Hi all,

In another thread, Yossi writes:

“Gee, and I was told "the camera is not important".”

For me, the relationship between a camera and a Photographer is exactly the same any craftsman has with its tool… Nothing more but nothing less.

The statement the camera (or anything technical, artefact or practice ) matters more than the brain of the Photographer is false, but conversely the statement the camera (or any technical issue) doesn’t matter at all is equally wrong.

Let’s take the example of HCB: he has a certain way to “see” people and translate this sight into a picture and without this very conception which pertains to him individually he won’t have been HCB and a master photographer. This translate into this reality: to have the same camera HCB used won’t make you HCB. But conversely, should the Leica concept have never been developed would HCB had expressed his touch and style the same way? I consider he would have never been able to do so. So the link between the photographer and his tool is reciprocal: dialectical in philosophical language if you prefer.

A simple example will convince you: if you need sharpness to express the interpretation of a scene you want to shoot, you’ll need a camera able to get a sharp image. This is as simple as that. As if conversely you want a blurred or not so sharp image you can ever trick with the same camera to obtain it but you can’t do the reverse with a cheap camera if you need it, so it is better to have a camera which permits both options than a camera regularly unable to produce sharp images.

So the camera, the technique, DO MATTER, because it brings you the choice instead of letting you rely on the built in limitations of your outfit or your knowledge of technique.

I have always considered the so-called “artistic researches” where the photographer voluntarily rely on crappy material absolutely pointless… Whatever the result obtained, it could have been simulated with a good camera. By the way it seems to me most of the time these alleged researches are only a way to mask the lack of capabilities of the so-called self appointed “artist” to master his technique. Any beginner confronted with an all manual camera will tell you how easy it is to get bad pictures versus the ability to get good ones technically speaking …

Now we can elaborate for hours about the relative importance of all factors contributing to obtain a picture with any kind of artistic value (something very subjective by the way). I have just remarked something (as far as what is called straight photography is concerned) most of the time the emotional value of a not so good technically speaking picture is due to the emotional value of the subject itself and I don’t think the lack of technical quality give the picture anything more or was a consequence of a deliberate choice of the photographer.

Finally, the relative importance of technique and cameras in the value of a particular picture seems to me more linked to the subject nature than anything else… I think we can formulate this as a kind of rule: the more the subject is bringing an emotional charge by itself, the less the importance of the technique and camera are important to the final result. Assuming the technical factors are within limits of quality which permit the viewer to clearly see what is the subject, of course…

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 19, 2002

Answers

I was TOLD "the camera is not important".

I BELIEVE the camera is important.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Of course the camera matters. Inaccuracies (focus, exposure, framing etc.) caused by a poorly designed or maladjusted camera will degrade images. Some lenses are sharper than others and with many images it makes a difference. The quality of film (sharpness, grain and tonal range) likewise will impact the image. All that is meant by the statement that "it's the photographer not the camera" (putting aside the times it's said by people trying to justify their equipment choices)is that being technically perfect does not automatically affirm an image's artistic merit, nor do technical faults unequivocally negate it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

The mere fact that we are all reading threads here means Leica is important to us. Get over it! Give credit to Leicas where they deserve.

To those who still think "the camera is not important", get a life or 2.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I do a lot of 'HCB' style 'decisive moment' Street Photography mostly with Leica M. On my website http://www.streetphoto.net there are over 200 street photos, most people say they are pretty good. Ninety five percent of those were taken with Leica Ms and some with Nikon Fs. Nobody but me can tell which is which. So is the camera important? Not really. The ability to SEE a good photo in your mind is much more important than the mechanical thing that you are holding in your hands. Let's face it, no matter what camera brand you are using, 'some people can and some people can not.'

sl

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), May 19, 2002.

Steve, I heard the Yashica T4 is renowned for its STREET phototography ability. Have u tried one? at low light perhaps?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I agree with Steve. Good photographs come from good photographers. The equipment doesn't much matter. For example, I saw an award winning photograph made with a $30 Holga, which has a plastic lens. I do think if you like to take pictures you should have a camera you like. But the equipment won't lead to good pictures. It all comes down to what the picture taker sees -- which can be both frightening and liberating.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 19, 2002.

Yossi,

I do not have a clue about the Yashica, I am sure it takes great pictures, IF, the photographer is capable of doing it. The point is that, it is all in the eyes and mind of the photographer. I love my Leica Ms (I better, I have six of them) and they work very well for what I am using them for. But I can, and I have used, other brands to accomplish the same thing.

sl

-- Steve LeHuray (steve@icommag.com), May 19, 2002.

