Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Roger wrote: >Take the photographer, as a variable, out of the equation. Put the same >photographer behind the formats for the shoot, assume equal skill of >that photographer with the various formats, the best optics available >for the various formats, equal films etc., and, the results will favor >the larger formats every time! No, Roger. No. Jeanloup Sieff's wrote, that he wanted to make a Hasselblad book all his life, but hardly anyone wants those pix. His Hasselblad pix are simply a loss (in comparison to his other pix), his M Leica (21 SA, 90 mm Elmarit) are sellers. Helmut Newton's 35 mm pix are a loss, his MF pix are sellers, Ansel Adams MF pix are a loss, his LF pix are in the center of attraction, etc. No, Roger, I don't agree with you. Your argument a therotical argument, which doesn't match to reality. We've been discussing that point some weeks ago. You cannot take away the very special and individual handwriting and soul of a photographer, and expect that she/he might be the same breathtaking artist with just another tool. Besides, even the formal, tool and material, are part of the art in itself. Try to imagine Michelangelo's statues/ sculptures in (maybe: white painted) wood instead of marble, or Albrecht Durer with a spray can improving subway stations ... No, Roger, I don't agree with you. Alf