Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, all those elements do go into the creation of the image. But once you get past a certain minimal point, the equipment may be the least important element. You, Doug, would be shooting gorgeous bird photos with any brand of equipment, as long as that equipment was capable of capturing the bird. I know you swear by your Leica reflexes, but I doubt that those who buy your prints would notice the difference if you were using old Pentax equipment. You might see the difference on the light table, but I don't think anyone else would. Again, it comes down to what works for the individual photographer - and to the individual photographer making the equipment he or she has work for him - or her. When all I had was a Honeywell Pentax, 50 1.8, Schneider 135 3.5, and then a Vivitar Series 1 28 - I made them work for me - and I have two images shot with that 28 piece of crap hanging on my wall. When I went to Somalia, my "long lens" was that goofy Olympus IS-1 - and it did just fine, thank you very much. At various times I've shot primarily with Nikon film SLRs, Canon film SLRs, and Leica Ms, and all worked for me. The question is which I was most comfortable with, and ultimately the answer to that question was a combination of Ms and Nikon SLRs. But my comfort had to do with ergonomics, and with the vision that comes with using rangefinders, and not with the fact that the Leica glass is the best glass - which it is. B. D. On 6/14/05 12:37 PM, "Douglas Herr" <telyt@earthlink.net> wrote: > Mark Langer <langeratcarleton@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One hardly needs to state the obvious -- it isn't the >> equipment that makes photography. It is the photographer. It is safe >> to say that a great photographer will make more arresting images with >> a disposable camera than an idiot can with the most advanced Leica or >> digital equipment available. > > Yet it keeps being repeated. IMHO this is an over-simplificiation of what > makes a good photograph. An idea, an eye for composition, an > understanding of > lighting, technique, capture medium and processing, and the equipment's > capabilities all play a part. IMHO the concept is of primary importance > but > it will be weakened by poor execution. Likewise poor lighting weakens the > impact of the photo, inadequate technique and indifferent processing can > also > diminish a photo's impact, and poorly-performing equipment takes another > bit > out the picture. > > We don't all have the concepts or the eye of the masters but we can improve > our pictures - or at least reduce the second- or third-order weaknesses - > by > paying attention to the other factors that make up a good photograph. If > the > equipment truly doesn't matter we might as well be using a Yashica or Ricoh > and have more money in our pockets for other toys. If the quality of the > equipment does make a difference, even if it's a third-order factor, then a > photo with a good concept, good lighting, good composition and good > technique > made with a good camera will be stronger than the same photo made with a > plastic disposable. We're looking at one variable here, the equipment, and > assuming the others are held constant. > > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information