I am always hearing the cache phrase"the final image is always ultimate,how we get there is irelevent.

I dispute this cache phrase.

The journey there is equally important.

I can walk around with a video camera,take the frames i like,put them on the internet,viewed on a low res computer screen...and bask in the glory.

Or i can buy the latest techy everything, press a button...bask in the glory.

Or i can buy a hand made camers,costs a fortune,with a history(a story in itsself)and work out how the damn things works.

The first two are about instant gratification.

The last about inner gratification,that is what is really about.

Once i talked to a angler.while taking landscapes.I asked him if he had any luck.Not yet he said,but there is a big pike in this river...i will get it ,just a matter of time.A few years later i was at the same place.There was the angler.Any luck with that big pike,not yet he said....but i am having great fun trying.

I am not preaching ,just a point of view against the general tide.

Your thoughts,nice or nasty.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002

Answers

Sure, but your use of paragraphs is questionable.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 04, 2002.

What a revelation! I could never figure out how or why those few morons shoot for some worthless rag like National Geographic. That's it, their priorities are completely reversed: "the final image is always ultimate,how we get there is irelevent". Excuse me while I go and twiddle my aperture and shutter speed knobs, and find out what Barnack ate for breakfast so I can have it too...

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

Irrelevant Allen. Considering the way Bresson photographed (focus and exposure pre set - lifting the camera to his eye and firing when he saw something he liked), he likely would have embraced A/F and auto-exposure. So if he did would his photos have any less value? Would he feel cheated haveing created them this way? I doubt it. It boils down to what you want as an end result. What I want are photographs - images that people buy, think have artistic merit and want to hang on their walls. The way I work entails low-light, intimate moments that suit the Leica perfectly, which is the primary reason I sought it. Truth be told, before I decided I need a 50 and a 90mm lens the original Hexar worked just fine.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

First, it's a "catch phrase," not cache. Confusing as hell... Beyond that, this is another dumb query. Sure, the journey can be the end in itself, & for most photographers that is probably the extent of their travel--few exhibit or sell or end up in books & museums. But they are no different than button collectors, or railroad buffs, or bird watchers, or golfers for that matter. Their interest is not in Art (& yes I mean that in capitals), they are not driven, are not artists in any recognized sense. They are indulging in an avocation that's fun. Okay. Cool. But they shouldn't confuse themselves with being photographers, although they may be caught carrying a camera... So, Allen, if you want to lose yourself in the endless mechanics & theories of image- making, fine; but don't confuse that process with the actual making of images. One is craft & one is Art, & never the twain shall meet... Now, enough of these stupid queries. They're as mindless as debating the mechanics of cameras & the sharpness of lens. If you're on a different journey, just go take it without trying to persuade everyone else to come along.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 04, 2002.

Gosh, I'd be interested in seeing in print (even in electrons) just ONE place where this sentiment is honestly expressed:

"the final image is always ultimate,how we get there is irelevent"

Seems to me like if somebody's bothering to ruminate about it, they're going to be toeing the aesthetic line too. In other words, I don't think I buy that this is "against the general tide."

Best Scott

-- Scott Squire (scott_squire@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

When I was about 20 I visited the shop of a commercial photog who had some huge accounts--radios and such. I noticed that the places you couldn't see in his sets were messes of glue and tape, to get the subject to behave for the picture. When I asked him about it, he said "the client only cares about the picture, and he doesn't care how you got it. Likewise, when you don't get it, he's not interested in your excuses. So you do what you have to to get the picture. No one cares about the rest of it." It wasn't until a couple of years later, working for another successful commercial photographer that I heard the same idea, and finally it sunk it. It changed how I do virtually everything, including the stuff I do for fun.

Now I'm a violin maker--just like photographers they get in these little circle [editing myself] where they pontificate about stuff that doesn't matter, while they fail to deliver the goods.

The journey may be important to you as an amateur having fun (or a fisherman having fun), but it sure isn't to anyone else--everyone else wants to see results. Ask a guy who fishes for a living how he feels about the angler's comment.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Well,well what little pack animals we are.Just want to be popular,follow the flow.I dont ,i speak my mind,and very happy to recieve any kind of abuse..at least they are thinking..for the first time.

