boris c umanso

"thank you for not "responding" to me anymore."

No need for thanks, it'll be a pleasure.

"And exactly why is that different from "endless variations on the same camera" like I

said?"

My original comment was in response to the suggestion that the M6 was an example of

"true innovation". Which it clearly isn't. Go back and reread the thread and all will become

clear...

The similarities actually are there. Don't forgot the uproar when Apple changed the

beautiful brass

casting of the original iPod to the cheap zinc of the MiniPod, only to return to classic brass

for the

iPod

nano. I also hear strong rumors that the Apple faithful are fed up with their quad-core

Mac Pros, and that, in response, Steve Jobs is preparing to re-release the classic Apple II

as

the Mac Pro MP. It'll have a zillionth of the functionality of the present Mac Pro, but it'll be

twice the price and available in a range of beautiful a-la-carte animal skin finishes.

"self-timer, brass top plate, hot shoe, finder flare, script engraving, M syc post ..."

Not a single thing that alters the basic form and functionality of the camera to a

photographer; the problem of "finder flare" is an online myth - even if it appears a slight

shift in view cures it. An M6 really is just an M4 with a meter, just as an M4 is just an M2

with...

"true innovation didn't not happen for 15 years until the M5 in the early 1970's and then

the M6 in the mid 1980's"

The M6 was innovative? My M6s are just M4s with not

especially

good meters. Am I missing something?

"we are talking about tendencies and trends, not whether there are examples to support

either point of view. No one's talking about a golden era, just evolutionary changes over

time"

In the words of Jean-Baptiste: "Nowadays, people buy a camera, and thank's to digital,

shoot and shoot and shoot again. In the older days, when films were expensives, people

really cared about commiting themselves". He began with the example of the former-

Yugoslavia (hardly ancient history) and contrasted it to "nowadays". It's perfectly

reasonable to conclude that he's asserting that there've been radical and recent changes

for the worse.

"so the thing that is ridiculous (and mildly offensive) is to suggest that Jean-Baptiste is

promoting a myth"

I'm not attributing the (all too frequently referenced) myth of the "golden era" to J-B,

although I do think he's trying to reinforce it. There's nothing remotely ridiculous (or

offensive) in highlighting the difficulty in standing up the assertion of a former era of

integrity - it's a discussion forum.

"individual examples aren't at issue here"

Individual examples are useful in any debate.

"That brings up an interesting point though. Why haven't photojournalists covering Iraq

been more vocal (in the U.S. anyway) about the restrictions and censorship they've had to

deal with?"

They have. Michael Kamber has recently highlighted the added difficulties (releases

needed from wounded soldiers, no identifiable pictures of Americans killed in action) for

photographers working there. You can see some of his very strong recent work here:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/05/22/world/

20070523_SEARCH_FEATURE.html

"One wonders if many of them haven't allowed themselves to be marginalized out of the

fear of losing what limited access they do have, and therefore destroying their careers."

The reality is that very few established photographers have been working consistently in

Iraq since the days of the initial invasion. A small number of photographers, like Yuri

Kozyrev, have established their careers with ongoing work there. As to the threat of

"destroying their careers", speaking out against censorship comes a poor second to the

destructive properties of roadside devices and high velocity rounds. People have spoken

out, the problem is that very few people sitting at home have chosen to listen.

"One might argue that this suggests there is a tendency to avoid truly "commiting

themselves to record something they thought really valuable."

One might argue that, but only from the comfort of a nice safe armchair back in the USA.

"Photography is a commitment, let's not forget that, and let's ourselves face this fact and

take responsability for it..."

Photography is whatever we want it to be. It might be a commitment. It might not.

The notion that there was a golden era in which photographers "really cared" is a

ridiculous myth. Some photographers "care", some don't. Do you think that, taking

Vietnam as an example, Philip Jones Griffiths and Sean Flynn were motivated by the same

feelings?

If anything there are more photographers working today that "care" than ever before. This

is because we live in the age of the (cheap and expendable) local stringer who is directly

rooted into the story. I don't believe that there are many Iraqi photographers who "thank's

to digital, shoot and shoot and shoot again" without a thought as to the implications of

their coverage.

"We need to celebrate Kodachrome and the idea of what it has brought to us in the last 72

years, period"

Actually, we don't "need" to "celebrate Kodachrome" or mourn its coming demise. If it

never existed photographers would have made great images with a different emulsion;

just as they'll make great images after it goes out of production. I like Kodachrome, but

fetishising film emulsions is on par with fetishising cameras, it misses the bigger picture -

images count, not the tools.

"I'm really interested in travel candid portraiture,expecially of exotic traditional country

people"

Maybe visit the "Steve McHurry Human Exotica Zoo" due to open next month in LA. You'll

not need your "90 degrees mirror", or 600mm lens, because all the exotic people are

tame;

the few that aren't have had their teeth and claws removed. Marvel at the replica Afghan

village! Gasp at the long-necked Karen tribeswomen! Smirk at the last known case of foot

binding! Snigger at the toothless Tausug sea bandit!

