Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/06/10

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

Subject: [Leica] M's vs 4x5 (?!?)
From: bdcolen at (B. D. Colen)
Date: Thu Jun 10 12:55:26 2004

Bob, I Leica the way you put that..:-)

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of
Robert Palmieri
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:41 PM
Subject: [Leica] M's vs 4x5 (?!?)

BD & Buzz 

BD, your plea for sanity in this unhinged world o' mine is truly
appreciated.  But, as a comic once said, "Don't mis-undertake me."

Ain't no way I'm claiming to be able to produce 16x20's from 35 that are
indistinguishable from the big stuff in a side-by-side comparison .  4x5
is kindof iconic for me; I have a number of great vintage prints around
here (most shot by Todd Webb) that were produced from such negs and I
just can't stop looking at the damn things. 

This ain't the reason God invented Leicas, as we've said recently.  Fir
me, it's more about not whining about having some other kindof gear and
instead going after the best possible quality available with what I've
got.  Incidentally (or mybe not) this other guy is also a far better
nature/scenic photographer than me; and I really like the idea of
comparing the results of two shooters who were presented with the same
subject opportunities.

And as you two have highlighted, I don't need no stinking sherpa...

Bob Palmieri
Leica Users Group.
See for more information

In reply to: Message from rpalmier at (Robert Palmieri) ([Leica] M's vs 4x5 (?!?))