Re: Marc Riboud Show

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

At 03:19 PM 29-08-97 -0800, Donal wrote:
>> Sorry, but there is no [snip]

>Dan,
>Several weeks ago I had dinner with Ted and Irene Grant and Ted and I
>looked through a book celebrating French culture to which he had
>contributed.  Invariably I could pick out which pix were Ted's and which
>were not.  Ted's were done with Leica.  Not only was the vision sharper
>(even sharper than his wit!), but so was the quality of the images. 
>Very distinct.

[snip]

All that the above tells me is that you like Ted's photography (and I have
seen Ted's web page, and I like them as well).  My point is that if Ted had
used a Minolta instead of the Leica, you would not have been able to tell
the difference.  Of course, we all know how Ted loves his Noctilux, but
Minolta doesn't make anything comparable.  So if we are talking about shots
taken at f/1,  there is no way to make a fair comparison.  The look is unique.

As far as the horse pictures are concerned, I don't have enough
information.  Were all the pictures taken by the same photographer?  Were
the lighting conditions the same when the Minolta pictures were taken?  Was
the same film used?  Were the same focal lengths used?  There are so many
variables that make these types of comparisons extremely difficult to
comment on.  All I can say is that I own a Minolta SLR with about 5 lenses,
my M6 with another 5 lenses, and a Nikon F2 with 3 lenses, and I use all of
them interchangeably.  And I assure you, if I am ever lucky enough to have
my pictures published in a book,  you will not be able to distinguish which
camera took which picture.  I even feel safe enough to repeat my bet to you
that I can make 16x20 enlargements from my Minolta 50mm, DR Summicron, and
Nikon 50mm lenses, mix them up, and fool you completely.   I would love to
be proven wrong, for I find the Leica to be the most comfortable camera to
use.

I used to believe in all that talk about the "Leica Glow", but I have
enough examples from non-Leica lenses to convince me that it is merely an
effect of the lighting.  Except maybe for my non ASPH 35/1.4 Summilux at
full aperture, but that isn't a glow too many Leica owners would want to
brag about. ;-)

I don't wish to sound like a s*** disturber, but I hear a lot of
unsubstantiated talk from people on the LUG that makes Leicas appear as if
they were divinely inspired and manufactured, perhaps due to the high
price, and anecdotal evidence from other Leica users,  but they are not.