Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative
From: Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:49:31 -0400
References: <003c01bfc67e$1319cc60$1974fdcc@BryanCaldwell> <4.2.2.20000525172932.00ab7c20@infoave.net>

At 04:17 PM 5/25/00 -0700, you wrote:
>The nice thing of shooting by available light means they look like what
>the real world is all about, natural as we see it.  And not blown away
>with, dare I say it?  "Flash!"  This in turn gives an exposure all
>right, but totally destroys the natural moment as we were motivated in
>the first place.
>
>ted

Amen, Ted!  I couldn't have said it better myself.  I studied the David 
Alan Harvey shots where he used the Vivitar flash and couldn't help 
thinking that with a Noctilux and a little faster film, he could have had 
more natural shots without drawing attention to himself with the "twinkie" 
light.  His flash shots are some of the most natural I have seen, but I'll 
still bet that when that flash went off everybody around stopped what they 
were doing and looked at the camera.  That's the end of any natural shots 
you might get at that scene!

Now if we can just get rid of "Wrong Stephen", the LUG seems to be headed 
back in the direction of discussing photography!

Leically,

Tina
Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

Replies: Reply from Rich Lahrson <tripspud@wenet.net> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
In reply to: Message from "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
Message from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (RE: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)