To get back to the q. we are not all pros.A sat picture will do,i just need the pic any cost.SOME PHOTOGRAPHER just enjoy...and yes the journey is equally important.

For my critics, try to answer the q.cheap insults only label you for what you are.At least try a bit of wit.Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

I tend to think that the manner in which one pursues one's "journey" does indeed colour and influence the outcome. It is a question of style and approach, and as such, must be reflected ,to some extent in the end(result). I think I have some appreciation for what Allen is expressing.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

What a revelation! I could never figure out how or why those few morons shoot for some worthless rag like National Geographic

Read the q you sad person,National Geographic are the best of the best.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

What the hell is cache phrase? I don't think you are going against the tide Allen, rather you seem to have been bashed against the rocks one too many times.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

Sorry Jeff.i forgot we should be asking q about Leica 1c.So sorry.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

Jeff, you think Allen's spelling is "creative" - nothing on Josef Sudek!!! Allen's in good company!!!

All the best, Allen,

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

I think one can do both. It is important to realize the motivation that is driving one at a given moment. For example, if the motivation is commercial, then yes, the ends justify the means (glue, digital, video, etc.). But if the motivation is something else, then the angler's method is the way. Nothing wrong with either method. Just different methods for different goals.

At least both types of people are taking pictures with their cameras. Now what about those who buy them as investment vehicles? The gold-plated ones that haven't shot a single frame, that are kept locked in safes, waiting for the next auction. As somebody wrote elsewhere (Gandy or Nemeng, I forget), why doesn't Leica make those special edition cameras without any inside mechanism. Who would know and who would care, since they won't be used anyway.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 04, 2002.

Allen-

While I'm interested in the Leica questions, this stuff is far more entertaining.

Looking forward to your next post...

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

The pro is a different story.Mechanics, to get the result is his game.Does he care how.No.The photographer is a different thing, as is the Artist,they do not have the confines of the commercial pro.Hence comes the great Photos/Artists WITHOUT PRESSURES.Before most were commercial ,they were individuals expressing their work.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

This is so amazingly funny...dare I say something of a hypocrisy...why are we all so in denial??? Those who said- only the results matter, doesn't matter what you use...well proof is in the pudding as they say. Those who said that and use Leica, well tsk tsk. Are you reading between the lines? I don't think I have to spell it out... : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

more people in that egyptian river!!!!!!!!

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

The artful Allen writes, "Hence comes the great Photos/Artists WITHOUT PRESSURES." Heh? What does that mean? Enough of this illiterate dribble. Allen, please find an editor/writer who can hold your hand before you post again. I can't decide whether you're writing bad poetry or whether you're for real. And oh, I hate to ask--what does any of this have to do w/ Leica? But then perhaps I'm being shortsighted--I suppose this is Fun, and instead of being a certified crank, you are sincere. So please forgive my overt sarcasm. And remember: the naive are innocents, but the righteously naive are genuinely obnoxious. Now, back to a semblance of Leica discussion.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 04, 2002.

Allen offers an interesting personal insight to stimulate discussion and/or debate. Quite sensitive in a rough hewn way, (unlike some of the responders). Photography as art? In the hands of artists, yes. The journey verses the end? If the end was all there was to motivate an artist, little art would have been made. Most artists that discovered something new were ridiculed at the end of their journey. The end is not satisifing to an artist, it is painful. The journey IS art. It is the trail of exploration and discovery. Don't confuse Art with commercial art. One of the comments made about making photographs that people buy and hang in their home reminds me of sofa paintings. So, the logic would continue that sofa paintings are Art with a capital A. IMO, there is an element of truth in what Allen says. The Leica is a thoughtful tool. It does seem to connect you to the journey of discovery more than most. If you simply turn to the most influencial Art of all, painting, it all becomes much easier to understand I think. The tools of painting haven't basically changed since the dawn of man. A stick with animal hair glued to it. Colors from nature mixed with oil. A flat surface to express yourself on. Hasn't changed in its' ten thousand year JOURNEY. Just a thought.... ( P.S. I think the word Allen was searching for was Cliche' ).

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 04, 2002.

Patrick

You are rambling like a old tart,wish i understood.Best go back to your discussion about the 11C.or add a useful comment.Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

I think that Vikram has the best perspective. When I pick up the camera, it isn't always for the same purpose. Sometimes it's for personal therapy, the zen of photography. At other times it's business, and you have failed if you haven't satisfied the customer. Sometimes it's education, like teaching yourself how to estimate exposure or dodge a print. It seems a little childish to assume that one of these avenues is more valid than another. Art, and perhaps alot of photograhy (and all great fiction) is a lie used to express a truth. It's a fabricated object and the manipulation of a moment in time. A photograph will always have a different meaning for the photographer and for the viewer. But that's the best part. The best songwriting or poetry is ambiguous and invites reinterpretation. To paraphrase what an angler once said, "a bad day taking photos is better than a good day at work." Cheers, Pat.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), April 04, 2002.

Opps those comments above were for Patrick Thanks for your thoughts anyway Patrick.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

Marc

Thanks ,i wish i could express my own views as well as you can for me.Must be that uni education.Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

The problem here is that good 'ole Allen is talking about two different things here. The journey is important. The 'journey' as it is often spoken of in this context relates to the thought process, the emotions and the reasons one gets to ones ultimate goal, which I assume for most of us here is a photograph. And he is right, the journey is extemely important, particularily to the artist, who is in fact trying to express the aforementioned emotions, thinking, etc. But this in no way has anything to do with the tools one uses to reach the goal (though they can be a small part of it). Allen, it would be interesting to know exactly what your involvment is with photography, I think not too deep or too long. There are extemely competent pros on this forum, as well as successful artists who have chosen to use Leica because of whatever reason - but if you think there are not just as many committed artists (you seem to hold 'artists' in some sort of reverance) on Nikon and Canon Forums you're dreaming. As I stated above I shoot mostly 'intimate moments' little slices of peoples lives in there homes. I shoot on commission and am represented by two local galleries and am quite successful as an 'artist' and the Leica works best for these situation. I also have a passion for auto rallying (used to drive a Lotus Cortina for those in the know) and love to photograph these events in a documentary style. For this I couldn't give up my long A/F Nikkor lenses on auto exposure bodies. I put as much emotion, thought and sweat into the rally photos as the exhibition work - the journey is the same. Only the tools differ.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

There seems to be some assumption that the guy who gets the job done isn't an artiste' unless he thinks like one. I'd offer that the artist is the one who gets the artist's job done, regardless of the thought process behind it. The one who doesn't get the artist's job done, isn't one, no matter how much mental masturbation goes into the product.

For the record (James), I use Leicas for the finder, because of the way it helps me see, and that's it. My lenses are all over the map in brand and age.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Allen, it would be interesting to know exactly what your involvment is with photography, I think not too deep or too long.

What a very silly statement Bob.You do not know anything about me.I would have expected more from you.I do not wish to get involved in childish "my dad is bigger than yours "Suffice to say i come from a family involved in photography long before Spinner Chapman was wrecking lotus Cortinas or you.I could go on,to do so would bore me,Regards Allen Ps i enjoy this Forum because of the people on it..Pay me ,and i will ask any question

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

Interesting combination - philosophy of photography & philosophy of fishing.

I once knew an avid fisherman who secretly admitted he often didn't even bait his hook. Living in a society that expects productive activity and final results, someone sitting on a river bank holding a fishing pole was acceptable, while simply sitting on the same river bank watching the clouds pass by all afternoon would be considered unacceptably lazy.

In the same vein, I once read an essay by Minor White on the spiritual aspects of photography in which he went so far as to equate such dedicated "journey" photography (which he called Camera Work) to a form of prayer. He claimed photographers who travel this spiritual road use their cameras simply as an instrument to focus their concentration, and as a pretext to more fully contemplate what they see. Like the fisherman, spending a great deal of time composing an image with a camera (or comtemplating the final image later on) is more apt to be considered acceptable while someone simply standing and staring would be considered more than a little odd. He went on to claim that the very, very few photographers who travel far down this road reach a point where it really does not matter if, in the end, they ever even press the shutter.

