Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/26

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

Subject: [Leica] Digital M
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Wed Apr 26 12:06:28 2006
References: <C0753AD9.FE2D%bdcolen@comcast.net>

OK,

I fell off my high horse and am much better. No chill pills, but Ritz 
crackers and a RC cola.

resting peacefully

Walt

B. D. Colen wrote:

>Chill pill, Walt -:-) I am not equating pjs and aid workers - quite the
>opposite. I'm saying that they are not aid workers; they are photographers.
>Paid to go and photograph. They may not all be Nachtweys - hell, they're NOT
>all Nachtweys or Salgados. But they are doing a job we need done. And I
>think the question of the cost of their cameras is pretty irrelevant, except
>perhaps to point out how ludicrously poor their subjects are.
>
>But don't get me wrong, I think the digital M will come in at a price so far
>out of wack with current digital camera reality, that it's unlikely to show
>up on many necks photographing in Darfur. In fact, my guess is that its sale
>will largely be confined to photo enthusiasts with lots of disposable
>income. It will probably be a wonderful camera, but at apx $2 k more than a
>full-frame Canon 5D, it makes little sense for someone who has to think
>about where to put their equipment funds. After all, unlike a film M, it
>will not in any way be a camera for a life time, and being a camera for a
>life time is the only thing that makes the price of Leica film equipment
>vaguely rationalizable.
>
>B. D.
>
>
>On 4/26/06 2:38 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Et tu B.D.?
>>
>>Scientists studying amoebas and photojournalists "concerns" with the
>>downtrodden are certainly not the same. How many decades have we been
>>documenting the same tired old stories? Starving waifs, bloodied bodies,
>>homeless, etc. and for what? Waifs still starve and we have more
>>bloodied bodies to deal with on a day to day basis than Lucifer. We live
>>in the most prosperous country in the world and have streets full of
>>homeless. But never fear, "Wonderlens is here".
>>
>>To equate those running around with cameras dangling and world aid
>>workers is far from accurate. The ink dries, the t.v. channel is
>>switched and it's off to another scene of human suffering for our
>>hero-shooters.. The aid workers, meanwhile, hang tough. Does any of this
>>indicate I'm against covering news events? Of course not. It does strike
>>me as sad that we don't glean more than just superficial information
>>from it all.  There is a vast difference between Nachtwey, Salgado and
>>Tina compared with the herd I mentioned in the first post. The are
>>committed, and that is what really makes a difference. My statement "we
>>want to feel your pain" is based upon methods I've seen used in
>>action.Many journalists approach subjects as if they were items on a
>>shelf rather than human beings. If anyone makes a statement  about "not
>>one bit of hypocrisy involved" relating to news coverage their judgment
>>is flawed IMHO.
>>
>>Walt
>>
>>
>>B. D. Colen wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Absolutely right, Scott...Photojournalists are not social workers; they 
>>>are
>>>not aid workers; they are photojournalists, photographers making image of
>>>news events and  situations around the world. Being a photographer 
>>>requires
>>>using cameras. Cameras are expensive, worth more than the annual income of
>>>many people being photographed. But so what? Would it be better if James
>>>Nachtwey and Sabastian Salgado - and Tina Manley - sold their cameras and
>>>donated the money to some fund specified by Angelina Jolie, and stopped
>>>providing the world with visual reminders of the awful conditions under
>>>which so many live? I think not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 4/26/06 1:33 PM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>This makes it sound like a bad thing. We don't complain when
>>>>the amoeba is studied by the scientist under the microscope. Same
>>>>for the photographer's concern with the downtrodden - it's a good
>>>>thing, and not one bit of hypocricy involved, IMHO. It's insanity
>>>>to truly *want* to feel the pain of the truly suffering.
>>>>
>>>>Scott
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>,  I can see the new Leicas in action.  A horde of photojournalists
>>>>>>with 10 or 15 grand hanging  around their necks stalking the poor,
>>>>>>downtrodden masses. The oh so concerned looks on their faces while
>>>>>>they mutter, "we want to feel your pain".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Leica Users Group.
>>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>

Replies: Reply from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Digital M)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Digital M)