Re: [Leica] RE: AF & auto exposure

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

YEA! Jim!
Well said! And, I maight add, once you learn those principles- it's like
riding a bicycle, you never forget!
I told my friend Bob, who generously loaned me his Hassy outfir to do my
neice's wedding, that I   spent an evening just fiddling, and re-acquainting
myself with the system- I have not done a wedding since 1982!
It was like meeting an old friend! I told him that I immediately started
thinking in terms of 'zone focusing' as that was how I learned the craft. I
spike a pew with a tiny bit of tape- when the father/bride get to that point
coming into the church, and the bride/groom hit it going out, I snap the
shot! IT is the same with groups- focus on a person in the middle, and let
the camera and the science of photography do the work!
Yes, I love Hasselblads- they are a perfect adjunct for the Leicas in some
uses, and so are the old Rollei TLRs!
They make for an excellent range of tools for a range of job requirements.
Dan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 2:30 PM
Subject: [Leica] RE: AF & auto exposure


>If you do not understand the science of photography, you will want a
>computer programmer in Japan to form the image on your film.
>
>If you do understand the science of photography, you will want to control
>all aspects of forming the image onto your film.
>
>This is why moving back and forth between Leica 35 and Linhof 4x5, is a
>piece of cake.
>
>People too often forget the basics of photographic science. They "think"
>that they need AF when normal DOF will work better. They "think" they need
>autoexposure, when a simple dumb meter will tell them far more than they
>ever need to know.
>
>Most of the "bells and whistles" that the EOS/F5/M9/etc. tout are sales
>gimmicks. Someone who really understands the science of photography, knows
>instinctively how to produce magnificent images of all subject matter, with
>basic photographic instruments.
>
>Look at all of the award winning View Camera, Hasselblad, Leica, etc,
>photographers.
>
>Autofocus is a good thing. For that "very rare" occasion that it could be
>the difference between getting a usable image or not. I contend that this,
>in reality, is indeed a rare situation.
>
>I believe that the majority of successful professional
>industrial/commercial/illustrative/fine art photographers still use the
>science of photography to create the majority of their images. It is the
>amateur photographers who do not understand photographic science, that
>drive the "auto" photo Modus Operandi.
>
>Computers are good, when used intelligently. Use them as an assistant, not
>as the absolute. When we give up control of our basic knowledge, to a
>computer, we have fallen for the marketers hype.
>
>No thanks. I'll use the most basic equipment that I can get away with
>using. That way I'm in complete control. Not some computer programmer in
>Japan. If I make a mistake, it is my mistake. I won't be pointing fingers
>and distributing blame.
>
>My simple oratory is "Learn the science of photography. Apply the science
>of photography. Control the making of your images." You'll be much happier
>knowing that the work you produced, is actually your work.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>At 06:52 PM 6/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>>Those car analogies have never made any sense to me. People, (boomers,
>>their parents and their kids) still queue and wait three years for a
>>Morgan. The fact that big US cars have lost their soul, size and shining
>>exuberance somewhere in the Seventies did not translate that well in
market
>>shares. Many people I know are ready to pay a high premium for an exc
>>Fifties US convertible, nobody I know is ready to pay a premium for an old
>>Toyota. So what ? So nothing ! Or, let us say that it would be a huge
>>mistake for Leica to loose its soul. I know you refute the idea of soul in
>>machinery. You'll therefore probably never understand why anyone would pay
>>a 15 year old Citroen 2CV more than what it was worth new. Not comparing
>>the Leica to the 2CV though: those analogies make no sense ;-)
>>
>>Alan
>