Re: [Leica] Brassai

["Bruce R. Slomovitz" <brslomo@erols.com>]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Richard.  It's a bit like computer
equipment. Imagine a writer who uses his aging 286 or 386 machine primarily
for word processing.  Say he writes novels. Should he think he can write a
better novel with a PENTIUM II?  Perhaps he can better write a novel (more
easily, more fun, more storage, etc)  but chances are great he can't write a
better novel.

What makes for great photographs and great photographers is not equipment
but the vision and sensitivity of the person behind the lens.  Naturally we
would rather not be hindered by obsolescent equipment.  So if one were in
the market for a new camera, one would be better of (all things being equal)
buying an M6 than an M3, and buying newer rather than more ancient lenses.
However if one already had an M3 and a decent 50's or 60's vintage lens, it
probably wouldn't improve one's art (let's not argue Erich) much by
replacing the kit.

Of course if you're a commercial photographer or a news photographer and you
can afford or expense the new equipment, then why not get the latest and
greatest?  But if you lack vision, the greatest equipment in the world will
not give give it to you, will it?


Bruce S.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Disfromage <Disfromage@aol.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 11:11 PM
Subject: [Leica] Brassai


>Dear LUGers,
> Tom Abrahamsson was in Chicago yesterday and I had the pleasure of meeting
>him face to face and spending the day with him. Is there anything he
doesn't
>know about Leicas? I don't think so. Truly a nice man.
> Part of our day was spent at the Art Institute viewing a Brassai exhibit.
>Wow! It was a sobering experience. Many of us on the LUG (myself included)
are
>drooling over the latest lenses and film, looking for maximum resolution
and
>sharpness to the Nth degree. Here was a man using uncoated lenses and
>relatively crude film making images we would be hard pressed to make
today-if
>we even could. There were photos taken at night that included people (they
>couldn't have been very long exposures), bare light bulbs with visible
>filaments and the shadows had detail. Talk about knowing your tools! I
don't
>know how he did it. By today's standards, these photos were soft and had
poor
>resolution. But they were incredible nonetheless. Maybe we should
concentrate
>more on developing our vision as photographers and really learn how to use
>what we have, rather than lusting after every new thing that comes along.
Is
>this sacreligious? I realize many of my fellow LUGnuts are very interested
in
>equipment, optics, etc. As for myself, I have to do some serious thinking.
(
>Now how do I justify that 75 summilux?) :-) Boy am I conflicted!
> Richard W
>