[Leica] Re; Buying Leica

[wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (Doug Herr)]

Larry, you are missing Ted's point (and mine).  It has nothing to do with 
stock agencies, or with Leica love/hate/indifference, it's all about the 
personal insults Chris threw at Tina.  The sexist remarks and other insults 
are unacceptable and are what he should apologize for.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com


-----Original Message-----
>From: lrzeitlin at aol.com
>Sent: Jul 2, 2013 8:33 AM
>To: lug at leica-users.org
>Subject: [Leica] Re; Buying Leica
>
> So Ted,
>
>
>We're into speech censorship now. No one criticizes your right to 
>pontificate on photographic matters so why should you criticize Chris for 
>expressing his opinion. Leicas are not holy relics. They are optical, 
>mechanical, and now electronic devices. You have a feeling for them, GOOD. 
>But don't disparage someone else's different opinion. The LUG is an open 
>forum. Not a church. I admit that Chris was not as deferential in his 
>response to Tina as you might like but neither were you particularly 
>politic in your response to him.
>
>
>But I want to criticize Tina on another ground. She justifies her adherence 
>to Leica equipment on the grounds of meeting the criteria for stock 
>agencies. She should realize that stock agencies are the curse of working 
>photographers. Every sale by a stock agency takes the bread out of the 
>mouth of a working photographer who would otherwise be employed to take a 
>similar picture. The availability of stock photos of almost every 
>description is the justification of the mass layoffs of working 
>photographers from newspapers and magazines. If you want to show how poor 
>folk live in Guatemala, don't pay to send a photographer down there. Just 
>buy one of Tina's photos from an agency. It will be much cheaper and the 
>magazine will not be troubled by transportation or medical costs.
>
>
>She can justify the purchase of a $7000 camera on the grounds that it makes 
>her sale of pictures to stock agencies possible. But how does the laid off 
>photographer from the Chicago Sun-Times explain not being able to afford 
>milk for his children. Or for Chris for having to downplay a profession 
>that he clearly loves to support his own family. Blame it on Tina?
>
>
>The answer is not to criticize Chris for his attack on the LUG faith but to 
>chastise Tina for her subversion of full photographic employment. And you 
>Ted. You should be ashamed. Youv'e got yours. You were fully employed for 
>years and received many honors for your work. Suppose many of your 250,000 
>photos had been available from stock agencies. What then?
>
>
>Don't boycott Leica. BOYCOTT STOCK AGENCIES. Photographers should maintain 
>exclusive copyright to their pictures. One shutter click equals one 
>publication right. Else photographers are dooming themselves to 
>technological unemployment. I've seen it happen on newspapers, on TV, in 
>college education, now in photography.
>
>
>Larry Z
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information