Re: topicality and Oddmund's post

[Kari Eloranta <eloranta@lammio.hut.fi>]

Don,

From: "Don Bledsoe" <dbledsoe@micron.net>
>> It's a shame more or less all the really good photographers seem  
>>to be missing from these forums. Perhaps they have better things  
to
>> do.

>Certainly there are some valid points in your message but perhaps  
>you too are guilty of cruising with only one headlight.  You appear  
>to equate "really good photographers" with fame or recognition.   
You >have little or no idea of the capabilities of most of the  
people who >frequent the photography news groups or this users  
group.

I most certainly don't want to appear like I'd be checking this  
group from some higher point, no. Note that I say "they", not "we".  
I'm an amateur with some 20 years of shooting behind, only  
occasionally on professional intensity and I don't seriously plan on  
making a living out of it.

I'm sure there are very good photographers in this forum. What this  
really boils down is that if I know and appreciate someone's  
pictures I tend to put more weight on what they say about equipment,  
shooting technique, darkroom work etc. In internet forums there are  
way too many people whose technical knowledge is admirable yet  
whose pictures are utterly boring. It takes time to weed this out -  
to see whether the person knows the stuff by own experience or by  
factory manuals. And wheater he or she has the  
imagination/courage/craziness that it takes to get to the situation  
where a great shot is for grabs.

>Are the "philosophicalistas" to unseat the "techno-types" to  
assume >the "priesthood?"  I think maybe that will be decided by the  
users >and what they post.  "Techno-type" discussions will likely  
dry up >and blow away if the group users move in that direction.  It  
does >tend to swing to a majority type thing when the forum is  
open.  >Still, I do not see why there can't be room for all to  
discuss their >particular bent.

Live and let live, I said that so we agree, right?

>> Remember he was (still is?) a Leica user but could have made most  
>> of his photographs with a brownie, too. Why is that, answer me you  
>> techno-types?

>This is reminiscent of the superficial defiant, "retro-tech"  
>rallying cry of the Lomo and Diana toy camera users.  A really  
>philosophical bunch if ever I have seen one.  They have their own  
>web page and user group.  Care to guess what direction their  
>discussions tend to go?

I remember that thread, parts of it anyway. But in rec.photo.etc  
even good things degenerate so fast... In this context partly  
because so many people have hang ups for not being able to afford  
expensive stuff or because of the blatant arrogance of some of the  
Leica-owners. Those problems shouldn't exist in this list.

It is a very important topic IMHO and has everything to do with  
Leicas. In what situation are they really unbeatable tools without a  
competitor in the market? I can figure out a few but not many. I  
find it particularly misleading when people quote all the famous  
names as Leica-people as if to implicate that it was always an  
essential tool. Some of them didn't at their time have a choice,  
some made random choice, for some L. was cheaper than Contax etc.  
Yet, I do believe that most of them could have made stunning images  
with almost any little box. So to elevate a fine piece of  
engineering to a podium using those names is nonsense.

>Don out West

Kari from East ;-)