Re: [Leica] Anyone else like to get info on camera tech used?

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

Les,
While I do agree with you and I would find it interesting to know what
camera took what picture, should magazines and books tell what typesetting
equipment was used or what software to layout the pages? Of course I have
always wondered what cameras filmmed 'Gone With the Wind'. 
Steve
Annapolis

- ----------
>From: lbonser@worldnet.att.net
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: [Leica] Anyone else like to get info on camera tech used?
>Date: Sat, Dec 25, 1999, 12:23 PM
>

>Everyone,
>
>This isn't really Leica-specific, per say, but sort of applies because in my
>humble opinion, Leica users seem more willing to indicate what sort of
>technology they're using.
>
>Anyway...I've noticed something: While browsing through various photography
>magazines and most particularly in books (biographies about photographers
>and photo galleries), there's a trend against including what equipment was
>used to make the shot.
>
>National Geographic is one of the few exceptions--sort of. The National
>Geographic web site has this whole section where they talk about the film
>and cameras used for the photos in their magazine, but the photographers'
>biography section fails to indicate what equipment any given photographer
>uses. Granted, they may use a wide variety of equipment, but still....
>
>Now, some people might make the arguement that you don't need to know what
>camera or lens was used and the purpose is to simply appreciate the
>photograph. They like to say "Just because <insert famous photographer name
>here> used <insert camera name here> and <insert lens here> doesn't mean
>that you (any old hobbyist/not a famous photographer) can create the same
>photograph using the same equipment. Therefore, you don't need to know what
>equipment was used."
>
>I don't know about anyone else on the list, but I tend to appreciate things
>better when I realize how they were made and under what limitations the
>person was working. Am I the only person this applies to?
>
>Part of the reason I like photography as a hobby is that you can "get into"
>the results, or you can "get into" the equipment and/or techniques. There's
>something for everyone, regardless of their bent.
>
>I think about other areas of human endeavour: Imagine a car magazine
>reporting on some big auto race, but failing to indicate what type of car
>the driver drove? Or an museum that won't tell you whether the artist used
>oils or watercolors? Dog breeders will gladly tell you what food they feed
>their champions and often what type of training techniques they use. Why
>can't a book of photographs tell you what film, camera, and lens was used
>(if known)?
>
>Enough ranting for now. Merry Christmas all.
>
>Les
>
>
>PS: Since I brought up the topic, I guess I should indicate what equipment I
>use--right?
>
>I have a Nikon FM2n with a couple different lens (very rarely used these
>days--not that it's not a good camera, I just can't see well enough any more
>to focus the darn thing--use it mainly for landscapes where the mechanical
>shutter works well for long exposures with slow film and small aperatures),
>a Contax G2 with 45 mm f2 lens (this tends to be my workhorse camera...),
>and a Leica Minilux (...which I find myself using more and more. Produces
>great pictures, optical quality is fabulous, and the control ergonomics are
>a joy to use). I also have a Kodak DC215 digital camera for quick shots of
>my dogs for posting to my web page.
>
>For 2000, I'm focusing on two new things (no pun intended): saving enough
>money to buy an M6 and building my own medium format box camera (either wood
>with brass fittings or entirely out of brass). I'm not just saying that I'm
>wanting to buy an M6 just to fit into the mail list...I really do want one.
>After trying the G2, I find that I dislike SLRs more and more.
>
>
>