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: bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Wed Apr 26 13:31:08 2006

:-)


On 4/26/06 3:06 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Digital M)