Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted February 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Zugspitze is this... so Isabelle, this could be really your 3421st ! ... (and sorry for the rough scan from print ... indeed I'm not limited to M8... an old M4 pic) Thank you but I am perfectly aware of what and where the Zugspitze is, My livingroom, diningroom and bedroom look out to it, thus being relatively sober I see the Zugspitze about 25 times on a daily basis at least (weather permitting that is) I also believe that our chalet has one of the most spectacular views of the Zugsptize of all chalets overlooking the Zugspitze hence my perhaps underlying comment towards "boring" and seen it before thing. Although always spectacular and interesting at least it never brings anything new to me that is, guests however will ravish over the view of the mountain in question.... Trust, no hope you understand what exactly I mean.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Hi Isabelle Lenatio, Take a look here How true this is ..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted February 24, 2009 And actually Luigi we might mean the same thing. Years ago when my family purchased the Garmischer residence it was a rarity, nowadays however most people whom want to see Garmisch and Zugspitze have very little trouble doing so.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 24, 2009 Share #23 Posted February 24, 2009 Thank you but I am perfectly aware of what and where the Zugspitze is...,... I posted the pic not for you, Isabelle... ... but "Offshore" question "What is the Zugspitze...?" made me smile and think "now I'll show him what damn is it !". You live in a pleasant place... I love a lot Bavaria... what about some more pics from me ? (Oberammergau, Wieskirche etc...) ; a funny remembrance Leica and Bavaria related... in 1989 (still a single) I tried to go after a nice girl I saw at Neuschwanstein... to make sensation, I approached her asking to take a picture of me in front of the castle... so handing her proudly my M4 (Noctilux 1,2 ! I was a guy to look at seriously !!) ... I smiled , she shot, gave me back the camera and that was all... a smash to my ego, but I still have the pic... one of the most trivial one can imagine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2009 Share #24 Posted February 24, 2009 But is it not that we want more and more and more, features we have difficulties putting to use in out normal photography pattern. A 12.800 iso camera is introduced and at that point in time it's noticed as the best thing since sliced bread, everybody needs it, everybody wants it, any other spec is downright ridiculed. How many "better" images do you see? .... they might be technologically perfect but shooting for the sake of being able to shoot technological perfect images doesn't cut the cake now does it, even if you have the means, the methods and the technology.... In absolute imaging terms, very little progresses along the rate of technological progression wouldn't you agree? No argument here...And I don't like sliced bread either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted February 25, 2009 Share #25 Posted February 25, 2009 The way that I see it is that technology has made the "snapshot" market substantially bigger and has improved the results quite dramatically (most of the time). I still laugh often when people come along and take sunset shots with their p&s camera's, let the camera do all the thinking, and flash the scene. Then they sit and look at the LCD display and wonder why the image turned out so crap... Yet, I come along with my technologically disabled camera, that can not do a third of what these p&s can do, and take images that these people would not be able to take in a 100 years. In terms of that ISO 12,800 speed that has been mentioned here - what for ? I remember the launch of Kodak 400 film (must have been late 70's early 80's). It was a huge event, and those first films were actually quite bad - probably even worse than the M8 at ISO 2500 - yet everyone was amazed. I still remember shooting Ektachrome 64 and then later my favorite film of all time Fuji Velvia (RVP) ISO 50. I'm still amazed when I look at 20 year old Velvia slides at the colors that that film gave me. At the end of the day it comes down to knowing how to use your equipment and understanding the basics of photography (composition, exposure and the relationship between shutter speed and aperture). Even with these new do-it-all wonders you can still take images that are real crap. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted February 25, 2009 Share #26 Posted February 25, 2009 Well Winogrand often used a Speed-Graphic, which was the 1Ds of his day and the others Leica and Contax equipment, so yes historically it is a bit of nonsense. But the old cliché that it is not the camera but the photographer is true all the same. When did Winogrand use a Speed Graphic, aside from his commercial work or the earliest days in the 1950's? