Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/01

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:30:55 -0400
References: <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJOEJMKNAA.darkroom@ix.netcom.com> <OE36w46E3uf21nc4tUG000051cb@hotmail.com> <3B6859FB.739EA9ED@istate.net>

Thank you, Bill - A reminder once again that by far the most important
photographic tools are the eye/heart/brain of the photographer. All the
rest is technological window dressing.



Bill Satterfield wrote:
> 
> It is not the camera but the eye behind the camera. Get one of  Sam Abel's
> books and you will see what I mean. I believe one of his beautiful books
> is--Stay The Moment. A good photographer can use a point and shoot and get
> good  photographs. A bad snap shooter can use a 4x5 and get bad photos. A rose
> is a rose is a rose.
> 
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> 
> > Austin writes:
> >
> > > It depends on what you mean by "leading".  Sure,
> > > more people shoot 35mm than MF, no doubt...
> >
> > That's what I meant.
> >
> > > ... but not because of purely image quality,
> > > which is probably reasonably indistinguishable
> > > in 4x6 prints done at a local mini-lab.
> >
> > You are making my point, namely, that 35mm quality is already adequate for
> > almost all purposes.  Heck, even digital quality is adequate for a lot of
> > purposes.

In reply to: Message from "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> (RE: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
Message from "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
Message from Bill Satterfield <cwsat@istate.net> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)