Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's the conclusion I drew. I was shown a large portrait once and correctly identified the camera as a Nikon: grain, bokeh, and the quality was that of a pro most of whom used Nikons at that time. There was a lawyer there who was just amazed. For any of us it would be habit, routine. Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone ----- Reply message ----- From: "George Lottermoser" <imagist3 at mac.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Subject: [Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 10:59 am On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:38 AM, jon.streeter wrote: > A friend of mine told me in the '70s that art directors didn't take > photographers seriously unless they were shooting with Nikons, > Hasselblads, and a few other well-known brands. I never worked with an > art director, so I took his word for it. > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Greg Rubenstein" <gcr910 at gmail.com> > Simple explanation for all this tech and test stuff: use the right tool > for what you're trying to accomplish regardless of brand. You know what > works for you -- and your clients, who hire vision and results, not brands > and data sheets. both statements have proven true in my experience. "Art directors" hire "talent" More often than not the "best talent" use the "best tools" sometimes the art directors (and their agencies and clients) can't afford the best talent. they then try and hedge their bets by specifying that at least "the talent" use "the best tools." Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information