jesse_hutton

Robert,

 

I frequent this site very rarely nowadays, because it is usually far less interesting than this. You've really provoked an interesting discussion (totally unintentionally, I gather). Personally, I'd like to thank you for posting the pictures, because I've learned a lot from them, from my own reaction to them, and from reading this thread.

 

I don't know how you do it, but there is something very honest in them. To us, the viewers, the subjects are pathetic, especially for those who cry about the shots being insensitive, inhumane, and exploitative. You show the people as they are and you do it with courage (like a lot of your shots, that have now been deleted from your folder). In the pictures, they are neither happy nor sad, neither cowardly nor valerous. They are human like us. I think the pics are really good, and the more I look at them, the more I'm endeared to their subjects.

 

I only hope that the people who jumped on you for showing these examine their own reactions to them and feel with some shame how inhumanely they have treated the subjects by looking at them as they do (and how hard them must treat themselves and others on a daily basis). I can only imagine how one of the subjects might feel after reading this thread. And, why???... Because many people on this forum are fu*ks (like most other places). I wouldn't blame you one bit if you didn't return after seeing this display. I am glad I got to see some of your stuff here, though.

I don't know of any Leica shops in that area, but there is a Nikon shop that's about half a block away, right across le Boulevard St. Michel on la Rue Saint Jacques. They do B&W processing there, too, IIRC. As far as color processing goes, I've gone to a few places in Paris (not atypical places, either, just neighborhood shops) and have been very pleased. Frankly, the average color prints from labs in Paris (and I've heard it's Europe in general) put to shame the ones you get here in the states. I don't know why they seem to do such a better job...

Actually...

 

I really do like the last one, as well. I guess I'm ambivalent about it.

 

In any case, great photo.

I still like the all black and white one best, Kristian. The color tries are interesting, but ultimately distracting to my eye when all is said and done.

 

There is so much in the photo that draws one's attention, such as the parents' hands, the positions of their bodies, the journal...and the fact that their heads are cut off works great here, because it only accentuates the child.

 

There's somehow a balance and a tension there that is broken with the addition of color, IMO.

An excellent and very interesting picture, Kristian. I actually like the non-colored one more, and feel that if anything should be in color in the second one, it should be the boy.

Amazing! Especially Ray's and Kevins H's.

Nice pictures, guys. I've enjoyed this thread.

ha!

 

location?

Cool, it worked! It actually didn't take very much pressure at all -- I had just decided not to force it when I realized that it wouldn't go as easily as it normally does.

 

Thanks, Fazal.

...when you (accidentally) advance the film a few too many frames past

the supposed number of shots in the roll (since it's a 24 and not a

36, like you had believed); the advance lever gets stuck; the shutter

won't fire because the films not all the way advanced; and the little

rewind lever won't go peacefully to the side so you can just wind it

all up and be done with it?

Michael, I think you're referring to M. Jordain of _Le Bourgeois gentilhomme_, and the thing that is funny about the play is that here was a bourgeois guy who learned rediculous facts, wore rediculous clothes, and did rediculous things all so that he could become a "gentilhomme." However, he only succeeded in making an idiot out of himself, and it's quite funny. In a way, the piece is a commentary on pretentiousness, but it's also simply a comedy that pokes fun the bourgeois for their stupidity and envy of the aristocracy.

 

I saw a wonderful production of it in Paris two Septembers ago.

Come on! Those are not the only two OS's out there. I use Debian Linux at home. If I were going to purchace some new hardware I'd definately get a PowerBook G4 w/ OSX, and I'd dual boot that with Linux (cause Linux runs on Apple hardware too).

Roger,

 

What you say may be true enough, but you have to remember that the German economic model is much different than our own. When you go investing in a German company, you should not expect the quickest and highest returns on your money, especially today when they seems to be facing some problems. They generally have a much longer-term approach to investing and building value, and they compete in 'quality competitive' markets--high production costs, high quality, and high price tags (as any leica lover knows).

 

It's pretty amazing that are surviving at all in the 21st century, considering the competetion they're facing from cheaper camera makers and the whole move towards digital (which they are missing out on). And, I commend them for it, because I love the equipment they make and think it would be a shame if they ever stopped producing it. But, your point is clear that they won't attract a lot of eager international capital with those returns. Personally, I hope they never relax their production standards just to increase their profit margins and to satisfy the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am investors that only want to turn a quick buck and then take their money somewhere else. That would definately be bad for Leica cameras IMHO.

