Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/30

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

Subject: Re: Marc Riboud Show
From: Donal Philby <donalphilby@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 13:28:41 -0800

Dan Cardish wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> All that the above tells me is that you like Ted's photography (and I have
> seen Ted's web page, and I like them as well).  My point is that if Ted had
> used a Minolta instead of the Leica, you would not have been able to tell
> the difference. 
SNIP  
>There are so many
> variables that make these types of comparisons extremely difficult to
> comment on.  
> I don't wish to sound like a s*** disturber, but I hear a lot of
> unsubstantiated talk from people on the LUG that makes Leicas appear as if
> they were divinely inspired and manufactured

Dan and Detlef:
As my father used to say,"I will defend to the death your right to be
wrong."

As for the pix by Ted, I simply was scanning by book pages and pictures
would pop out partly for their clarity and color saturation.  A little
game, ya know.  And yes I liked Ted's pix best, but it was more than his
composition.

I also received a copy of David Almy's brochure (hope we don't start a
landslide of requests--but I couldn't get his web site to open--so he
sent one).  It has all the technical feel of Leica lenses (like the
smoothness of Marc Riboud book, including Faces of North Vietnam).  More
important to me, he has the documentary eye.  Together, a wonderful
combination.

As a photojournalism student at University I had access to Leica and
owned Nikon.  I realized I could tell from the negatives on the light
table which were taken with the Leica.  That was my introduction.  

Of course, the higher quality lenses really shine in difficult light,
especially backlight or other flare inducing conditions.  If you don't
shoot backlight much and shoot mostly at F 5.6 or f/8, you won't see
much difference.  

Perhaps also you like the crispness that I find in some lens, especially
Canon.  Qualitatively, it is what I call brittle sharpness.  It looks
artificial.  The Leicas don't always look so sharp, but there is a depth
to them that I like.  Like I can see through the frame into the photo.

The critical words are "I like."  Minolta works for the warm/fuzzy
photos of Richard Farber.  His book"by the Sea" is a favorite of mine.

The best lens is the one that creates the image the way that makes you
feel good.

And that is something you can only judge for yourself.

Donal Philby
San Diego