Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan, Do not even try this argument. You are talking sense in a discussion where your contradictor is deeply secured by the magnificent glow of a myth. It is obvious to anyone not possessed by mystical revelations that you are right. Believers remain believers. That is their right. I am a professional editor. Have been chief editor of a magazine for many years. Have been in charge of selecting the images I publish. Been in charge of controlling the scanning and layout processes. Spent dozens of hours arguing with printers, paper suppliers, pre-press hardware suppliers in order to reach better printing quality, especially for the pictures published in the magazine. My professional papers state that I am a 'journalist-photographer', though I do not consider myself as such. Since your main contradictor systematicaly uses so-called credentials of this type as an argument of authority, I feel I should FOR ONCE play the same game. Here comes the (predictable) conclusion: there is NO WAY ANYONE will distinguish the hardware brand origin of ANY picture published in ANY magazine, as long as the original hardware is of sufficient quality. A keen observer will be able to state that this is 35mm or this is at least MF, and often be right. He will very probably see the difference between a rotten basic P&S Lomo-type image and a 'normal' quality image from middle to high range 35mm origin, if the enlargement ratio is sufficient. This is as far as it goes. And this alone explains why Leica R will always remain a marginal player in this niche, no matter the incantations. The investment and the practical drawbacks are objectively - - all passion set aside - not worth the effort. In my whole professional life, I have NEVER met a colleague convinced of the opposite. This whole argument is of course moot if you are an optical and mechanical quality nut, observing images with a Schneider loupe on a light table, making your own exhibition prints or publishing in high end art books, shooting with heavy tripod and ISO 50 emulsion. Then, it seems plausible, even to me, that Leica R users get a kick other 35mm SLR users might do not get. I've recently rediscovered that type of kick by putting Pentax and Fuji 645 slides on the light table next to my Leica (M) slides: the 645 slides through a 4x Peak Anastigmat 56mm diameter loupe look much better that my Leica slides seen through a 10x Horizon high quality loupe, and they look much bigger and more spectacular that the Leica slides observed through a 4x Rodenstock asph 35mm loupe. But the M system is much smaller, much faster to use, much more fun, and I feel confident with the end results. So I'll go on using the M system. Except when I need ultra high quality for enlargements at 'A4' dimensions and over. Alan Brussels-Belgium Dan Cardish wrote: > > Sorry, but what you say doesn't hold water. I am not a photojournalist, > and you are and you have a zillion years more experience at getting > photographs published in newspapers and magazines. Nevertheless, I know as > sure as I know the Sun rises every morning that I can take my F2 with my > 85/1.4 lens, and take a photograph with it in the most god-awfull lighting > conditions, plaster the entire front page of a newspaper with it and you > will not be able to distinguish that photograph from one taken with the > finest Leica lens. It is a truism. > > But....I never claimed that photojournalists shouldn't use Leicas. > Obviously many do. And many of the Magnum photographers do more than print > their images on newsprint. > > I am also convinced that you wouldn't be able to distinguish photographs > made on exhibition quality photographic paper, but we can save that fight > for another day. ;-) > > Dan C.