[Leica] more questions

[banacloj at mac.com (Juan Gea-Banacloche)]

Ted,

As you point out, you are an internationally renowned successful 
photographer and I am just a guy. I only answered a simple question 
posted by Emanuel Lowi with my opinion.

You state that "a leica RF teaches one to see when they are looking". 
You have the talent and vision, so you must know. My impression is that 
if you had started with digital you would have been just as successful 
and would have developed your vision just as well, because you are an 
artist and the camera would not have limited you.

Regarding learning, I believe you can learn much more and faster with 
digital (and immediate review and correction) than with film. It is 
easier, so less effort is required, and more people may be able to get 
pictures that give them satisfaction. I don't think this is a bad 
thing.

You know (a thousand times better than I ever will) how 
common/uncommon/unusual is to photograph with Leica cameras. My 
impression is that Leica film photography is becoming less common even 
among members of this group, so it may actually become a "peculiarity" 
(I apologize for my English if the use of the word "oddity" was 
inappropriate). I agree with you that there will be Leica users for as 
long as there is film. I definitely hope to be a user for as long as I 
can press the button.

Juan





As I said, I would still not recommend a film camera.
On Aug 13, 2004, at 12:37 AM, Ted Grant wrote:

> Juan Gea-Banacloche offered:
>> I would not recommend a film camera to anyone interested in 
>> photography
>> today; I would recommend digital.<<
>
> Jaun my friend,
> How can you say that and sleep at night? As it's absolute
> blasphemy!!!!!!!!!! Why would you do that! It generally takes a tiny 
> amount
> of intelligence to use most idiot proof digital machines these days and
> getting easier. They don't really teach anyone anything about being a
> photographer nor capturing the moment as we who are photographers 
> understand
> it as being a photographer or photograph!
>
> Hell an exposer of electrons or whatever the hell they're called in a
> digital camera can almost be done by a blind person. And yes there are 
> film
> cameras that can be set for auto everything that can do the same thing.
> However! A Leica R/F teaches one to "see" when they are "looking" and 
> that's
> the difference between digital and Leica!
>
> A Leica teaches you to see as a photographer! A digital? Hell just 
> point it,
> press button "A" image recorded with no sight at all! Sort it out 
> later!
>
>> I practice film photography as a hobby and I see it, as someone else
>> has mentioned, as a thing of the past. If one wants to "paint with
>> light", digital is the way to start.<<<<<<<,
>
> Well me young / old son that's baloney! Hell if I didn't learn what 
> light
> was all about long before digital was ever thought of, let alone as a 
> tiny
> dinkie toy for recording. I'd never have had the career I've enjoyed 
> for 50
> years!  And just what makes you think digital would teach someone, 
> anyone,
> about "painting with light" over a Leica? Or what light is all about 
> in the
> first place?
>
>> I bought my first Leica (a Leicaflex SL) in 2002; the M3 last 
>> year.<<<<<,
>
> Well gee whiz eh! How about buying your first Leica 40 years ago and 
> still
> shooting in the hectic world of these days while producing 
> internationally
> recognized books? I think maybe when you are dry behind the ears you 
> could
> come to the table and make recommendations whether one should start 
> digital
> over a Leica and film! Certainly when it comes to learning what light 
> is all
> about!
>
>> Again, photography for me is something I enjoy, not a craft, nor a 
>> job (if
> it
>> were, I might think Leica is the right tool for something, but I
>> honestly don't know what).<<<<<<<<<
>
> You truly are a neophyte aren't you!
>
>> I just enjoy the whole process of shooting and developing
>> but it is frustrating to ruin the negatives or find out you have two
>> keepers out of 36. I don't pretend it makes sense. If one enjoys it
>> (and it does not hurt anybody) it should be OK.<<<<<<<
>
> I suppose, but screwing-up negatives goes with the territory of being a
> photographer, pardon me even a professional. Hell on an assignment of
> shooting say, 500 hundred rolls of 36 it's nice to have 10% as the main
> keepers. Considered normal averages within the profession. That 
> doesn't mean
> the others are throw aways, it means on average 10% are the best and 
> within
> the 10% one hopes to find a few absolute diamonds for the project.
>
> So don't be frustrated with ruining a few negatives here and there as 
> it's
> all part of the learning curve.
>
>> Leica film photography may be on its way to become something like 
>> Minox
>> photography: an oddity.<<
>
> Not on your life! Can I prove that? Not on your life! ;-) But 
> sometimes a
> tool of such greatness, the M series of bodies,  with the feel of a 
> finely
> made piece of equipment has followers who will forever look for it and 
> use
> it with great reverence, simply because of it's involvement with some 
> of the
> finest moments in photography history.
>
> Did the camera make the photograph? Naw, we all know the guy or gal 
> holding
> it did. But over the years the end photo product has been equated to 
> "this
> is a Leica picture!" ERGO: There are always going to be Leica users as 
> long
> as there is film to fill them!
>
> ted Grant
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information