Stephen is correct, the camera is important only as much as it works as you need it. If a Leica M does it better for you then by all means, do it better. I believe the eyes behind the camera make the image work. HCB would have still been able to achieve greatness with a lesser camera, BUT he chose Leica. Lets face it, we need to stop making excuses for not being able to take top notch images, we need to concentrate on subject and stop idolizing our toys. They are mere tools, nothing more, nothing less.

-- Mike Pobega (thearea19@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

I like the analogy of a craftsman and his tools being applied to photography, and I think it applies particularly well to Leica photography. I feel we choose to use a Leica for some or all of our work because it is a tool that allows us to make the photographs we see in our minds. Other tools could be chosen and applied to the task, certainly. But, the choice of the tool prescribes a particular set of capabilities and techniques that can augment the finished product, once the tool is mastered.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), May 19, 2002.

What Mr Weil intended to say was basically this (I think).

Is that, wouldn't it be nice to have :

1) a camera you like and; 2) has nice handling properties with outstanding lenses to go with?

so that you can vary your intended artistic visions? e.g super bokeh in low light ? SUper sharp images at F2 etc?

Most cameras can't do that. I dunno if a Holga can, but most can't do so like Leica lenses can.

Of cos, Leica lenses do not always garuantee good images. It depends on the photographer afterall. But why settle for less when most of us are already using/have used the best?

Of cos, some can perfect their artistic visions with a P&S and say that the camera is not important. But so what? Who is to know what camera was used to make those artistic images?

Only the photographer will know, deep inside them, what is best for them. SO, the sentence "the camera is not important" has no meaning when it is said out loud.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I think the camera that is important is the one that is important to you, and I think the technique that matters is the one that allows you to say what you want to say - if indeed you have anything to say.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Of cos if u wanna do macro, use a NIKON! If u wanna do sports, use a CANON! Nobody will know!

What I cannot understand is some people will tell u they shoot all their life, has tons of leica equipment and love the feel etc, AND then say "the camera is not important, just shoot what u cared for"

;)

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I missed out "shoot L-E-I-C-A all their life"

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Ralph, right on.

But some people refuse to pay tribute to THE TOOLS once the job is done by saying :" Any tools will do." ;)

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I think most people who aren't photographers consider the tools to be far more important than people who are photographers.

In the early 60s, many well-known photographers switched from Leicas to Nikons. I've asked many people who claim that the tool makes the photograph to show which photos were taken with which camera, but no- one has ever been able to. In other words, photographers at a certain level of accomplishment are able to take the same photographs regardless of the tool.

What I have observed over many years is that format differences are far bigger than lens differences within a format, and that printing almost always obliterates any differences. Most people don't print at a level that makes use of the differences, and many people use automated labs for prints taken with expensive cameras. In the end, these prints are only as good as the lab, not the equipment used to take the photograph.

I do find it far easier to hip shoot with a camera with autowind.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 19, 2002.

sell all your Leicas then.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

The camera shouldn't be important to the audience, only the image.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), May 19, 2002.

Just as a great musician can extract beautiful music from a poorly made instument so to can a great photog extract great images from a poorly made camera. The artists' choice in 'instruments' allows him a feeling/sense of familiarity/comfort to free him to express his craft. The differences between well made 'instruments' are personal choice only. If HCB's personal choice was Leica, so be it. Others blessed with talent have chosen otherwise. If you haven't been blessed with talent for photog the choice is moot.

-- Doug Ford (dford@san.rr.com), May 19, 2002.

This is what HCB has to say about sharpness in his book, "The Naked Eye," page 39: "I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique-a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe l'oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be "artistic.""

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

And this is what I have to say. Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

In other words, photographers at a certain level of accomplishment are able to take the same photographs regardless of the tool

huh?! are you saying you can capture the image taken with a leica with an el-cheapo yashica p&s? please...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

a zoom yashica p&s, that is...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

Early published pictures by HC-B, before he got a Leica, indicate that his vision was already fully developed. The Leica was, for hiim, just a somewhat handier tool.

-- Willhelmn (bmitch@comcast.net), May 19, 2002.