What's this got to do with Leica photography? My hunch is, for whatever reason, such photographers are much more likely to use an M Leica, or a 4x5 view camera, or a Holga than they are an F5... OK, it's a bit of a stretch, but it's at least as creatively worthwhile a train of thought as identifying a Leica seen in a movie.

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), April 04, 2002.

I take photos because I enjoy taking photos, start to finish-- engaging with people, snapping the shutter, and savoring the final prints later.

I do this without regard to personal financial gain, philosophical meanderings, the approbation of the photo-buying public (ha!), critical opinion, or anything else. It's all about me, what I want.

What I want is to take pictures for the pleasure of taking pictures.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 04, 2002.

Allen, you still don't get the point. I said 'I think you're involvment is not to deep'. It's an opinion, based on some of your statements. You on the other hand say things like 'the first two ARE about' and 'that IS what IS really about', though the rest of us need to be led by the hand. If you have an OPINION fine, you are welcome to it. But most of your posts come off with you being the great guru we should all be looking to. Considering that most of your posts end up with most in disagreement with you, maybe, just maybe, as others have suggested you should edit, or get someone to edit your ramblings.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

The artists I know and have hung out with (sculptors, painters, mixed media) also seemed to be far more concerned with the actual art they were producing than the methods they used to produce it. Of course, these were people who were actively showing and selling work, so they may be too "commercial" to count.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 04, 2002.

You do not know anything about me.

We only know what we've read here. Nothing you've posted here is consistent in tone or content with what one might reasonable expect from a middle-aged guy with decades of photographic experience, but it is entirely consistent of what one might expect from a 15-year-old with a couple of magazine subscriptions (and possibly a profound emotional disorder).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 04, 2002.

But most of your posts come off with you being the great guru we should all be looking to. Considering that most of your posts end up with most in disagreement with you, maybe, just maybe, as others have suggested you should edit, or get someone to edit your ramblings.

If you do not like my postings why read them.If i do not like a posting i move on.I do not post to be popular,maybe popular is important to you,not to me.I feel secure enough as a person not to need adoration...maybe you need it.N

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

Allen, I get your point, and it made me think. Many on this forum are to busy conjuring up what they're going to say next to hear what anyone else has to contribute. The mastery of language, or the lack of, does not make for right or wrong. There are those who fancy themselves as more witty and intelligent, but seem incapable of using neither their wits or intelligence in an attempt to grasp what is being said. Keep expounding on your Leica philosophy. We can listen and think about it. Or we can ignore it and click past you. For me it offers a balancing point of view to my hectic life and career.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 04, 2002.

Well,well back they come the self interest group.Mike and his lurking friends.Well ,i will take some advice was given ignore.And i will give you some advice,stick to your own postings do not bother mine.If you do well the fun will start...you good old country boys.Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

Interesting the responses here today to this post!Allen seems to have hit a nerve!There are no neutral responses..either positive or negative ones only.Perhaps if everyone posted a photo that they considered their abslolute best on to their comments section we would arrive at a deeper understanding of the true opinions of the members.But...it seems to me that if I picked 100 of the best/incredible photos ever created on planet earth(if I could!) by the most gifted as well as not photogs(it would take awhile)...I would venture to think that none of them would have been commercial in motivation.Maybe much later, after the fact, but not during.In fact I think ...at the end of my life when I think back on my favorite photographic moments ...commercialism will be a non existant/important factor in my concerns.As far as the journey vs the goal is concerned, perhaps it would be better to do away with those concepts and exist fully in the present moment...Then bring that fullness to our pics! So even if the pic is not the greatest...we will be!!!

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 04, 2002.

Phewwww, lucky I didn't start this post. Although wasn't I meant to have left. Well I did and I'm back. No longer discouraged as I still enjoy the forum.

My opinion is this: Allen, you have a great point, but this point is dying quickly and the style of work from people like HCB and DAH are quickly being overshadowed by digital cameras and technology through digital imaging. I myself enjoy the photographic process, and love the anticipation of waiting to see how my pics come out. Sooner or later I have to let go. Some will let go faster than others, but I will cherish this tradtional process for as long as I can :)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

From the initial post: Your thoughts,nice or nasty.

