Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/01

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] McNally show--the actual images vs. the publicity/book images
From: S Dimitrov <>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:49:19 -0700
References: <> <027a01c220fe$08121520$5ade7d80@KRIEGERLPT>

I believe they were done with the 20x24 camera. The laying of the
emulsion is done prior to shooting. The camera I saw on the West Coast
had, get for this, Fuji lenses.
As far as Polaroid not being listed, it's a credit to them. Having been
in their artist support program in the past, I found their criteria for
quality to be very stringent. 
Slobodan Dimitrov

Martin Krieger wrote:
>     I went to the McNally show the day it opened in LA. What is striking to
> me is the very big difference between the actual images and the images as
> printed.  The printed images seem to have hyped-up saturation, a cleaned-up
> whitened background, and do not feel at all like the Polaroids (which I
> think are on the ER film). Could it be that the printed images (in the book,
> in the ads, in the mags) are taken with another camera at the same time that
> the Polaroids are? Or, have the Polaroids already suffered from fading (the
> backgrounds have a distinct greenish tint). (Notice that Polaroid Corp is
> never listed as a sponsor.  I wondered why.)
>     By the way, the lighting is such that it shines into your eyes if you
> get close to the image.  A big brimmed hat helps.
>     Also, the Polaroids do not seem very sharp when you get close to them.
> That infamous U2 lens they claim to have used seems to be not that good. I
> know that the ER film is never so sharp, but I think the weakness here is in
> the lens.
>     Anyone know more?
> Martin
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
- --
To unsubscribe, see

In reply to: Message from "Martin Krieger" <> ([Leica] McNally show--the actual images vs. the publicity/book images)