[Leica] Re: quality of Leica images

["Doug Richardson" <doug@meditor.demon.co.uk>]

Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com> wrote . . .

>I have yet to meet a professional photographer professionally using
Leica gear in the press activities I attend to. And
I attend to a lot of press activities. If the image quality difference
was as spectacular as argued by yourself and other dedicated
Leicaphiles, I sincerely believe those people who rely on the selling
of images to make a living would not hesitate to switch to Leica in
order to  gain a competitive advantage.

About ten years ago I was working on a trade show "daily" news
magazine and I noticed the the photographer was using Leicas.
He told me he'd originally bought a second-hand  Leica as a second
camera (apparently he'd been able to buy one relatively cheaply), and
had discovered that the transparencies it produced were "better" that
those from his regular camera. In what way better, I asked?
Resolution, sharpness, colour bias, colour saturation, contrast?  None
of these things he said. In every respect he could think of, his Leica
and non-Leica pictures seemed of equal quality - yet when spread out
on the light box, the Leica shots stood out. He was in fact quite
frustrated that he couldn't understand what this difference he was
seeing was. Then he noticed that time and time again, editors were
selecting the Leica pics, so they seemed to be able to see that
intangible quality edge too. So he sold his existing kit and
re-equipped with Leica. Whatever the "magic" was, he wanted to have it
on his side!

Regards,

Doug Richardson