There's a potentially interesting discussion that might be had about how one's methodology and tools impact the final product (as a previous poster touched on). Unfortunately, you continue to restate the same (false) assumptions again and again, then proceed to attack or insult anyone who points out the absurdities of your assertions. Any disagreement with your half-baked rambling results in insults, insinuations that everyone else is part of an unthinking herd, and ridiculous accusations about some sort of conspiracy against you.

Virtually everyone on this forum has shown more maturity and civility in their responses to you than you have shown to them, yet you continue to wallow in self pity about your "mistreatment." And now you make thinly-veiled threats against anyone who dares to respond to your posts in a less than positive manner. Get some help, dude. Most people in the world aren't as nice as the ones around here . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 04, 2002.

Can we leave the past behind us? Some of us (me) are trying to do so, but it is difficult when people always bring it back up.

When Allen stated, "your thoughts, nice and nasty", it doesn't mean he's going to accect them. But I guess he should've respected them. What I've learnt from all this is that no matter what kind of response someone leaves, they are doing so because they are interested. But "WHAT" they are interested in is another question. I don't think Allen is 'interested' in fighting and neither is anyone else on this forum.

Allen just has a bloody stubborn opinion and that's the way he is. I just hope Mike and Allen keep this battle down as they never ever end well :-) but it does make one think.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

I don't think Allen is 'interested' in fighting

If that's the case, why does he make what is substantially the same post five times and attack anyone who dares disagree each and every time? Plenty of folks on the forum disagree with one another on various issues, most of them have strongly-held opinions, but only one exhibits that kind of behavior.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 04, 2002.

Actually I remember leaving a similar answer to a similar question about a month or two ago. Come to think of it, it may have been Allen. Oh what the heck, didn't we all say it's better to ignore repeat and anoying posts. Well for those who didn't, you shouldn't be complaining?!?

I didn't mind commenting because I believ that Allen has a point, actually a repeated point! But I hate digital photography (except for commercial work), so I had to comment.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

Shall we try to inject a little realism into this? I've just finished shooting a feature. It took me five days to get to the point of even taking the camera out of my bag. I then spent seven days living with my subjects and photographing and interviewing them. It involved a lot of boring travel and organisation, some of it was marginally dangerous. When you make such an investment in time effort and money to take the pictures, as well as intruding into other people's lives so comprehensively, the only thing that counts is the final result.

As for the camera, the Leica allows me to shoot hand held at slow shutter speeds - say reliably down to an eighth of a second - and to focus in marginal lighting conditions. So it's a suitable camera for the type of work I was doing. But I have to say that it stops there. I don't feel any special thrill just because the camera is a Leica, nor do I think that fiddling with the knobs and aperture ring add any value to the experience. If I believed that digital or an EOS 3 or whatever would give me more reliable results, I'd use them without a moment's hesitation.

Frankly, I think this whole thing is a total non-issue. When you're really taking pictures the camera fades into the background. If it's still in the foreground, then you're either using the wrong camera or not sufficiently interested in what you're seeing through the viewfinder. And in any case, manually setting an exposure is not such a great trick. It's very simple: point, focus, adjust exposure. Whether the camera or the photogapher does this is of no importance whatever. If you can't see it in the picture, who on earth cares?

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), April 05, 2002.

Darnton, aren't there much cheaper rangefinders that have a similar viewfinder? Don't tell me you are an immovable object when it comes to enjoying the craftsmanship and performance of the Leica M system. Yes, I'll bet there's an iota of aesthetic pleasure most M users get. But, like I've said before here, the results of course are paramount. That's where Leica excels as well.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

Just when I think i've got the right frame of mind, "Robert Appleby" comes and twists it all around. That's a compliment Rob. And hey, where you been? A lot has happened. I've been flammed, I've been flammed and so on and so on. But it's good to see your name again. :)

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

Kristian, if it's the concrete data of shooting that convinces you, here's something to add to Rob Appleby's report. My task was relatively easy and simple in comparison, but it still shows the relative role the camera plays in making photos (even in a very different context).

