Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric, So do we discount all the wonderful pictures taken with other cameras such as a Rolleiflex TLR(i.e., Marilyn Monroe, Buster Keaton as done by Richard Avedon), or the photos taken with the Nikon (i.e., JFK, Jr. saluting his dad at his funeral)? Granted Leica has been around longer, but it would seem logical that more photos were generated with Nikon than with Leica in the last 2-3 decades? So then why Leica? - -----Original Message----- From: Eric Welch [mailto:ewelch@neteze.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:38 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Re: LUGSeveral topics Sometime around 1/11/00 11:00 AM, Erwin Puts at imxputs@knoware.nl mumbled something about: > BJP's contributor Crawley mentioned that the Leica should be camera > of the century and I agree with him. Truer words were never spoken. Leica played no small role in the fact that photography was the dominant form of communication in this century. Some word herders may begrudge the power of photos, but as I see it, words and photos together are more powerful than either alone. But that doesn't deny the fact that photography is the visual medium of choice in art and commerce. Only in journalism, ironically, where photography's speical quality (reporting impartially what the camera sees - note I did not say what the photographer sees) is one of it's greatest strengths, regardless of the word folks' attempts to keep it in a secondary, service role to words. - -- Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.neteze.com/ewelch The difficulty now is that unexceptional adults believe the loss of youthful dreaming is itself growing up, as though adulthood were the passive conclusion to a doomed activity and hope during adolescence.