Re: [Leica] Cool Leica Pictures

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Bruce Feist wrote:
> 
> Hi, Alan, Eric, and other Leicaphiles;
> 
> I'm not so sure that this is truly something new.  Every medium introduces new
> limitations onto the final photograph.  Most photos are never enlarged above 4x6"; at
> such sizes, a P&S camera or one of the newer digitals will do fine too.  If we wanted
> to avoid such limitations, the only approach that I can think of is to shoot on
> large-format slide film, at the size of the desired print!  (As far as I can tell,
> this leaves the lens's abilities intact, except for film resolution, processing
> damage, and developing chemistry <g>).  If the Web is the only desired target, a
> Leica is completely unnecessary (although some of the photos do seem to have a glow
> about them that's lacking in shots from lesser equipment).

There are decisions taken at the moment the film is exposed that are
directly related to the end application. Depending on this we choose
format, emulsion type, some of the exposure settings, frame orientation,
focal length, etc, etc. Chance and unplanned opportunities also exist of
course. Web publishing is a new application and could require more
attention on some aspects of the process and less attention on others.

What I question is the usage of Web publishing to share, distribute,
showcase images that are not created for that application. I can
understand the usefulness of publishing those types of images on the Web
in the same way I understand the usefulness of contact sheets or cheap
proofs in order to let others know what type of photography one
specialises in. But no way can it, bandwith and PC technology being what
they are today, be used to replace a good press book, portfolio or a
high quality printed agency catalogue.

This seems to me even more of an issue in our 'specialised' debates
regarding photo equipment, shooting techniques, etc. The very degraded
pictures we can show do not give credit to the technology used and could
even mask the qualities of the original shot: spectacular sceneries
become snapshots, super high res macro pictures loose their magic, model
shots become bland. Some images survive the treatment, the ones where
the subject, the composition, the feelings transcend technology. But
these are so rare...

>....<CUT>....
> Maybe the glow is not from the camera, but rather from the photographer using the
> camera.

That is very nicely said. But those glowing gems -the ones that do not
rely on technology and can pass through the Web destruction- are few and
far between. Especially in my trays and albums ;=/  But not only there.