Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gee Mike, it sure sounds like the TP stuff gets under yer finger nails eh! '-) ted Mike Johnston wrote: > Friends, > Anyone who wants to shoot Tech Pan doesn't need my permission. Please, go > ahead, and if it works for you, fine, and I'm sure I would like your > pictures. > > However, I EARNED the right to think it sucks... > > I've paid my dues. > > For six long years putting out photo magazines one after the other, I had to > put up with getting pelted with an endless stream of CRAPPY portfolios from > people who were under the highly mistaken impression that using Tech Pan > made their work s-p-e-c-i-a-l....oh so special...it was on TECH PAN...the > BEST film...it had to be good.... > > Man, did that stuff reek. The work, I mean. I mean, I never saw ONE good > portfolio come in on TP. Never one damn lousy portfolio in the neighborhood > of Halfway Decent. The stuff just plain and simple appeals to hopeless > dweebs searching for some crutch to make up for the fact that they wouldn't > know a halfway decent picture if it was a snake and bit them on the ass and > HUNG THERE. > > JMB>>>TP is THE film. I use it for many purposes, astronomy, portraits, > landscapes, document reproduction, photomicrography. <<< > > Okay, there's an exception to every rule. I already mentioned that Bob > Clemens actually managed to produce some good prints with Tech Pan because > he had to for the Kodak books, and he defends the stuff (although he doesn't > use it now that he's retired!). Maybe only 97% of TP portfolios suck > polluted swamp muck and the other 3% are dazzling. I'm willing to believe > that. So PRESENT COMPANY EXCEPTED, please. Okay? I'm not insulting anybody > specific here, JMB or anybody else. Please, use Tech Pan if you like it, if > it works for you, and ignore me. Put a non-perfectly-planar filter on me. I > don't tell you what to do. I'm sure you are confident enough to ignore my > opinions. I'm sorry. > > But I haaa-a-a-a-a-aaaate that crap, and I'll never shoot a picture on TP > again if I live to be a hundred. That's just what having to look at all > those endless god-forsook, piss-poor, weak-ass alleged photographs has done > to me; made me all cringy, like a whupped dawg. > > There it is. Now don't get me started on...no, I'm not even going to mention > my other _betes noir_; no use tempting fate (like that stops me). > > --Mike