Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]DR. BLACK TAPE RESPONDS by saying that what you note is true....Salgado does have the technological advantage...although I doubt his exposures come from simply automatic metering...;-)....And HCB used Ms as well as earlier IIIs....and he had the "advantage" of the M summilux.....AND....the 3200 films are certainly an advantage in terms of capturing the otherwise uncapturable, but they sure aren't any advantage in terms of image quality....just my .01 cent worth...:-) Kyle Cassidy wrote: > > dr. blacktape said: > > >I happen to think that Salgado is, from a technical > >standpoint, much better than HCB. [snip] I often think that it's harder > >to find an HCB image that is perfectly exposed, and perfectly in focus, > >than it is one which is not. In fact, a LUGer whom I see very frequently > >'in the flesh,' often kids me about my 'worrying' about focus and > >exposure, saying, "look at the work of HCB." He's kidding. Sort of. > > though he didn't take into consideration that HCB was using a leica III, > which, AFIK, is about as easy to take a photo with as a hollowed out > watermellon with a cork in the front and a bit of photo paper sticky > taped in the back ... salago is using _three_ leica R6's, SLR's with > automagic metering which are much easier to focus. salago also has years > of other advantages to use -- D3200 (which he says he's pushed to 12,800 > with excellent results), as well as f 1.4 and faster lenses, etc etc etc. > i'm not taking a stand on who's better, i'm just saying that salago has > opportunities and technologies that HCB didn't. > > my .02, take it for what it's worth. > > kc