Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Look, guys, this thread is interesting enough, but at one time, >first year photo students had knowledge of a few points (yes, Will, a "list" >follows: > >1. With 'realworld' films (this qualification necessary for Erwin, etc), >and 'real world' handling (35mm in hand, 4x5 on tripod, 21/4 sometimes >either) >virtually ANY 2-1/4 camera will out-do the finest 35mm camera...yes, I mean >a l955 Kodak Tourist, in perfect working order, on a tripod with verichrome >pan film, at f-16, and a hood, will kick your Leica's ass. Period. (6x9cm >negative) YUP! > >2. Same conditions as above, that old Crown Graphic with it's (clean) Optar, >will generally outdo the Hasselblad, Rollei, etc... YUP! > >3. The "quality" of a photograph has little to do with it's absolute >sharpness, >and of course color rendition/contrast/freedom from flare is TOTALLY >subjective... >Give me a Smith/Capa/even HCB(!) anyday over the product of some >anal-retentive >"zone-ite" with his goddamn Linhof/Schneider/T-max100/Zone >IV/Range-Rover/$2000 >VC Head enlarger mounted on the requisite cubic yard of Granite..... Probably the thing most often ignored. (I am guilty here.) > >4. There seems to be little knowledge of "the tool for the job" >today...hence the >popularity of the "shift" lenses, etc.... > >Seriously, folks....the next time you run across a vintage >"Box"....yashica, kodak, >ciroflex, god-knows-what, buy it....shoot it...at f11 on a tripod...print >full frame >on 11x14 paper....compare it to an identical print under identical >circumstances >from your latest Leica ASPH-whatever.... >The whole reason for using 35mm has been lost in these never-ending >"quality" >discussions.... HERE HERE! > >Interesting story....A photographer friend of mine (yeah, he's famous but >ya don't >need to know) recently tried to get a "poor" lens for his 4x5.....I >suggested a >home-brew single element device, and he bought a bunch of meniscus lenses >from >Edmund scientific.....6-8" focal length, used 'em 'wide-open', about f 8 >or so... >ya know what? He not only DIDN"T get the effect he wanted, he laughed and >said >he could hardly tell the difference in the meniscus and his Schneider!!! A friend just tried a really crappy lens on his 8X10 and well, the prints were still incredible in sharpness. > >Yes, it's a true story. >Walt > Henry Ambrose