Willhelmn - Could the reason be that "Fine Arts" education he had? Did you ever see the HCB/Charlie Rose interview? At one point, CR asked HCB, if he always carried a camera, where his camera was? And HCB pulled a small sketching pad and pencil out of his pocket. Wow, thought I, I can really dig were this dude is coming from.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

So the real point (at least for HCB) isn't whether a photographer can take the same photograph with a high end camera & lens as they can with a disposable camera, but rather, can you actually sketch it, or paint it, or draw it? Can you model it for massing, or light and dark areas? Can you break it down into it's compositional elements, and know what the hell you're talking about? Of course you can't, and either can I. And what of the work, the exploration of image, now being done with the Holga's, and Dana's? Just spend some time going through the Galleries at our sister site, Photo.Net. I've seen some pretty good stuff there taken with all sorts of cameras, both digital and film alike. Or how about Terry Richardson, who now shoots exclusively with p&s cameras (and not very expensive ones at that)? Or Robert Franks porfolio of Polaroids taken with the Polaroid SX-70? I tell people, want to see how good a photographer, or image maker you are, shoot a disposal camera. What's it all about Alfie? Well it's not about Leica's, Nikon's, Canon's, or Air Force Chart resolution. It's about, , , , , (X-Files!) little green men in space ships.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 19, 2002.

The camera and technique matter to the extent that they matter.

And they don't matter to the extent that they don't matter.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), May 19, 2002.

Jeff Spirer made an excellent point concerning the role of printing and the final image. I have used a variety of cameras and formats but my preference for a certain "look" and the one and only enlarger I use (an antique Simmon-Omega 4x5) with ITS lenses obviously ameliorates and adjusts everything by virtue of its personality and optics. Looking at 'chromes on a light table is something else. I value the Leica for what it does best, not because I consider it to be the only camera worth having.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

A good photographer knows the limits of all his tools. Give him a lower grade camera and he/she still can produce acceptable work.. The better composition; lighting; and subject matter comes with experence..The marketing guys are rarely hawking lighting equipment or reflectors to fill shadows in portraits...Kelly

Many of Bunny Yeagers first work was with a 4x5 speed graphic....In her move to roll film; she used a used Kodak Reflex that used 120 film....

Most professional photographers owned Rolleiflexes which shot 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 film; 12 shots per roll. Professionals did not use 35mm then like they do today. I could'nt afford a Rollei; so I bought a used Kodak Reflex camera that took 120 size roll film and produced 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 size negs. It looked almost like a Rollei, but it didnt have a good as lens (as some photographers pointed out to me) and you had to turn the film by hand from number to number with a knob....Some of my amateur photographer friends would make fun of me, because when I turned the knob to move the film along, it would squeak. They made me feel like I was using an antique toy. But then as well as today, I have always felt that equipment is secondary; it is the genius of the person operating the equipment that makes the shot, not a piece of metal,wood or plastic" - Bunny Yeager as quoted in "Bunny's Honeys published by Benedikt Taschen Verlag GmbH Koln (Geermany) ISBN 3-8228-9329-3 book has text in English German & French

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 19, 2002.

KODAK REFLEX LINK

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 19, 2002.

HCB used a Leica because it was a small, portable hand camera--not because it was a Leica. What were his other choices at the time?

HCB did not put a premium on sharpness.

All the stuff about the Leica mystique and the brand's unique capabilities have been appended in hindsight to the history of photography.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 19, 2002.

Preston,

I agree about the reason of the chocie of Leica by HCB but he could have chosen one of the numerous Leica clones... Or have used a Rolleiflex TLR like a lot of photographers in his time.

The tool means something, you don't do the same picture of the same subject with a different camera and when you mix into professional photography you mind about reliability too... HCB chosed a Leica because it was a reliable (so the inferior clones were set aside) and for the reason you described...

The fact is it was an encounter between a photographer and the TOOL which suited HIS requirements...

So the tool does matter...

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 19, 2002.

True artists generally obsess over their equipment.My mother took 6 months and looked at about twenty Steinways before finding the right one.That said, she could also perform on the worst upright you could find.My wife is an artist and writer, and while she dosnt obsess over paints and brushes it still is paramount in her mind.My mom studied technique at the Juliard relentlessly for years to graduate at age 16 with a masters degree. My wife studied and read for years before she wrote her first novel ...that series took about 12 hours a day for 2 years to complete the series of six. So I would say that if you want to be great, the tools as well as the technique are invalueable.This is all so you can become like...very good friends with your technique and equipment to produce deep results.As long as you have something to say, more technique or a better instrument wont hurt you.Many people with little inside themselves of interest though, cover that up with grandious technique or a great instrument.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 19, 2002.

Another gentleman's disagreement with you Francois. To say that, "the relationship between photographer and camera is exactly the same as between craftsman and his tools", religates photography to an artisans' position in the art world. This evokes the ongoing argument of whether photography is, or is not a true art. Certainly graftmanship plays a role in photography, just as it does in painting or sculpture. But there is the less easily explained artistic and intuitive aspect to photography that some excel at more than others. Even HCB had someone else perform the "craft" of printing his photographic images. I was trained as a artist. Only later did I started using a camera for my artistic outlet. It's pretty much the same emotional focus, except instead of brush and canvas it's the much more expensive Leica creative conduit. Your thoughts on this?

