Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There's a difference Richard - and I say this with all due respect - between weird and interesting and crap. You're shooting with a crap lens. Not every photo from the 30s is flat and gray---look at some of the classic stuff. And as to the lens baby, it doesn't produce flat, gray photos -it's like turning an SLR into a view camera and screwing around with depth of field and perspective. I can understand shooting with an old screw mount - hell, I started with one myself - but I can't understand the attraction of what are clearly inferior lenses, when there are such good screw mount lenses available today. On 11/30/05 5:13 PM, "Richard" <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> wrote: > At 01:41 PM 11/30/2005, B. D. Colen wrote: > >> I'm not Ted, and I don't play Ted on t.v. - But good God, is this really a >> serious question..."assume that the flat contrast is from the lens >> alone...do you think a lens like this is more detrimental than adding to" >> the photos? No, of course not, not unless you actually like flat, washed >> out, gray images. There's a reason that Leica no longer makes the same >> lenses it made in the 1930s! :-) > > That is a serious question. I guess the question is "how many people like > the 30s look?" :-) I mean not everything of course, but clearly photography > isn't always about the most detailed, the highest contrast? I mean, there > are people shooting with Holga, Lomo, Lensbaby etc.! (but I confess I have > never tried any of those) > > > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please > use richard at imagecraft.com) > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information