Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yep, I think you are right. I do remember going to sporting events and not using the old F motor cause it was so darn bulky and unpredictable. The hack I was standing next to always used one. Damn guy even serialized his way to a Pulitzer a few years later. BTW, I'm not saying chimp screens are the ruination of image making but I will stand on one point. The mannerisms of what many fine shooters (digital or film) could create seems fated for history's image ash heap. With corporate bean counters running too many news departments we never see what really is. Walt Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: > Each generation discovers whatever tools (along with the added > mannerism the tool creates) are available to it to make sure they get > the job done. > As a matter of point, Walt, you're from the Nikon Head Banger > generation, aren't you? And.......what was your generation's > contribution to the 'decline of pure photography'? THE MOTOR DRIVE!!! > I can remember heated arguments in the late 60's and early 70's of > whether one could take meaningful images with a motor drive. One of > the truism from the period was that only hacks used 'drives, because > they serialized their images for better looking proof sheets, never > mind the shot. One knew they were pros because of the uniformity of > their proof sheet images. But, that's an argument from another day! > > Slobodan Dimitrov > > > > > On Oct 30, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Walt Johnson wrote: > >> Slobodan >> >> I guess I should have said Adams and Caponigro needed Polaroids like >> a hole in the head. The father and little brother of >> previsualization were not chimpers. Couple of years back about 7 of >> us old timers got together for a baseball game. Probably 200 years >> of combined experience as photo staffers at some pretty big dailies. >> We sat there and discussed the "chimper" from Japan covering his >> hometown Tokyo pitcher. How the heck can you get the darn image >> while hunting it in your little black box? :-) To each his own >> but if you don't know what you've gotten when you squeeze it off >> then maybe still life is your calling? I'd go for a Rapidwinder over >> a chimp screen any day. >> >> Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: >> >>> Jeesh, Walt! Which part didn't you get? >>> >>> Slobodan Dimitrov >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Walt Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> Do you really think Adams or Caponigro needed a Polaroid to tell >>>> them about the final product? The may well have needed a few >>>> bucks and promoted the product but other than that? >>>> >>>> Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, it depends. Let's say you're covering an event, wedding, >>>>> conference, whatever. That means you'll have to do a number of >>>>> set pieces, usually anywhere from a just a few to more than a >>>>> dozen. By checking, as opposed to thinking that you might of >>>>> gotten your shots, you'll know if you have your shot or not. It >>>>> allows for much greater time management efficiency. >>>>> This was always a goal of the working photographer, enhanced >>>>> certitude. Don't think that Adams and Caponigro's work for >>>>> Polaroid was for just for taking home a pay check. What they >>>>> did at Polaroid allowed for another evolution in photography. >>>>> That peel apart material was not only the main stay of the >>>>> commercial photographic studio, indoor and outdoor, but also >>>>> with the fine art shooters. >>>>> In fine art photography, they didn't skip a beat, when they tied >>>>> up their view cameras to a laptop for scenic work from the >>>>> very beginning of the introduction of digital imaging products. >>>>> All for the specific point of a need to know at the time of the >>>>> imaging act itself. >>>>> >>>>> Slobodan Dimitrov >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 30, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Lottermoser George wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As with most opinions about things photographic - no correct >>>>>> answer for all situations. There are times when checking your >>>>>> results makes more sense than not; and there are times when >>>>>> the photographer should focus their attention on >>>>>> photographing. To write off the availability of a technical >>>>>> check capability - or the possibility of knowing whether you >>>>>> achieved success in your goals makes little sense to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> George Lottermoser >>>>>> george@imagist.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2006, at 8:30 PM, David Keenan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I really do think chimping it is a goofy practice. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >