Re: [Leica] Another Leica vs medium format debate

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Gib-
Well, I am going to weigh in here with my 2 cents worth! I hope I am not
being filtered out at too many places!
You have a good point, and it goes back to the argument that if the only
tool you have is a hammer, then all the tasks you have will involve
hammering nails!
Indeed, I have seen some really nice landscapes in 35mm, George Lauterstein
comes to my little envious mind, immediately! But if you've ever seen an
actual Adams print, up close and personal, then you can no doubt appreciate
the quality of a large negative.
I have always admired Eisenstadt's studies/portraits of the thirties and
forties that he did with the Leica- the one of Reichminister Goebbels
glaring into the lens like an angry viper shows exactly the value of a
small, light, camera that can get in and capture the 'moment'! I am sure
that even with a camera as small as a Rollei, he might not have had such a
powerful, provocative image! I say provocative in that it provokes and
immediate feeling of dread and foreboding.
It really comes down to a matter of apples and oranges; both are good, and
good for you, but are different, each in their own advantageous way.... And
that's probably whay I am on the Leica list, and the Rollei list!
Dan
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Gib Robinson <robinson@sfsu.edu>
To: Leica List <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 1:00 AM
Subject: [Leica] Another Leica vs medium format debate


> Gerry (UK) wrote
>
> > you are far more likely to capture the character and ambience of your
> >subject using a discrete 35mm camera (such as the Leica) than using a
> >Hasselblad or 5" x 4" camera.
>
> I'm glad you caught Tina's meaning for us; but unless we're
> equating the term "subject" with "people", I don't agree. 35mm clearly
> has inherent advantages as a medium to capture HUMAN subjects.
> A 35mm negative captures sufficient detail to convey facial
> expressions, body language, the "truth" of human feeling. The
> speed of 35mm gives it a clear edge over larger format cameras
> in capturing spontaneous human gestures and expressions. Fact
> is, I think 35mm is a brilliant success largely because of it's
> efficiency in capturing "truth" in the human realm.
>
> I would qualify this statement by adding that many studio portraits
> and "set" shots of people capture dimensions of human feeling and
> subtle expressions that are VERY difficult to duplicate in 35mm.
> Obviously, not all great portrait work is done with 35mm. Walker
> Evans comes to mind. Imogen Cunningham worked with a Rollei,
> as did many others. Would they be more likely to capature the
> character and ambience of their human subjects with a 35mm.
> I doubt they would think so.
>
> But, so far, we're only talking about HUMAN subjects. Tina, do
> you and other LUGers think 35mm has an edge in capturing
> the "truth" of an Alaskan river basin? I don't. If the term "subject"
> embraces the non-human (and non-animal) realm, I fail to see
> how 35mm is more likely to capture the character
> and ambience of the subject. Whose Yosemite do you find
> the most "truthful" Adams or Rowell's? Whose Point Lobos do
> you find most "truthful", Edward-Bret-Cole Westons' or someone
> else packing a 35mm? Who do you want conveying the "truth"
> of Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture?
>
> Leica-it or not, 35mm has limitations as a "truth" teller in the
> non-human realm. If we include these "subjects" I do not
> agree that 35mm is capable of "giving us more truthful
> impressions of the world: records, observations, or
> reports of reality."
>
> --Gib
>
>
> PS: I'm open to the notion that there is more of the individual's
> consciousness mixed in with the capturing of "truth" in the
> non-human realm; but I think there are some subtle philosophical
> issues involved which make it difficult to tell the dancer from the dance.
>
>
>
>