[Leica] Dan Honemann: The Glow

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Dan,
You are my FRIEND. <s>

This message is one of the best things I've read on the 'net in weeks. It
does my heart good to read it.

I AM NOT ALONE! <g>

Thanks.

- --Mike (loves, knows, and is always ISO the "glow")




P.S. Sorry, I can't resist being the busybody (even though it evidently
antagonizes some people). If you would like to know how I think one gets the
glow, technically, e-mail me off list and I will tell you everything I've
been able to figure out about it. Well, mostly. <s>




> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:06:49 -0400
> From: "Dan Honemann" <danh@selectsa.com>
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new
> Message-ID: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHMEHNEJAA.danh@selectsa.com>
> References: 
> 
> Leafing through the pages of HCB's _A propos de Paris_, I'm struck again by
> the beauty of these prints.  Not just what was captured, but the quality of
> the printed image itself.  These images are what leave me struggling for
> words, and resorting to inadequate terms like "warmth" and "glow."
> 
> If these are the characteristics of the earlier Leica lenses, then I'll opt
> for them--the photos are plenty sharp enough.
> 
> But my hunch is that it is more a product of the processing and the
> printing.  I really don't know.  Obviously, much is due to the talents of
> the photographer--his alert eye, his sensitivity to framing the image just
> so, his attention to light and to depth of field.  But some of these photos
> are quite simple--I have ones that are similar in terms of content; it's the
> "glow" that renders it art.  Does that make any sense?
> 
> I see hints of this in contemporary work from time to time--in Brian Reid's
> offerings, or those of the esteemed Mr. Brownlow, to just choose two
> examples.  But I mainly see it in these older photo books--and consistently.
> So tell me, what makes these photos _shine_ like they do?  Is it the
> emulsion?  Did Tri-X of old contain more silver?
> 
> When I was a kid and videotape made its way to television, the difference
> between it and film was readily apparent to me.  In fact, it was so obvious
> that I flat out refused to watch anything videotaped.  It offended the
> sensibilities somehow.  When "All in the Family" and other sitcoms started
> appearing in vidotape rather than film, I felt a sinking feeling.  When 60
> minutes went that route, it was the end of that program for me, and the
> demise of the medium.
> 
> I feel the same way about still photography.  How the photo appears matters
> as much to me as what it captures (in fact, it seems silly to divorce the
> two)--maybe even more so.  Without the richness and the texture of these HCB
> photos, all others seem mere snapshops--cheap entertainment that doesn't
> leave this lingering glow.
> 
> Dan