds like you are speaking from

experience. Your analogy is most appropriate.

<p>

A distinction should be made between "fine artists" and

"comercial artists" with respect to agents. I don't mean to imply

that commercial artists produce work that is any less "fine"... as

the word is defined. Rather, "fine artists" generally produce work

as a manifestation of their need for creative expression

irrespective of the needs of the client. They produce... because it

does their heart good... and if someone likes the work and buys

it , that's the ultimate compliment.

<p>

The commercial artist, be they fashion, product, architectural or

whatever... is producing something for the market. There are

lots of agents for commercial photographers. They find you work

based on the potential they see in your book. There are some

excellent ones... and there are some "dogs that won't hunt." The

latter poses as a legitimate rep when in reality, as Ralph

implied, they only represent artists who have established name

recognition and a "credible client base." In short, they are little

more than high priced order takers. Try the Artist's Market and

The Photographer's Market for starters. These books are

updated annually and can be found in most chain bookstores.

<p>

Case in point: I was referred to an agent some years ago by a

friend who couldn't believe that I was having trouble finding

markets for my work (the common dilemma of the fine artist...) I

set up an appointment with a rep and the big day arrived.

<p>

She entered my apartment dressed in a dark brown polyester

jacked covered with dandruff. She stood transfixed... looking at

the 50x60" pieces of African Wildlife, dunes from the Namib and

colorful architectural pieces from Central America... all framed in

exotic hardwoods from all over the world. She finally asked:

"Where have you been hiding? Why haven't I heard of you? This

is the kind of work I'd buy if I could find it!"

<p>

I told her that I hadn't put it out there... apart from a gallery in

Carmel. CA. and San Francisco. When I told her this... she

changed her tune. I asked her what her fee was. She

responded with: "I normally charge 25%, but for you... it would

have to be more like 40% because you're an "unknown

commodity" and it's going to be much harder to sell your work!"

<p>

She required five portfolios and mailings to send out to potential

clients. I asked for her advice as to which images she'd like to

see in my portfolios (so as to "tailot the books to her market

needs) and her response was "Well, if I give you that information,

I'll have to charge you a consulting fee!"

<p>

With that, I showed her to the door and all but booted her into the

street. Apologies for the lengthy answer... but this is your "reality

check."

<p>

Lawrence

Joel,

Pick up a Zig-Align system (found in ads in Outdoor

Photographer). It consists of a glass plate which fits in your

enlarger in lieu of the negative carrier. You then place a round

mirror with a hole in the center and a 45 degree mirror attached

to the circle, which reflects the image seen through the center

hole of the mirror. On the enlarger baseboard, you lay another

6x9" mirror directly under the circular mirror (which again, is on

the glass plate in the neg stage).

<p>

As you look at the image reflected in the 45 degree mirror, you'll

see a set of concentric rings which will tell you precisely in which

direction your enlarger is out of alignment. When adjustments

have been made (by adding shims under the rectangular base

surrounding the center post of the enlarger), all of the concentric

circles will be perfectly centered... one inside the other. Your

center to edge focus will be vastly improved and you'll have

images worthy of your V35.

<p>

All of the items I mentioned are included in the Zig-Align system.

I bought mine 15 years ago, from Wm Ziegler himself, and it

works like a charm.

<p>

Lawrence

I am rather amazed and disappointed in the lack of common

sense this group has contributed to this "pursuit of magic-old vs

new". Not a single person has mentioned that the beautiful "old"

Leica images were shot with Kodachrome X, or 25, or 64... or

possibly Agfachrome. The "look" of the image has much to do

with the color palette of the film... and less to do with the

improved sharpness/contrast or lack of "bokeh" that so many of

you mention.

<p>

If you doubt this logic for a second... take a roll of Velvia (reality

on steroids) or Provia 100F (if you can stand the green cast) and

shoot a roll of this with a new lens, and a roll with the 50's or

60's vintage glass you speak so highly of. You will find that both

sets of images will leave you very little to gripe about. They'll

both look rather shitty.

<p>

Take the same images on Kodachrome (or even Astia... if you

want a higher asa with the best color fidelity any modern color

slide film can achieve) and you will have that "look" most of you

seemingly covet.

<p>

Fuji did an interesting study while Velvia was being designed...

they asked pro's and amateurs what they wanted in a film: true

color fidelity or more saturation... ( and more vibrant colors)?

The group responded "truer color fidelity." But Fuji didn't stop

there. They next sent out two prints: one with the most accurate

color they were capable of producing and the other with colors

so vibrant they jumped off the printed page. With these prints

they asked "Which one do you prefer?" Guess which one won?

Velvia was born and a film which was designed for product

shots was quickly adopted by photographers (their numbers are

legion).

<p>

I am constantly amazed at the photographers who wax effusively

about the incredible color fidelity of Velvia. They don't have the

creative eye or talent to achieve beautiful composition with films

like Kodachrome or Astia... so they shoot Velvia in their attempt

to let garish color do all the talking. Personally I hate the look of

modern films. Hyperrealism leaves me cold.

<p>

Do yourselves a favor and shoot some Kodachrome (before it

disappears) in early morning or late afternoon light. If you truly

appreciate the qualities of what you all claim to be "old Leica

glass as opposed to new", you will be so pleasantly surprised

that you will never go back to the hyperrealistic garbage which

passes for slide film today. You will also find that the new Leitz

APO glass will blow your minds in the way it renders color with

Kodachrome.

<p>

One final note: buy several rolls of Kodachrome and test one roll

with a grey card (along with a white and black card on either

side. KR-64 has a tendency to be green when it is first released.

As it ripens (outside the refrigerator, please...), it will become

neutral. Later... it will shift toward magenta as it grows old.

Shoot some flowers close up with a neutral roll and you will have

the color you miss in the old Leica Fotografie magazines.

<p>

If Ernst Haas could only speak...

Stefan,

Pick up a Shutterbug and look for Jim Kuehl in the midwest. His ad is

near the back of the magazine... near the Leica classifieds. He's

always been the fairest with me... and I've tried most of them. Some

of the clasifieds in Shutterbug might also be worth looking into.

<p>

Lawre

Allen,

I once had this problem with an old winder for an R-3. I took a foam

packing pellet and pinched a small piece off and wedged it between the

battery and the battery housing. Test this while the camera is

horizontal. If you've done it correctly, you'll have no problem when

you turn the camera to a vertical orientation. It simply keeps the

batteries from sliding back and forth when the springs get lazy.

<p>

Good luck, Lawr

I have done extensive testing with the 560mm Telyt and would like to

know how it compares to the new 560mm 4.0 modular telephoto. Any

comparitive advice would be appreciated. In addition, how does the

560 4.o compare to the latest Canon and Nikon 600mm lenses?

<p>

Thanks, Lawre