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted February 25, 2009 Share #27 Posted February 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you but I am perfectly aware of what and where the Zugspitze is, My livingroom, diningroom and bedroom look out to it, thus being relatively sober I see the Zugspitze about 25 times on a daily basis at least (weather permitting that is) I also believe that our chalet has one of the most spectacular views of the Zugsptize of all chalets overlooking the Zugspitze hence my perhaps underlying comment towards "boring" and seen it before thing. Although always spectacular and interesting at least it never brings anything new to me that is, guests however will ravish over the view of the mountain in question.... Trust, no hope you understand what exactly I mean.... In 1988 I moved from Southern California to a small town in the northern most part of the state. Most of my high school friends had been living there for years and one day, after a snow fall, I was out with one of my friends chopping more wood for the heater. The sun broke through the clouds over a range of snow covered mountains in the distance and I stopped to enjoy the incredible view. My friend kept chopping wood and wouldn't have looked up had I not said "Look at that incredible beauty!" He stared at it with me for a few minutes and said, "You know you're right, I guess I've lived here so long that I've forgotten what beauty I have in front of me every day, I just take it for granted." Sound familiar Isabelle. That "damn" place as another member here called it looks like a place that I would love to live in and experience the ongoing transformation of the powerful beauty that nature gives us that we so often take for granted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 25, 2009 Share #28 Posted February 25, 2009 When did Winogrand use a Speed Graphic, aside from his commercial work or the earliest days in the 1950's? I was recalling an image where he is sitting over a doorway carrying the camera - but memory (especially mine )is fallible, I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 25, 2009 Share #29 Posted February 25, 2009 offs--re: resplendent sunset-- Heine (in the Harzreise, I think) mentions a beautiful sunset that has all the travelers at the inn outside viewing it in awe, till a student breaks the mood by commenting, „Wie ist die Natur doch im Allgemeinen so schön!“ Isabelle, Luigi--I was going to say I always thought Zugspitze meant Lokomotiv? but I guess that's obvious and sophomoric? Just my typical American's lack of adequate linguistic upbringing, I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted February 26, 2009 Share #30 Posted February 26, 2009 This little article is merely a soundbite of the tired homily that equipment matters less than talent. This is really a tedious and unimaginitive bit of sermonizing. In practice, things are much more complex. Some cameras can impose limits on the development of photographic talent while others help it blossom, but you must still learn to walk before you can run. Sometimes the tools are at fault if they are too far below or too far above the skills of the photographer. And in any case, all too often the perfect image only exists in the imagination of the photographer regardless of the equipment. Anyhow, this article is nothing but fluff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 26, 2009 Share #31 Posted February 26, 2009 I like this response to the original Amazon blog post because it's demonstrative on so many levels. Probably best read aloud, to the end, with gesticulations of course. (BTW--It's been marked by the blog readers as 'not adding to the discussion.'): Posted on Feb 23, 2009 8:09 PM PSTAldo says: You think one of today's point and shoot cameras can be a "decisive moment" camera? Either you never shot with a very old leica with slow film or never shoot with a point and shoot. The shutter lag for a film leica, provided that you advanced the film IS CERO. The shutter lag for a point and shoot usually is somewhere from half a second to a couple of seconds NO MATTER HOW YOU CONFIGURE IT. You can not turn off the slow autofocus!!!!! You are so off the point!!!! Its true that a good camera wont make you a good photographer. But you need the right tool for the job. If Cartier Bresson had used anything close to a point and shoot HE WOULD HAVE MISSED HIS DECISIVE MOMENTS. Idiot. As I see it, Aldo is blaming today's tools for their picture-taking inadequacies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted February 26, 2009 This little article is merely a soundbite of the tired homily that equipment matters less than talent. This is really a tedious and unimaginitive bit of sermonizing. In practice, things are much more complex. Some cameras can impose limits on the development of photographic talent while others help it blossom, but you must still learn to walk before you can run. Sometimes the tools are at fault if they are too far below or too far above the skills of the photographer. And in any case, all too often the perfect image only exists in the imagination of the photographer regardless of the equipment. Anyhow, this article is nothing but fluff. ... In practice "things" aren't at all complex, it's "people" that tend to make things very complex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 26, 2009 Share #33 Posted February 26, 2009 I was recalling an image where he is sitting over a doorway carrying the camera - but memory (especially mine )is fallible, I agree. Hi Jaap, To the best of my knowledge, Winogrand did not ever work with a Graphlex. Even the commercial work was mostly (maybe completely) shot with his Leicas and then duped up to MF before being delivered. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted February 26, 2009 Share #34 Posted February 26, 2009 ... In practice "things" aren't at all complex, it's "people" that tend to make things very complex. You're right, I made things too complex. I should have said that the question of equipment is more nuanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted February 27, 2009 Share #35 Posted February 27, 2009 Originally Posted by Isabelle Lenatio ... In practice "things" aren't at all complex, it's "people" that tend to make things very complex. Some people make things very complex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.