That's a really complex chain of conflicting interests you show there, Kelly. Every scientist has an immediate conflict of interest if he is being paid to work, and that leads him to search for conclusions that will result in a call for addition similar studies, since, naturally, he is living off such studies. Thanks for pointing that out...

 

Screw gas guzzling automobiles and industries that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels--the real money is in climate change studies!!!

I'm reminded of a 'group' discussion I had recently in a class. There were two people that had some particularly pessimistic perspectives (perspectives that are largely associated with the left, incidently) on the subject we were discussing, which was globalization and liberal market economies vs. controlled marked economies. It was almost as if they saw a sort of armageddon scenario coming about. However, their arguments simply ignored the facts of the matter (which were supplied by the readings we were supposed to have done) to such a point that it their beliefs were basically based on whatever people deem as "common knowledge" about the subject and some kind of faith that they apparently allowed them to predict the future. When I questioned them about the bleakness of their outlook, one respnded "I just try not to think about it too much." That is the state of politics, for most people.

 

I think that photography has a great deal of political relavence. It's a form of speech and expression--two things that are indispensable for democracy. Admittedly, it's difficult to focus on that aspect in a forum like this, because most people seem to be more interested in the technical nature of pictures here than in their content or relationship to the world (and they're too damn defensive about their own politics). But, that doesn't change the fact that politics (not party-partisan politics--social relations) is an extremely integral aspect of images making (and viewing).

Jeffrey,

 

The greatest risk we face as a nation from the threat of terrorist attacks comes from the willingness of the terrorists who commit those acts. If there are people who are fanatical, desperate and enraged enough, they will find a way, as 9/11 unfortunatly illustrates. In light of that, invading Iraq is one of the worst things we could do, especially if it is without the consent of the UN. I realize that most pro-war people would claim that we would just be "backing down to terrorism," and legitimizing it, but that is not the case. Not going to war is the right thing to do, because not only are there effective ways of dealing with Iraq without bombing it (continued inspections and what ever other remedies the UN can come up with), but the very act of invading it simply adds more fuel to the fire of terrorist willingness. Therefore, we are chosing a very costly remedy (for all partys involved) to a problem, and it is simply going to make this very problem worse in the long run. Common sense argues against this kind of action, though I know it's exactly the sort of short-term fix that looks great for politicians and other short-sighted folks who will feel better for a brief moment.

 

"if the UN does not live up to its obligations, then the U.S. and her allies must act without explicit UN sanction."

 

I would argue that the UN is precisely living up to it's obligations: it's trying to ensure a peaceful solution to an international conflict. It is not meant to be the organization of rubber stamp aproval for what ever intentions the US Administration du jour happen to be. I also don't think that it's absurd that France has veto power in the UN; they have consistently been a strong advocate in the construction of the UN, the EU, and in the larger international community. There's no doubt that the fact that they can't stop US action like this irks them, but one cannot explain all international relations by whatever personal jealousies and frustrations one wants to attribute to any of the various actors. And, there is more to the position against a US war with Iraq than one's simple distaste for American unilateralism.

 

"However, it never ceases to amaze me how the left in this country is so quick to condemn human rights abuses committed by right-wing dictatortships...but are characteristically silent on human rights abuses committed by leftist regimes..."

 

Nobody is failing to condemn the human rights abuses of Iraq. What I was suggesting was that this criterion is wholly inadequate for justifying or understanding US actions. If anything, as I implied with the example of Turkey, our support for nations with respect to this notion is so unbalanced that it makes a mockery of itself. However, that is not to say that it's not extremely important. We _shouldn't_ support any country that has serious serious human rights violations. But, as a justification for war, it is simply insufficient, and surely when the party wanting to invoke this justification is seemingly breaking international law in what is sure to be a high civilian casualty war, and applies the concept so "selectively" in the first place (to the point where shows no real committment to it). About leftist selectivism: it's funny because I always assumed that people on the right weren't interested in human rights abuses unless there was conquest to be done and money to be made...By the way, I completely agree with you about the seriousness of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor--it just poped into my head as an example, and I wrote it, but I admit that it was rather serious (even approaching genocide, as you well know) and perhaps a valid comparison with Nazi Germany if one ignores the difference of scale. But, note that the US suported Shuarto throughout the whole thing!

 

"I believe Colin Powell amply laid out the case in this regard. Those who chant the "let-the-inspections-work" mantra would not believe Saddam had WMDs if Colin Powell brought a captured cylinder of VX nerve agent and laid on the floor of the Security Council."

 

That's not an excuse. They need to offer up some proof that he has the weapons before they (I mean the Administration) decide to attack Iraq. Perhaps the weapons inspectors could be used to verify any claims to WMD's? That is their job after all.

 

"But the other SC members knew full well what "serious consequences" meant."

 

It's language that was a compromise between the two sides. It does NOT authorize the use of force, even if it does mention "serious consequences." The logical next step is to decide on an action from within the UN. As I already stated, I don't think asking for another security resolution authorizing force will work, but that is what is necessary if one wants to invoke the authorization of the UN for this war.

 

The whole idea that the US alone has the right to be cop, judge and executioner is understandably offensive. It just doesn't work in an international system, and it should never be allowed to operate where leaders (one man in our case) can weild this power so wreaklessly (which is not in the constitution) and exempt from all accountability. I, however, remain optimistic and hope that you're wrong and that war is not inevitable. It would be a merical it if were avoided, but one can still hope...

Wow, I'm surprised, but I like the color version much more. There's only a few main colors, and that helps, I think. Usually I prefer black and white, but the tones in the B&W don't work too well for me (that's usually the case with lots of green stuff--trees, grass and such).

I shouldn't have said that "Iraq _will not attack us_." I'm certainly no expert on what they will or will not do, nor am I clairvoyant. I should have said "the likelyhood of Iraq attacking us is so small as to be laughable."

"The comparison with Hitler is certainly apposite: both are (and were) mass murderers--often of their own people--with expansionist policies (remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait)."

 

One had the means and, in fact, _did_ take over most of Europe, and one invaded a small neighboring country that is perhaps the size of Rhode Island, and to which there is allegedly some "historical right" to...By this account we should include Indonesia with the comparison to Nazi Germany for having invaded East Timor, and, ohh, how about _ourselves_ for having invaded the Philippines and Panama, just to name a couple examples. Nobody is saying that Saddam hasn't killed his many of his own people, but just take a look at our buddy Turkey, which is right next to Iraq. They have a very large Kurdish population that has suffered a greater amount of killing and persecution from the Turkish government than those in Iraq have from Saddam. Oh, and Turkey invaded Cyprus, so they too have expansionist policies and should be included in the comparison (and maybe the axis of evil?)...

 

"If you really believe the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction simply because Inspector Hans "Clouseau" Blix and his hundreds of inspectors roaming around a country the size of California can't find them, then I have a really fine bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."

 

Well, you seem to know that they do. Why not prove it? Has the value of _proof_ become so depreciated? There were inspectors in Iraq for most of the 1990's (up until 1998, I believe), and they were damn sure at the end of it that he had no weapons of mass destruction. Now there are inspectors there again, and that is the right path to take. It actually is quite difficult to make nuclear bombs and chemical & biological weapons. It takes a lot more than a mobile trailor and some chemistry equipment, so we can be pretty sure that they don't have the means to produce these things.

 

"As for changing the rules of law, international law is based on custom and useage and changes and evolves with the dynamics of the times. In the Middle Ages it..."

 

Look, what you are trying to describe with the Middle Ages has nothing to do with Law. Since WWII many people and countries have been trying to establish some international laws and institutions (ie. the creation of the UN) in order to help define what are acceptable actions. The whole point of having them is to avoid war. And _all_ countries have to play by the same rules. It's a basic moral principle ("do unto others...").

 

"And remember, UN Security Council resolution 1441 gave Saddam yet another "last chance" to disarm."

 

That security resolution was very careful NOT to authorize force, and the part about "serious consequences" was a compromise on the part of the other states to appease the US. Now, it doesn't look like Bush will try to go to the UN again, but even if he did, he probably will not get France's (who has veto power) vote. Germany is also a member of the security council now, and is against war. Now the message from the white house to the UN is, "give us your blessings and another resolution or risk becoming irrelavent," and there's all this talk about "going it alone." Neither International Law nor international opinion is on our side.

