Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> --- SthRosner@aol.com wrote: > Kyle: > > I'll take a shot (fuhgettabout lawyers). I believe the > answer is yes on all > counts. Go back to the 1930s when what was then called > miniature photography > was just flowering. Professionals did indeed buy and use > Leicas in increasing > numbers as the word got out on how remarkable it was to > attend public events > with such a tiny, handy, precise and accurate camera. - ------------------------------------------------------------ With all due respect to your time spent with LHSA I must disagree somewhat. My experience with pro photographers is that the same percentage of them tend to be inertia bound or just plain reactionary as the rest of society. And the people who purchased the photographers work were ( are ) probably even more so. There was a tremendous reluctance to accept even medium format for print media. Only a few "name" shooters could get away submitting work from a 35 mm. to the major feature magazines. The Rolleiflex was considered a revelation at the time. Look at all the evidence that newspaper photographers were still expected to have a 4x5 press camera in the early '50s. The only pub that I know of that openly embraced and encouraged 35 mm. work early on was the Nat'l Geographic. ============================================================ > With a bow to Marc Small, Zeiss Ikon Jena developed THE > competing system, the > Contax and its wonderful line of lenses and related > accessories. For the > pros, the cameras, the lenses, the entire system, > marketed themselves. > - ------------------------------------------------------------ My experience is that the pros tend to stick with what they already know, are comfortable with and what makes them money. That they may have used 35 mm for personal use is not doubted. But most pro work had to be "spotted" and retouched to some degree. And that is difficult enough even on 6x6 negs. I will not disagree that there were a few "trendsetters" who embraced new technology, but the rest followed slowly. After all, for most this was (is) not a high profit vocation, and new equipment was not inexpensive. I would submit that for every "Eisy" or Halstead there were thousands of working photographers who were just making a living. ============================================================ > > But the professional market was probably not big enough > to justify the outlay > to develop the phenomenal array of equipment that both > companies did. They > had to develop a market of well-off "advanced amateurs" > who were interested > in the new-fangled miniature camera - ------------------------------------------------------------ Here is where you hit "pay dirt". Consider the average standard of living in Europe before the war. Only the "professional classes" and the wealthy could afford photography as a hobby interest. Doctors, lawyers, business executives, those with landed estates. Oscar Barnack was listed as a "mechanic". But this is deceiving. In american usage he would have been called an engineer. And yet, he enjoyed only a modest income. At the same time, similar conditions existed in the US. The average workingman's weekly wage at this time was $25.00 a week OR LESS! So again, if you look at the advertising and the magazines it was placed in, the target market was the upper middle class. ============================================================ > and so their print > material, including > the Leica Manual - of which I also have a mid-1950s > edition - was aimed at > the non-professional photographer. - ------------------------------------------------------------ The professional > didn't need the > "instruction" provided by the Manual. - ------------------------------------------------------------ I am not quite sure of the validity of this statement. Moving from sheet film developed by "inspection" under a safelight and even 6x6 to the 35 mm. format and the films of the time would have been a big change in technique for many. And please don't disregard the inertia factor... ============================================================ > > I have a strong feeling that the very same thing is > true > today. The pro knows > just what (s)he wants - after hearing the experience of > colleagues with > particular gear. Isn't that largely what the LUG is > about, for our > professional members. > > > And remember, ten years ago there > was no LUG. The > non-pro had to rely on friends or on the > trustworthiness > of his/her local > camera shop. > > my 2p. > > Seth LaK 9 > -- > To unsubscribe, see > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html