[Leica] A good while ago

[drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)]

George,

Excellent post. You hit several nails right on the head. 

I went from photographing a lot several years ago to very little this
past year. My equipment of choice changed.

During my recent dry spell -- which seems to happen every few years --
there was no better camera for me than my Contax T2. I might go several
weeks without taking one photo. But when I picked it up I never had to
worry that the battery was charged. For the most part, I kept it close
by. 

When I finished a roll and took it in for processing it was always a
thrill to see what I did or didn't get. Surprisingly even though I
didn't take very many photographs a high percentage were good. 

The T2 is so easy to use that I don't have to be on my game. I've owned
it for years and I pretty much know what it can and can't do well. I
don't try and make it do more than it should (which I've been known to
do with digital cameras). 

Now I'm looking to buy a new camera to inspire me to photograph. Really
the opposite should be the case. 

DaveR

-----Original Message-----
From: Lottermoser George [mailto:imagist3@mac.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 7:13 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] A good while ago

I definitely agree that it is very nice not to spend money on film on  
a weekly and monthly basis. I love the freedom of shooting anything  
and everything without concern of the per frame or per roll cost. But  
I'm still buying camera batteries, sd and cf cards, hard drives, and  
on and on and on. The money outlay certainly doesn't stop when you  
"switch" to digital. The outlay just "switches" to other things to  
achieve the same result - a print.

My take on this probably comes with my age. Once I made an investment  
in cameras and lenses and then I worked a very long time without  
dropping money on anything but film and processing. And that expense  
was picked up by the clients. And by the way the billing rates were  
larger in 1985 than they are today.

The same goes for my graphic design work. A one time investment in a  
fine drawing board, a set of pens, and a few other tools took me for  
decades. All other expenses were billable to the client. And again  
billing rates were higher because "designers" were more than a  
computer and "InDesign" with your receptionist sitting in front of  
it. Today - well I'll stop.

The digital photography phenomenon has had a lot of fall out. I've  
heard Tina talk about current "rates" as well. Royalty free CD's full  
of stock images are part of this equation. Auto focus and an SLR in  
every soccer mom's front seat is part of this equation. Parents with  
decent digital cameras are having a serious effect on what used to be  
called "school" photography. What year did the sporting event  
photographers become that absurd gallery of motorized bs? And since  
the digital era - it gets more crazy and crowded every season.  
They're all getting the same shot. So what's that shot worth?

I know that Ted can remember when there were only a few "pros" who  
could actually follow focus with 300 - 600 mm lens wide open and get  
the shots. Very little competition in that day. The rest in the pit  
were just hoping to figure it out and most gave up.

The economics of professional photography and graphic design has been  
seriously impacted by our digitalization. And for most - not positively.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com



On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:48 PM, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote:

> Not having to sit on several grand of stock film and processing at  
> a shot, per client, has its up side.