Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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... > >