I spent the day (1:30 to 7 pm) doing promotional shots for a new country singer. We exposed three rolls of color slide film (all with the Leica) and one roll of medium format b&w (Pentax 645). The final roll was pushed color film shot downtown among the tourists, honky tonks, and neon--all with the 75 'lux, all handheld (a tripod would have been a horrible nuisance amidst the pedestrian traffic), most at 1/50 and apertures of f2 or wider. Altogether, I probably spent a total of around 30 minutes adjusting aperture/speed or with a camera to my eye framing shots. The rest of the time was spent travelling from one area to another, walking around different locations to get the right backgrounds/lighting, or with her getting makeup done and changing wardrobe.

Even when I'm simply shooting documentary stuff that has no direct commercial purpose, camera operation accounts for well under 10% of my time and effort. While the tools have their importance, an obsession with the tools is the mark of a dilletante, not a photographer.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 05, 2002.

The pro is a different story.Mechanics, to get the result is his game.Does he care how.No..he has a living to earn.

Mike, would you like all future postings to be sent to you first,so you can judge them before they are posted.Seems you do.As for them being the same...yours seem to about girls,girls,girls.So what it matters little.You must enjoy my postings,you always write more than than i do on them.

If you keep to constuctive comments ,as on your last thoughts, we do not need to banter.Your choice,i am happy either way..Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 05, 2002.

Rob and others make some interesting points. However, let's review the central point of Allen's post that ignited most of the discussion...." The journey there is equally important". EQUALLY important, not ALL important. I didn't take from this that the end result was irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not you love or hate Allens' prose, he's expressing a point of view that is a valid one in this age of transition. "...a point of view against the tide." I'd be hard pressed to argue that there wasn't a tide washing over photography as many of us have known it. I personally embraced the new wave years ago. Contrary to Robs' suggestion that it's just a matter of f stops. focus and shoot, It's a very steep learning curve. I don't love or hate automation or digital. It's just different. A new journey of discovery. Yet, once I had reached a reasonable level of technocratic mastery, I hungered once again for the more sublime approach the Leica seems to represent. All the planning and prep that Rob mentioned is akin to what I also do for a living. This indicates to me that he's on a mission, with at least some idea of what he seeks to express or communicate in the end. An entirely valid approach. But not the only approach. For some the "thrill of the hunt" is just as important as "bagging" the prey. Like Rob, I find all the planning and prep to often be boring with "mission" projects. In contrast, when I set out with my Leica, my intent is the hunt. I haven't a clue what might happen until it does. There is a sublime sense of the unknown. As the cliche' goes, "one cannot pour more tea into a cup that is aready full". Those are the times that I try to empty my cup so something new can enter my creative life. Personally, I find it deliciously ironic that my newest, most insightful discoveries have been facilitated using 1950's photographic technology. The end results are far more personal and subtile than those fueled by a mission and accomplished with the latest technology. In conclusion, the mention of including our best picture with each posting would not do anything but ratchet up the subjectivity to titanic levels. Each person here is at their own level of development and talent. Mike and Rob are obviously highly skilled professional photographers. Yet, each of us has something to offer, maybe even to Mike and Rob on occassion. When I seek reactions to my work, I seek a photographer that is enormously confident in his or her own place. They tend not to heap their own beliefs and prejudices onto your work. But instead seem to "listen to, and enjoy" a voice other than their own. After sending a portfolio of images to a very well known N.Y. photographer, I recieved a reply that simply read " very personal, and I mean that in the most important sense of the word". One sentence. Volumous understanding. No competitive predjudical intent. Perhaps we should consider trying a little harder to inspire one another. As a Creative Director by profession, I've found that seeking what is unique in other people's creative efforts, to listen to their voice, has been not only directionally rewarding for them, I glean something from the process myself. I've never found the opposite to be true. Not even once in my long career of working with creative people, including some quite famous and accomplished photographers and cinematographers. Just a thought.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 05, 2002.