 

"Is it not better to neutralize him now than wait for a catastrophe to happen?"

 

I'm not saying that we should wait for a catastrophe to happen. I'm saying Iraq _will not attack us_. If you're so unsure, there is plenty we can do to prevent aggression against our country, such as improveing our internal security mechanisms and persuing policies that reduce tension in explosive regions like Israel. But, one has to draw the line somewhere before taking the army and openly invading another country.

Look at the facts, Jeffery. Iraq is so weak that it couldn't defeat Iran in over ten years of fighting, and that was _with the help of the US_. That was also before 10 years of sanctions. They have practically no military strength (except for the weapons of mass destruction that nobody can find...). It's really pathetic to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and your interpretation of the count of countries that are for an against us is a little one sided. Many smaller countries don't support the war, but their governments _must_ because the US says "or else".

 

This new geo-political world you suggest is a sham that you want to use to change the rules of law. In this new world, can you attack anyone just because you 'feel' threatened? That would be a worse world IMHO.

Hey Allen,

 

Drink much lately? Yeah, it's apparent that you are all for people dying of hunger, and we are all egotistical peace-lovers. Back in the real world, many leaders do terrible things, not just Saddam. If Bush decides to invade Iraq, a lot of inocent people will die, and it will be a terrible thing. Besides that, international law will be further eroded by US actions (another terrible thing), and social programs in our country will fall under more stress, another terrible thing (does your state too have a huge budget crisis thanks to Dubya? Is your state university losing 89 million in funding?). Your simplistic view that Saddam is an evil guy who would drop a nuke on us if he could only get his hands on one is rediculous, because he's obviously very much interested in his own self-preservation (as most people who are not wallowing in desperate hopelessness are), and such an act would easily provoke a war that he would lose (a war that none of us would then protest, by the way). You see, however, it's unlawful, unethical, and uncivil to invade a country because you don't like them (or because you want their oil). With the Administration's blatant contempt for the position of the international community and the UN, that is about what it amounts to. Your simplistic, paraniod view is exactly what the conservative media (and the Administration) wants you to believe, but it's still rediculous. Stop being a dupe, and get a clue...

Bob,

 

Why don't you try reading up a bit on the history of industrial relations? Protests, marches, strikes, etc. have been the main tool for protecting workers rights since industry began. But, the method is not limited to workers and unions. Maybe you should read a little about something called the civil rights movement? Events like these helped win equal rights for minorities in our country... Mr. Chong.

 

There are quite a lot of examples that illustrate how valuable civil protest is, and plenty of literature that is peer reviewed/university press/academic journal stuff. Civil protest pretty much our _only_ form left of direct democratic action, so yeah, it's important.

 

Are you really that bad of a troll or just a friggin _moron_?

 

Cheers,

Jesse

Michael,

 

I find the third one the most successful. It's a nicely composed and interesting portrait. The subjects body position and expression suggests nicely the vibe he has, and it even gives me an impression of the kind of music he would play. Frankly, I didn't even notice the flash spot until I read the above post, but it still doesn't bother me too much. It's bright, but not overpowering, and it actually creates some general tonal contrast in the shot IMHO (as well as those nice shadow effects on his face and body).

 

On the other hand, I like the second shot the least. It's just not a very interesting image, and the composition leaves the question of what it's supposed to be about. I might like the first one more if there weren't those image distortions...

 

Jesse

Daniel,

as is sounds like you're not on an unlimited bugdet, it makes a whole lot more sense to buy used. Last fall I bought a used M6 classic and a very nice 50mm summicron (last generation, w/focusing tab) for about $1750. That would leave you with $250 for film and you'd be shooting right away. You can find good deals on *bay, and even refund guarantees, but be careful. I got a great piece of equipment, so I have no gripes there, but it's still a gamble to buy before you can examine and test.

 

Another thing to pay attention to is what Pete said a few threads down. According to him (and apparently a very reputable leica repair person) the serial #'s ranging from 174xxxx to 178xxxx are the most solid M6's due to their production maturity at that point and cost cutting measures that were implimented afterwards.

I completely detest all those gaudy pictures that are posted with the subject being "IS THIS GOOD BOKEH!?" I might even throw up next time I see one.