Chris Read (of30@dial.pipex.com)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:22:10 +0000
Hi,
This is an interesting point. personally, I've thought for some time
that was holding me back from taking the sort of pictures I want to take
is too MUCH choice. I used to use 35mm and ended up totally confused
about which lens combination to employ for a particular shot. But things
improved one day a few years ago when I brought an ancient Rolleiflex in
a Liverpool junk shop. No battery, one lens (albeit of great quality).
And suddenly, because the confusion of choice was denied me, I think I
began to exploit what it *could* do, and my pictures have improved no
end.
Now I'll readily admit that this could simply be down to me being unable
to distill the essence from complexity, but if so, The Rollei has worked
for me.
Chris
Oxford, England
Steve Shapiro wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Quasi "alt" question re:8x10 cameras
>
> >Hi,
> >
> > It is shocking what an 8 X 10 outfit can total up to in dollars.
> Today,
> >a lot of this gear is designed for the professional studio and has a
> multitude
> >of features and accessories that only serve to confuse someone who wants to
> >work more simply.
> > Rich Lahrson
>
> >
> I'm not intending to create an argument, but what inhibited EW was his own
> income.
>
> He was, for all practical purposes, a portrait photographer. He didn't have
> much money. If he had the money, he'd have used the most modern, up to date
> lenses and always regretted he didn't have the lenses others had at that
> time.
>
>> Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48