Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9
From: leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram Langhans)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:47:58 -0800
References: <20121128173812.RIOY29905.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo209><9F112210-8ED3-4120-A835-10065D6E7E34@mac.com> <083567F2F26B4FEFA63C1984ADB148D7@syneticfeba505>

Similar story.  While, not a pro, I do submit photos to a local fruit 
industry magazine, and when I started I was told I could submit my 35mm 
slides, but they have never used 35mm before, only MF stuff.  So, I did, and 
I got two covers that year.  She asked what equipment I was using, and I 
said Leica.  So, there must be something to this Leica stuff after all.....


Of course, times have changed and now they want digital.

Aram

--------------------------------------------------
From: <tedgrant at shaw.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:16 AM
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Subject: Re:  Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9

> A very interesting topic and conversation. I can only offer from experince 
> of shooting for magaines, wire services, commercial clients, Ad agencies 
> and any number if various clients.
>
> Only once was there a question. The assignment required shooting on 4X5 
> size film. I showed them a number of 35 Kodachromes shot wth Leicas. AND? 
> :-)
>
> They said .... "OK go with your gear it will work perfectly!" :-)
>
> cheers,
> Dr. ted  :-)
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "George Lottermoser" <imagist3 at mac.com>
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9
>
>
>>
>> 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
>
>
> 


In reply to: Message from jon.streeter at cox.net (jon.streeter) ([Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9)