Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I got two replies on my arguments for an M with automatic exposure of CLE-type: >It doesn't show the limitations of the M, it merely illustrates the lack of experience by the photographer in coping with the changing >scene and light and handling his camera! >Many of us shoot like this all the time and it takes practice and patients that eventually become skill. :) Yes Ted, handling the camera is important. But would you admit that the task is easier with automatic exposure? I saw an interview with one of the HCB printers, and he said that exposure seldom was spot-on... But this is the way it is with this type of shots. >To me it shows a sad state of affairs when editors think they know more >about making photographs than the photographer. ... in the HCB tradition >indeed! HCB eschewed the look of artifical light. Dennis, I thought so for a long time too. But a few years ago, I met the photographer in question (Lars Thunbjork) and he showed me a lot of shots from this assignment. The fill in flash turned out very well. Late afternoon street shots are often low contrast, and the flash gave so much more more impact to charachters. But it takes some guts to fire a close distance flash into the face of unknown people on the street... So, I think that the editors were right this time. But in general I agree with you (and HCB) on artificial light. I never bring a flash unless I know that I will need it. Regards, Hans