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: Rich Lahrson <tripspud@wenet.net>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:11:46 -0700
References: <003c01bfc67e$1319cc60$1974fdcc@BryanCaldwell> <4.2.2.20000525172932.00ab7c20@infoave.net> <4.2.2.20000525224200.00ab2da0@infoave.net>

> >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 
> Alan Harvey's 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!
> Tina

Hi Ted and Tina,

     In the heyday of news flash with a Graflex and sheet film, ONE SHOT!
In the early thirties news photographers were staff, that's what you used.
The era of the photo story didn't emerge until after World War Two.

     It's probble that, indoors, 99.9% of drugstore finished prints are flash.

					Cheers,
							Rich

Replies: Reply from Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com> (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)
Message from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)