Re: [Leica] The Grant-Johnston Proposal

[Ted <tedgrant@home.com>]

Erwin wrote:

> >>>>The case against the tripod as a tool to enhance the image quality of
> photographs taken with a Leica M, has been argued recently eloquently. But
> eloquence cannot be equated with truth, even if many debaters in a discourse
> may assume that the use of phrases like " familiar fascistic overtones" (Mr
> Johnston) or "esoteric theorists" (Mr Grant) can qualify as statements of
> fact, from which valid conclusions may be drawn.<<<<<<<

Dang Erwin you always start off with the serious wording and take all the fun
out of pulling a guys tripod leg. :-)

> >>>>>>Let me first propose a simple excercise in logic. You need premisses,
> from
> with logical conlusions can be drawn. Like: A: all humans are fearherless
> bipeds and B: Mr X is a human and thus C: Mr X is a featherless biped.
> The Grant-Johnston Proposal (GJP) runs like this:<<<<<<<<<<<

And here you go again with a whole bunch more serious stuff, half of which I
can't figure out the meaning . :-)

> >>>>>A: The M camera is not a tripod camera and may be used only for quick
> snapshots<<<<

With the possibility of being put face down in the guillotine and beheaded, or
worse, burned at the stake without a Leica to record the event, on tripod of
course. :-)   May I offer, that in reality good ol' HCB was actually a "snapshot
picture taker", a very good one though. However, he did use a tripod when
necessary like any good snapshot photographer would do.  My self included, as I
imagine Mr. X does also.

> B: Tripod cameras must be made of wood and use a negative format of at least
> 8x10 inch<<<<<<<<

Now there you go again "cameras made of wood!" Why that shouldn't be allowed, as
we have enough people cutting down our trees for other things, that if they get
into using wood why we wont have any left. And think of all those splinters in
the fingers! Ouch! :-)

> >>>>>>C: you do not pay money for Leica lens quality, only for the ability to
> take
> snapshots<<<<<<,

Well I always thought that's why I used them, for the Leica quality.  I really
want the sharpest snapshot I can get. And gee leica glass has given me the
sharpest shaky quality pictures every time and that's why I keep using them. ;-)

> >>>>>D: for real picture taking, any ideas about improving on image quality
> are
> anathema for the real time shooting photographer.<<<<<

Not that's kind of wrong figuring on you part, you really do have a penchant for
twisting things in the strangest manner. Like maybe when you read the posts you
happened to get out of bed on the wrong side? :-)

> >>>>>E: only esoteric theorists insist that the only way to achieve
> photographic
> perfection is using a tripod.<<<<<<<

Well old friend it comes dang close to that or you wouldn't be all excited in
defending it.

> >>>>>>Based on premises A to E, the GJP concludes, that real Leica
> potographers
> shoot snapshots and do not use a tripod and do not care for image quality
> beyond what is given handheld photography.<<<<<<<

See, there you go again with the esoteric assumptions! Cause,  I don't recall
anything about not requiring quality in snapshots.  In the recent photo of the
late Prime Minister Trudeau sliding down the railing,  I can't imagine using a
tripod for this "snapshot" let alone not wanting the very best hand held  Leica
lens quality image possible.

> >>>>>>>Based on the GJP, any photographer who uses an M camera to shoot
> portraits
> or fashion or nature or food or whatever, that is not defined as a snapshot
> (a handheld picture that enables one to grab a shot), even if (s)he uses the
> camera without a tripod, is not a Real Leica Photographer. (RLP). Evidently
> anyone using a Leica on a tripod and a 135mm lens to capture a fleeting
> moment in the time-space continuum, is not a RLP.<<<<<<<

Now where in the world did you derive this analysis? Hell in all the years I've
used Leica's, both kinds, I bet I 've a ton of "on tripod images."  But,  only
because the "subject of the moment" required a tripod and not using a tripod for
the sake of using a tripod at all costs to achieve "ultimate lens quality."

However, the majority of the picture taking has been hand held tripodless
shooting that generally attempts to capture the "ultimate photo quality
moment."  Of course while using the very best Leica glass available as steadily
as is  "humanly possible in hand holding!"

And that is what any "RLP"  (Real Leica Photographer) would do.   Please are we
still on track with this sharpness/tripod for everything quality conversation?

> >>>>>>So If I use my Leica on a  tripod in a situation in a graveyard, where I
> assume I can capture some
> shots of wild cats, I am not a RLP.<<<<<<<

Geeeeeeze now that's a scene I'd surely want to have on film, you and wild cats
in a grave yard! ;-) And if it took a tripod to capture it,  I'd be the first
one with the most solid trilegged steady piece I could manage. :-)

While I think of it.  Where did you see your name in my post on tripods to make
you reply in the fashion you did?  Just a passing thought of why you're so
defensive in your post.  It would seem, that maybe you jumped to unnecessary
conclusion in the tripods defense and I assume that's the case.

But fear not, as we who are RLP's know when and where it's absolutely necessary
to use a tripod and when it's absolutely not necessary! ;-)

> >>>>>>>>Now let me add this.
> I would propose the following premisses.
> A: the Leica M is an excellent instrument for handheld photography in order
> to capture the fleeting everyday moments of interest to the photographer.
> B: Leica M cameras can be used for almost any potographic asignment,
> including landscape and fashion, portrait handheld or on tripod, on location
> and in the studio
> C: Leica lenses for the M camera deliver outstanding optical performance.
> D: This optical performance can be exploited if the imaging chain is
> controlled in such a way that imaging degrading effects are minimised, which
> implies that in some situations a tripod is necessary.
> E: any person who uses a Leica M camera is by definition a true Leica
> photographer (true because (s)he uses a leica.
> >From A to E I infer that a true Leica photographer is anyone who uses a
> Leica to capture fleeting moments, do a portait, a landscape or whatever
> topic is of interest,  handheld or not, who may or may not additionally wish
> to maximise image quality by minimising degrading effects.<<<<<<<<<<<

See you really do understand what the hell we are talking about when we say we
don't need a tripod all the time! :-)

> >>>>>>>Corollary to this I would state that anyone who wishes to define his
> own
> limited style of photography as the only True Leica Photography has every
> right in the world to do so, as I have the right to define it in my way
> without being called fascist or an esoteric theorist, qualifications that
> should be banned from any rational discourse.<<<<<<<<<

Now with that little bit of text you've blown it completely, simply because once
again where in all the posted text does the name "Erwin Puts" appear?  And here
I thought we were doing just fine having a bunch of fun. You do realize that in
the absolute truth, photography is all about having fun and a good time. Not
really about a esoteric theories. Don't you?

I'm sorry I have to end this as I've got to shoot some sun rise images on my
tripod as the exposure times "require a tripod" and not because i just want
sharp images!

Great jousting with you Erwin, you always so serious, me loosey goosey about
technical things we'd make a hell of a photo TV show some day.  You could be the
"good guy" and I'll be the "bad guy!"  ;-)

Think fun Erwin and the world will run right along with you!  And for heaven
sake don't "assume" anything!

Have a good "snap shot day" :-)
regards,
ted

>
>