"What would you say?"

Bulldada....

Justification after the fact is never compelling. A dull old guy who made a crass error tries

to justify it as "art". Without the contempt for the child it would be amusing. With the

contempt it becomes sad for all parties.

"he used a purposely provocative title"

No he didn't. It's a case of nothing more than a dumb and insensitive old

guy not understanding the complexities of the world he lives in. Case closed.

"but you do agree that photographers use people all the time to convey an idea?"

Yes. In my first post I said: "A lot of photography (like many other things in life) is

inherently exploitative".

"If Riechmann would have called her "Little Venus" would you be all in a snit?"

Do you really not grasp the potential offense in titling an image, of a child you know

nothing about (and is unlikely to have the economic power to challenge you), Lolita? Would

you have an identical response to a photograph posted online of you with the title "Sweety

Pie" as you would to the very same photograph titled "Kiddie Fiddler"? Maybe you would,

but I doubt it.

"I look at him using her to convey an idea."

I look at him abusing her to convey an idea.

Is there any truth in the rumor that Hollywood is planning a musical remake of Herzog's

Fitzcarraldo

with Reichmann in the Klaus Kinski role and Paris Hilton replacing Claudia Cardinale?

Could be interesting.

For those without the inclination to click on Vivek's link, it refers to the recent papal

denunciation of Lego and pickled herring. His holiness, Pope Adolf XVI, recently declared

that the people of Denmark are: "Satans ambassadors on earth. A vile bunch of devil

worshipping, fish munching, death metal loving, modern day vikings."

For an introduction to the charming, if slightly dull, Danish port of Aarhus, read this:

http://www.visitaarhus.com/

It has absoluttely nothing to connect it to the issues raised by this thread, but as Mark U

has added a totally irrelevant link I thought we could all do likewise. I stayed at the

pleasant Scandic Plaza the last time I visited, but apparently the Hotel Royal is also very

nice.

"sounds like general sour grapes to me how some are so easily dismissive of someone

else's work"

Yeah, that's gotta be it. Straight down the line jealousy. Absolutelsy f@#$ all to do with a

sense of dignity and decency. I stand corrected.

Mike, reading Reichmann's comments I think it's safe to conclude he's just not a very

bright guy. He (ditto Rob) simply doesn't grasp that it's possible to both support freedom

of expression while simultaneously criticising somebody for their boneheaded actions.

"I couldn't find anything in Reichmann's description that described her as pregnant, so I'm

not sure that he's the one making that assumption"

Mike, a bit of googling reveals that on the Lightstalkers forum someone who emailed

Reichmann

expressing surprise at the caption claims to have received this response from him:

"given the fact that she looks to be about 13 years old and is pregnant, can you think of a

better name?...I photographed this young woman (girl) standing in a doorway. Her

posture, smile and gaze are at once provocative and innocent, and her beauty undeniable.

This was not posed, though she was obviously aware that she was being photographed.?

Creepy in the extreme.

It would be interesting to know what would happen if I posted a long lens picture of

Reichmann in the doorway of his home with the caption "Humbert Humbert". I think I'd

pretty quickly hear from his legal team demanding to know what gave me the right to

imply he had a sexual interest in children. His captioning of the dismal snap of the child is

just as inappropriate.

The criticism he's received has nothing to do with an attempt to censor his "art" (it's

difficult to imagine work less deserving of the tag) and everything to do with pointing out

that making crass value judgements on those disadvantaged by nothing other than a

geographical accident of birth deserves our contempt.

"If I had a teenage pregnant daughter who posed coquettishly at an unknown

photographer in view from a public place, I think my concern would be with her behaviour

in the first place in getting pregnant and with the person responsible for that, and

secondly in apparently not having learned the lesson"

But there's nothing to indicate that the child in Reichmann's dull snapshot actually is

pregnant. He appears to have made that assumption on the basis of nothing other than a

slightly distended stomach - there's no suggestion that he spoke to the child or her

parents. You don't need to be a specialist in tropical medicine to understand that there are

many other possible explanations than pregnancy.

A lot of photography (like many other things in life) is inherently exploitative to one

degree or another, but the image of a bunch of seedy, uninformed, old western guys,

cruising the Amazon while leering at "Lolitas" through their 400mm lenses turns the

sleaze factor up to a Spinal Tap eleven.

It's a pleasure Jeff. Also at Time, Tony Suau's take on things:

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2007/war_home/

"Maybe Leica's marketing department can persuade Mr. Bush to start another more

photogenic war"

Maybe your marketing department can tell us how the visual quality of a war, photogenic

or otherwise, has any impact on the technical quality of a digital file.

With should have some respect for any photographer who puts their life on the line in Iraq

(Dmitry Chebotayev, killed on Sunday, is the latest photographer to die there) but these

are very

ordinary photographs, and, given the low technical quality, not a great advert for Leica.

These recent photographs by Yuri Kozyrev weren't taken with a Leica, but they're worth

looking at:

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2007/kozyrev_qubah_multimedia/