I'm going to come back into this discussion after making several earier posts. Comments? One, the initial post has sparked one of our most interesting discussions. Two, sadly, it was initiated by Mr. Herbert, whose constant replies have been 1) constantly illiterate (to the point of being frequently incoherent), and 2) repeated attack replies dripping w/ innuendo & holier than thou pronouncements. For a person so quick to attack, he refuses to state his background, post his work or in any way identify himself. Mike's description of AH sounding like a 15-year old is unfortunately accurate... Civility on these replies would be a basic pleasantry, wouldn't it? Personal attacks about "commercial" & "girls" & other items is abhorant, frankly. 'Seems, reviewing the replies to date as a group, that everyone, regardless of their take on this topic, has been civil with the exception of AH himself. Philosophical disagreements are one thing, but personal attacks are always the refuge of someone who's insecure & uncertain of themselves. Hence, I think, the comments about AH sounding as if he's 15... Regardless of the discussion being driven by AH's incoherence & prattle, the responses have been largely thoughtful. I suspect (& hope) this thread is winding out of energy, but I do suggest that we all (& I include myself) strive to be as civil as possible in future threads... Hmmm. Us humans sure is a strange group, ain't we?

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 05, 2002.

I came back from a week's holiday in Sicily today together with a brick of exposed film. I was thinking on the plane back that, even if all the film were lost at the lab, how much I had really enjoyed the photographic experience. You see things in a different way, you appreciate different tones of light, different perspectives, and you actually see more than without a camera (at least I do).

OK this is different if you do it for a living, and if my pictures never came out to my liking I would probably give up too.

-- enrique munoz (dem331@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

James, when I started using Leicas there was NO other option, other than the recently discontinued, but still scarce and expensive, Nikon RFs. Really, until the R2 Voigtlander comes out there has never been any in-production competition for Lecia M's finder combined with accessibility to all available lenses actually in production (remember, until very recently the Voigtlander system was very limited, itself, in the lens line), so no, there (still aren't) any other choices, for another month or two. If the R2 had been available in 1970 I'd probably be using one today, instead, with no regrets.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

Enough of this illiterate dribble. Allen, please find an editor/writer who can hold your hand before you post again. I can't decide whether you're writing bad poetry or whether you're for real.

Patrick....with statements like that expect some banter back.If i have upset you,well you only have yourself to blame...first stone etc.Why am i Mr Herbert and Mr Dixon is Mike.Yes i love Mike too,happy now.It all seems a bit silly to me,but your comments did bring a smile to my face.Best of luck Regards Allen.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 05, 2002.

Agree with Mike's assessment of Allen being a 15 year old with computer skills completely. Not very good skills however. Allen - if you had read down a little further on whatever search engine you used to look up Lotus Cortina you would have found that Colin Chapman (I've never heard of him referred to as spinner), though providing the engines to Ford for the Cortina project, was in fact never very involved with them. At this time he was consumed with the Lotus 7 and Europa projects as well as formula cars.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

Allen, to a confident photographer, equipment is a means to an end, not a journey. And since when did getting paid diminish your abilities as an artist. Many (if not all) of the photographers you probably regard as great artists have worked commercially.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 05, 2002.

I agree that National Geo is a rag. But so are all other magazines. When I was sixteen years old, back in the mid-Sixties, I thought the pix in rags like Geo & Life were great. Then I packed up my Nikon, went off to RIT, saw the work of White, Weston, Strand, HCB, etc. and started to change.

Since I don't eat flesh, and regard the killing of animals as barbaric, I can't relate to the angler analogies.

To actually answer the question, I get just as much "inner gratification" from using an EOS as I do from a Hasselblad. In fact, I get greater gratification from an EOS than from a Leica since the pix from the former are more likely to be in focus.

Why don't I post a picture of a pretty girl? Come to think of it, just where are the girls?!

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 05, 2002.

Speaking of artists doing commercial work, I was just at the Mumm winery in CA, and they've put up a permanent display of Ansel Adams' 1962 essay on the making of wine, done on commission for a Smithsonian exhibit. The photos were dreadful. Maybe being a journalist IS harder than being an artist. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

Since I don't eat flesh, and regard the killing of animals as barbaric

I love eating flesh.

Barbecued Animal Flesh, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 05, 2002.

Ahhh, "eating flesh" and references to "pretty girls", is this male bonding or what? It sure is proof that this horse has been beaten to death. Oops, my apologies to the vegetarian for the dead horse comment. How insensitive of me.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 05, 2002.