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 19, 2002.

HCB used the Leica because it allowed him to move freely. Before taking his first picture, he studied painting for several years. He developed a very good eye (a lot of his pictures contain an incredible sens of composition). The camera was only a way of recording his vision (he could have used painting, drawing,...). I realize more and more that this guy is an artist in the full meaning of that word. In the twenties and the thirties, he met with a lot of artists (Breton (surealist, Theriade, Doineau, Aragon, Giacometi, Sartre, Camus,...) and I feel that his pictures are not only shots: they contain a lot of cultural backround, and contain diferent layers.

-- Arie (nhaziza@northorock.bm), May 19, 2002.

I sold a print to someone from this forum a few months ago. I won't identify him, if he wants to, that's fine, he's even on this thread. He had seen the image on the web site, and after he received the print, sent me a wonderful email about why he liked the image.

The photograph was made with one of the least sharp lenses I have ever used. It was on a fixed lens rangefinder I got in trade for a flash bracket. I used the camera for several years, particularly in "high risk" situations or terrible weather, until the shutter died. Maybe someday I will get it fixed...

The image lasts, it has emotional value. It could have been taken with almost anything as long as it worked at the moment I saw the scene.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 19, 2002.

Marc writes :

>> Another gentleman's disagreement with you Francois. To say that, "the relationship between photographer and camera is exactly the same as between craftsman and his tools", relegates photography to an artisans' position in the art world. This evokes the ongoing argument of whether photography is, or is not a true art. <<

I don’t think we disagree at all… I just consider to express yourself as an artist you need first to master the technique trough which you’ll convey your expression. So in the first place, you’ll have to be a craftsman, moreover a superior craftsman, as to learn how to transcend the technical aspect into art and express freely what you want to express without being limited by the technical aspects. Photography is a media which is able to produce pieces of art, so does painting… But neither each painting nor each photography produced is systematically art.

>> Certainly craftsmanship plays a role in photography, just as it does in painting or sculpture. But there is the less easily explained artistic and intuitive aspect to photography that some excel at more than others. Even HCB had someone else perform the "craft" of printing his photographic images. <<

I don’t think the vastly ignored work of those who print pictures taken by others is ever simply a craftsman’s work… The best printers are full-fledged artists IMHO. Then not everybody was authorized by HCB to print his negatives, he has preferences for some printers he knew they will accurately translate into print his work (I mean for books or galleries of course).

>> I was trained as a artist. Only later did I started using a camera for my artistic outlet. It's pretty much the same emotional focus, except instead of brush and canvas it's the much more expensive Leica creative conduit. Your thoughts on this? <<

I mostly agree with you… But tell me, what is the reason why you chose a Leica M and not another camera but the fact it happened to be the camera (hence tool) which was the most adapted to your kind of work? So there is the same kind of relationship between you and your tool a craftsman has with his tool as an artist is someone who can express himself, “create” something through a media (whatever this media is) so a “creative craftsman”. Even a writer is a kind of creative craftsman as he has to know how to use his tool: the language…

Another point is the fact I think too many people these days pretend to be artists, using art as an excuse to do a crappy job just because they have not the courage or the ability to learn how to use their tools (whatever these tools are).

Look a Pablo Picasso’s “Toros y Toreros” and you will se how with very few lines and very few colors, Picasso did represent the essential of the forms and the movements… But to reach this level, Picasso had the courage to learn all of drawing and painting bases and he was capable of drawing realistically to a rare perfection… This is a true artist in his might.

Most of the present so-called and self appointed (with the help of some sound marketing though) “artists” of our time are not in the same league, by far…

So I avoid to qualify me as an artist… I just pretend to be a good craftsman who – may be, sometimes – really produces a photograph which might eventually pretend to an artistic value. I simply stay humble. I stay perpetually unsatisfied of my work and ever search to be better if I can… By the way, I appreciate to make no more my living with photography as I have at least gained some freedom again.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 19, 2002.

I think it's 90% subject and technique, 10% camera.

As long as you have a decent camera that works properly...and you know how to operate it properly...then the rest is up to you

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 19, 2002.

To reach the "level" that Picasso reached.......................... (you have to have a monolithic, imperious, totalitarian, academic community incessantly inculcating adoration for the "artist". I doubt that any school child escapes without being evangelized for the glory of Picasso (and such) - We have been told who is "great" and we have listened/obeyed/ -and more importantly - purchased!!! $$$$. I haven't discerned any evidence that suggests he learned to use "his tools".

