Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/13

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!
From: "Ken Iisaka" <ken@iisaka.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:32:18 -0700
References: <200006122106.OAA19032@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <017001bfd4bc$11446b60$a882e0d8@i928653> <001b01bfd4d4$71e12900$953d18d1@PACBELL.NET> <394661A4.FEDAA4D7@g23.relcom.ru> <3946A5FF.2823B51B@home.com> <39471D8C.5E42252E@g23.relcom.ru>

Ok, this is getting to the point where I can no longer stay quiet and
polite.

Bernard a ecrit:
> Ted Grant wrote:
>
> > Bernard wrote:
> >
> > > I can't believe how you would need a nocti in a hospital. Isn't
that people's
> > > workplace? Aren't there laws in the US stating how bright the
light should be at
> > > people's workplace? Wouldn't a hospital be a well-lit place,
practically per
> > > definition?! And the man has to use a nocti and ISO1600 film...
who are you
> > > kidding! A 2.8 quality point and shoot would have done just as
nicely, and it's
> > > a lot quieter yet.<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > Excuse' moi?   Bernard,  have you ever been in a heart surgery
recovery
> > room at 2 a.m.?  Like that's in the middle of the "dark time," you
know
> > ......   night!
>
> Ted, as Jim Brick is so very ready to assert without really knowing
what
> is going on, you indeed deserve all the respect in the world for your
> photography. So just such that you understand my following reply; I
> wasn't talking about you and shooting at night _at all_. If you had
read
> what you reply to (no offense, but reading does help avoid
> misunderstandings), you would realize that I referred clearly (I had
the
> quote included in my post, yet you snipped it) to Ken Iisaka's
shooting
> of the birth of his son. I always thought that doctors delivered
babies
> in more than the light of one single candle. But I could be wrong!

Indeed, you are wrong, and you probably have never witnessed the birth
of a human.

Well, the pictures fellow LUGgers have seen are of the birth of our
_daughter_.  The pictures of our son being born were taken with a Nikon
F3/T with a MD-4 motordrive, and a Nikkor 28mm 1:2.8 lens.  The delivery
of our son was at a midwife clinic, and the lighting condition was
abysmal.  Even with a Tmax 3200 rated at 6400, the shutter speed used
was 1/15 at wide open.  Since I had to take the picture with only one
hand, and I could not bring my eyes to the camera (I was holding my wife
throughout the delivery.)

The lighting condition under which my daughter was born at a local
hospital was better.  It happened that our daughter was born at 7:40am
on the first, bright and sunny day after the rain season.  However, the
triage pictures were in the middle of the night, with just a single 15W
fluorescent tube illuminating the room.  More light was available, but
turning them on would have irritated my wife, so we left a minimal
amount of light on.


> Don't they flip on the lights when a woman gives birth?

Not if the woman asks to keep the room dim.  You have never dealt with a
birthing mother, eh?  You know the difference between a terrorist and a
birthing mother?  You can negotiate with a terrorist!!!

(Sorry, Tina, and other mothers on the list)

> Again, I wasn't referring to your book at all. I was curious as to why
> one would need f1 with ISO1600 (it might even have been D3200) in the
> delivery room (the Lisaka setup).

I didn't need it, as it turned out for my daughter's delivery; however,
I was prepared for any situation.  What if my daughter was born on the
highway en route to the hospital in the middle of the night?  Rather
than carrying a slew of lenses and lighting equipment, I could pack very
light.  All I needed was my M6 and Noctilux.  Preparedness is a big part
of success.

>
> > >>>>> A 2.8 quality point and shoot would have done just as nicely,
and it's
> > > a lot quieter yet.<<<<<
> >
> > Really? It seems you might be mistaken unless you're using a loud
Leica M6!
>
> Perhaps a loud M3, but my Minilux is quieter.

My Minox GT-E is probably quieter, still.  Minilux is an exceptional
point and shoot.  Most run-of-the-mill point-and-shoots are,
Whirrrr-click/flash-hrump-wheeewheeeewheeewheee-cachunk.

> >  And as far as any suggestion of a pointie-shootie and a 2.8 lens,
sorry old buddy,
> > never happen in the above mentioned lighting conditions.  Unless you
like point and
> > shoot wiggly squiggly pictures.
>
> Once again, I trust you entirely as to your book not being possible
with
> a 2.8. But in the delivery room when the action comes down? If I were
a
> doctor, I would really appreciate some light to shine down there.

Again, you don't need light for the birth.  You only need it for
postpartum procedures.  Also, after the baby comes out, the mother can
ask to have the light dimmed, n'est-ce pas?  Again, you are blatantly
displaying your ignorance.

>
> > Possibly you might do better with a few years experience under your
belt in the real
> > world of available light photography before you make unfounded
remarks about other
> > photographers work.  Actually at the moment you sound like some of
the "visually
> > impaired editors" I've had to contend with over the years.  No
offense me old son!
>
> Ted, you're the master, no doubt about it. But if you had read my post
> completely, I might have had a chance at not being called "photo
> editor", visually impaired or otherwise.

You know, some people don't have chance to reproduce...

Replies: Reply from Bernard <4829.g23@g23.relcom.ru> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
In reply to: Message from "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Message from "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Message from Bernard <4829.g23@g23.relcom.ru> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Message from Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Message from Bernard <4829.g23@g23.relcom.ru> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)