How about this? The way a photograph is taken is more important to personal photography and not so much in professional photography? ......now don't raise the question, "what is personal and what is professional". I have had the opportunity to photograph the Australian Prime Minister hch to me wass personal and others (my company) it was professional. There is no right or wrong, but difference of opinion and not worth, um, what's the word..."bantering" over.

And Peter, sorry but I don't find yur model the least bit attractive. (PS. no offense, I hope she's not your wife). Just my honest opinion. :-)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

The way a photograph is taken is more important to personal photography and not so much in professional photography?

Still not buying--I do a lot of personal photography, and the biggest difference from pro work is that the consistency of the results is much less important. How about this: The way a photograph is taken may be important to the person taking the photograph (and it may not), but the method and equipment have no bearing on the validity or worth of the that approach. (Of course, this doesn't really leave much room for smug self-satisfaction or condescension toward others based on the tools they choose.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 05, 2002.

Alright Mike, I give in again.......sigh!

Then why do I have a camera instead of invested shares for my future? Silly I guess!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

'Cause the cameras are so much more fun to play with!!!

Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against toys. What I object to are the stupid characterizations that people playing a different kind of game with differnt toys are not actually having fun . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 05, 2002.

I mean a Leica camera. I am surely confident that a SLR is more versatile (and a heap cheaper) and my good old Nikon F100 with the AF 85mm f/1.4D was a killer! It seems my Summicron 90 APO is looking the 'trading face' directly in the eyes!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

I guess it boils down to this. Take your 20 best ever photos taken with a Leica. Now here's the 2 choices. We take away those photos and you'll never be able to reproduce them, but you keep your Leica's. OR You get to keep the photos but we take your Leica's away (you can buy any other camera). If you keep the photos you're a photographer (pro, artist or commited amateur). If you opt for the Leica's you're a camera collector.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

Sorry, Bob, gotta disagree (I just can't seem to agree with anybody these days!). If I keep the cameras, I can always shoot another 20 favorite photos . . . ; )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 05, 2002.

Awww Mike, not you! Wouldn't you rather keep the 20 great photos, buy a Hexar RF (Contax III, Nikon SP, etc) and then take another 20 great images?

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

There's a reason I'm so adamant on this subject today. On the weekend I made one of my best images ever. A beautiful nude, window lit, with an unmade bed in the shadows behind her. (If I was even a little bit computer literate I'd paste in a photo, but I actually am stumped with anything more advanced then a pencil). The young woman loves the image and a few people I respect also thinks it's one of my better images. Anyway...it was all very spur of the moment and the only camera I had with me was my Rollei 35S. She has requested a 16X20 which I printed yesterday and it is tack sharp. I actually do feel a twinge of guilt that it wasn't taken with the Leica, but I'd sure rather have the image from the Rollei than no image at all.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

OK Darnton, fair enough. : ) For me, I do enjoy well designed and constructed equipment on an aesthetic level as well as a pragmatic one. I had a Canon 1N with a 28-70L- monstrous. I enjoy simplicity, and a compact size. Thus my Leica. But, would I have spent as much on a camera that's as functional but more crude and ugly? Hmn...good question. The fact the Leica M has these qualities is icing on the cake. It's a bit like sports cars and race cars. The guy on the street wouldn't mind the sports car, and the race driver, well, give him the big cannon. Anyway, this topic has gone way off (or was it ever on hahaha).

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

Not only has this horse been beaten to death, it's beginning to smell like sanctimonious horse manure. As Willy Shakespere wrote.. " me thinks you protesteth to much".

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 05, 2002.

This has been a real cool thread!!!Lots of food for thought.Thanks people... you made my day! One thing I would like to insert...as I was reading this I stand in admiration at the strength of the minds and hearts here.All good stuff! One thing that popped into my 1pm brain is that it doesnt matter really which camera you use,or the photos you create, or whether you are a vegetarian or not.....It... (the whole world)is really....in the end.... just about you.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 06, 2002.

Mike Dixon, IŽam missing your photograph here a lot. Any chance for one ??

Best regards

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), April 06, 2002.

"GONE FISHING"

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 06, 2002.