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Willhelmn

You say that HCB's early published pictures were not taken with a Leica. Could you give me a reference for this. The quotes I have read from HCB is that he bought a Leica, spent a few days learning how to use it, went into the streets and never turned back. The only other pictures he refers to were taken earlier in Africa and the film was ruined.

I believe he really used nothing but Leica throughout his life. I'm sure he could have beaten all of us out with a disposeable camera, but that doesn't mean that the tools he chose were unimportant to him.

-- jay goldman (jrgoldman9@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I own 6 cameras and only with the tools I used amongst the ones I had available this photo was possible at the available subject distance and other conditions really possible at the ocasion.

The same watercolor-like aspect wouldn't have been possible either with another combination of body/lense possible for me.

But it took me time and effort (and film) to know how to do it the right way with the right tools.

In summary, I basically agree with your dialectical statement.

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), May 19, 2002.

the relationship to a craftsman to his tools to me does not denegrate or even touch on the subject of whether a photographer is an artist or not. to me it implies that magical moment that is established over time that your camera, or whatever your tool of trade is can do no wrong in your hands. I have 8 cameras including M's and R's, but I learned on an olympus and it still can do no wrong in my hands. the r6.2 has the same feel and is the more reliable workhorse. one day my M's will have the same feel.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 19, 2002.

Bunny Yeager

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 20, 2002.

Maybe it's just my paranoia, but Yossi seems to have taken exception to a post of mine in response to a thread started by Luke Dunlap, in which I said that worrying about Zen and simplicity are not going to improve anyone's photography, whereas having a deeply felt subject will. I'd just like to point out that I never said "The camera is not important"! Otherwise I would have bought a bagfull of point and shoots rather than the very expensive (and limited) equipment I actually use.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

"I think most people who aren't photographers consider the tools to be far more important than people who are photographers."

yea, try changing a puntured tyre with just a spanner.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

"Your photography will improve when you stop thinking about cameras and start taking pictures about stuff you care about. " by ROB.

Nothing against you Rob, but how is the camera important if you stop think about them?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Yossi, believe me, when I'm taking pictures, I have no time to think about cameras, except to curse when they break or jam. The silky smoothness, the heft and all that, completely disappear and the subject is all. If it wasn't that way, if the equipment intruded, I would change it. All I ask from a camera is that it keep out of the way when I'm using it, and at the present time the Leica M does that for me. I wouldn't hesitate to dump them if this ever changed, due to too frequent failures or failing eyesight or whatever.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

So the Leica M is important to you. So if you were using a fiddly Nikon body, you would think of the Leica M in your closet, wouldn't you?

So you thought about what camera bodies were important to you, that suited you, that didn't get in your way, before you used them. Right?

That's exactly my point. The camera is important , but only the person using it knows which.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

"So the Leica M is important to you. So if you were using a fiddly Nikon body, you would think of the Leica M in your closet, wouldn't you?

So you thought about what camera bodies were important to you, that suited you, that didn't get in your way, before you used them. Right?

That's exactly my point. The camera is important , but only the person using it knows which."

Wow, we traveled a fur piece to wind up with this less than scintillating denouement. I hope everyone had a tissue handy to wipe up their mess.

-- George T. (davecasman@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Regarding that last response...

Dave Casman is a Firesign Theater character. As of this time (I am sure someone will go grab it), there is no davecasman@yahoo.com.

So, how about that, lots of fake names, including Yossi. Fortunately, there are ways to get the IPs...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 20, 2002.

I've had this e-mail address for AGES. How did you determine that no one had it? There was no e-mail in my inbox (though there's one in yours now).

In re: aliases, maybe I'm Henri Cartier-Bresson and I just wanted to participate without all the fawning and oleaginous adulation.

Or not.

-- GLT (davecasman@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

After admiring Kelly Flanagan's photo of "Bunny Yeager", I'd say that HCB would have done better with a Rolleiflex twin lens.

-- Steve B. (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), May 20, 2002.

They _definitely_ don't make photographers like they used to.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

That's a nice looking Rolleiflex in that picture. Is that a 3.5E or 3.5F? It doesn't look like it has a meter, but I guess either one could come that way.

Sorry, but I am a little confuse by Jeff Spirer's post. What is Fireside Theatre? Is this an American show? Are you saying that David Casman is an American celebrity Leica user? I would be happy to know I read the same Leica forum used by a TV or movie celebrity!

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.