Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/14

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: it DOESN'T work well for leica!
From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:21:17 -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>

Very good Ken...  :-)

Right on the money!

Been there, done that, four times.

Jim


At 11:32 PM 6/13/00 -0700, Ken Iisaka wrote:
>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...
>
>

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!)