[Leica] was: 35mm versus 120: now confession!

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com>]

Mike Quinn wrote:
> 
> Well Ted,
> My favorite definition of a professional is someone who can get good results
> from any equipment because he will take the time to discover it's
> limitations and then either utilize them or figure out how to work within
> them.
> 
> You've offered similar advice more than once on the LUG...
> 
> I think when you say "just go out and do it" you're ignoring all the work
> that you and other pros do before and after an assignment to prepare
> yourselves for the few moments of "doing it".
> 
> Even if you "just do it", you should at least have a model of what you want
> to achieve and then compare what you get with what you expected to get.
> 
> Your model may not be a "scientific" one with charts and graphs, but I bet
> you have at least a set of artistic standards that you continue to upgrade.
 
Hi Mike,

I realize experience is a great teacher and I guess I should explain how
my career evolved without all the testing and reading folks do these
days.  In my case anyway.

When my wife gave me my first camera, an Argus A2 somewhat like a P&S of
today sans electronics, all I wanted to do was take pictures, period. To
do that I bought all the photo magazines every month ( they were really
great for learning in the '50's) And I proceeded to try all the things
that I thought would make me a good photographer. Learnt by doing and
not by extensive reading.

Many technical and theory things I pasted over, too complicated,  as all
I wanted to do was take pictures and that meant out with the camera
Saturday, Sunday and every minute I could get which in turn made my wife
a "photo widow" so's to speak.

The more pictures I shot the better I  became, in many cases I had no
idea why, they were better and looked like the pictures in LIFE, LOOK
and other news photo magazines...ie: shot by "available light."  Not
saying I was of the caliber of the photographers in those magazines, but
it was their style I really tried to emulate.

The testing of lenses and cameras wasn't in the cards as I never
concerned myself with testing simply because if Fritz Henle used a
Rollieflex then that was the camera I had to have.  Or Alfred
Eisenstaedt used a Leica, I bought a Leica. Why would I test it if it
were good enough for Esie it must be good enough for me?

One time I really wanted a Rollieflex, but could only afford a
Rolliecord. Bought it and had it for 28 days  took it back because I was
constantly troubled with,  "I didn't have the best (Rollieflex)  and my
pictures would never be good!"   Returned it and got the  Rollieflex. 
Guess what? 

The attitude changed, the amount of picture taking became more
intense....and I became better. Well in my mind anyway and I hadn't read
anymore. And quite frankly that's generally the way it's  been
throughout a 50 year career.  Buy a Leica lens and the only test was to
see what images looked like wide open focused at various distances,
Click it on the camera and away I went.

As I've said before about folks on the LUG, I'm amazed at how much
fiddly testing, goes on without just going out and shoot and learn from
that avenue without back and forth at one print of a brick wall to
another print of a brick wall to see what the difference is between
whatever it is they test for. 

>>>>> Your model may not be a "scientific" one with charts and graphs,
but I bet
> you have at least a set of artistic standards that you continue to upgrade.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I've one standard I've always work towards,  that is, "to be true to the
best of my ability to my craft as a photographer"  Its simple, be honest
with yourself to maintain your credibility as a photographer and to what
is expected of you by the people who entrust their assignments to you!"

You don't have to be the "Worlds Greatest"  as some aspire to.  KISS! 
Just be consistently good and always come home with usable photographs!!
 And if you get lucky, you'll have a diamond or two that'll  make folks
"think you're the greatest!" :)

And if that means not knowing what the hell "Curvature of field or
flatness of film is" so be it. The theorists come and go like
politicians,  but shooters who practice the craft honestly and with
passion usually go on forever. 

Hopefully this will account for my lack of theory background.  Yep you
do need to know it, but only when you need it. And if there were a time
I needed to know something I looked it up, used it,  then moved on
without another thought. 

Maybe it's as you say,  " Your model may not be a "scientific" one with
charts and graphs,>>>>>>>>
and I suppose it is, but I just take pictures, they turn out and people
like them,  editors and hirers of photographers hire me, so I guess even
without the theory aspects I do something right.

Hopefully this answers why I question the numbers of theory posts so often.

ted