How about a READABLE copy ... let me try this:
marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Let's make one thing clear. Hardly anybody in the UK and Europe knows who Herb Kepler is. ..."
Gosh, Marc, aside from speaking for apparently everybody in the UK and Europe ... anyway, I WON'T pursue THAT any further! ;-)
Since Herb convinced Minolta to go ahead with the autofocus Minolta AF 7000 instead of the manual focus Minolta X-600, many people in the UK and Europe and Asia and Africa and America who are using any brand of auto focus SLR benefit from Herb's prescience nonetheless, even without knowing of him. Since you represent the people of the UK and Europe, you can now spread
the word! And when you and all the people of the UK and Europe next have a little huddle together, you may ask them to tell you about the ~6,700 web pages with Herbert Keppler's name (play with the spelling, I'm sure some references are not THE Herbert Keppler we are discussing), and see if maybe after all, the people of the UK and Europe actually do know a bit more than you think
they do!
So, in two ways Herbert Keppler may be the most influential Minolta Photographer (let alone most influential photographer of any product brand name):
1 - having helped steer the modern automatic SLR universe spearheaded by Minolta with auto focus, and
2 - publishing monthly in the world's most popular photo resource, Popular Photography magazine, pictured holding his Minolta.
Good for him!
Good for us!
Why Minolta at all?
... for me, because I hunger for my Minolta cameras when I am holding my other brand cameras. I appreciate the choices made by
Yashica, Contax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Pentax and so on, and I CAN take a satisfactory image through them all ... but when I am
holding them in my hands, I just appreciate Minolta camera designs and execution all the more.
So, no matter what brand of camera I am holding, I am a Minolta Photographer.
And, in some ways, IF I am most comfortable with my Minolta cameras, THEN I will probably take more pictures, and better images
(that is, more satisfactory images for me), than I would with my other cameras around which I feel less comfortable and intuitive.
I get the same common feeling of intuitive control and function across the whole range when holding my Minolta SR-T-series
cameras or my Minolta HiMatic-series cameras or my Minolta X-series cameras or my Minolta AF-series SLR cameras or my Minolta
point-and-shoot-series cameras.
I do not have Minolta Polaroid or TLR or 110 or 16mm or APS or digital or 8mm or other format Minolta cameras. Who can weigh in
on their experience of these other Minolta cameras?
Marc, what is your experience of your Minolta Photography? Just Leica equivalent lenses at a lesser price? Leica is a long way away from a DLSR, too.
"Professional" is such an over-used word as to have no specific meaning anymore. A National Geographic photographer who shoots 500 rolls of film on a week long assignment is just as "professional" as the local street fair vendor who sells an occasional inkjet print s "professional" in that they get paid for their photography.
"Commercial" may be the most appropriate description of the prime target for Nikon and Canon high end DSLRs ... journalists and
product photographers and stock and speculative photographers - the so called image "industry".
"Amateur" - and of course, people with money and a love of photography buy anything, so Canon, shocked, yet bolstered by being outdone by Nikon, and Minolta and Sony and Olympus (non SLR digital sales!), Canon thrust itself ahead and invested enough to reinvent digital photography via their own chips. (Pay attention to this, Konica Minolta!)
I concur with your assessment of digital bringing the photographer some greater control (including avoiding damage from airport x-ray inspection machines). A wide angle zoom and telephoto zoom on anybody's DSLR seems an appropriate kit, and can be had for ~US$2,000 WHILE KEEPING YOUR MINOLTA SYSTEM (or sell it at a loss so we can buy it cheap on the used market!!!).
Why not use a Minolta digital non-SLR for such purposes? Oh, because someone else is signing the purchase order, so why not tank them for all sorts of high end, expensive gear, as if one can't take a news snap with a pocketable bauble. Okay, the mini cameras peak out around ~300mm in 35mm equivalent, or ~8° angle of view in universal terms, so big, expensive lenses are
absolutely necessary in some situations.
And film currently has a greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio than digital ... sounds like a film scanner is in order, eh?
If you're playing in the digital darkroom, you're not phoning in images from the field for daily publication, so you can take the time to
scan film if you want to, and film is only a compromise if you can't work out a hand inspection routine with the airlines (that is, for airline travel). You can use film for any non-airline travel photography, or use film and ship it seperately. I don't fly anymore, but
the last time I did, they hand inspected my film canisters - all hundred or so of 'em!
As far as what other people think, especially snooty sales people, if you care what other people think, you'd have a Nikon or Canon
by now! ;-) Who are you trying to please?
As far as image makers being important, that is 1,000% subjective and wanders in and out of fashion seasonally, and academia and
commerce spin in their own opposing circles. I was talking statistically. Britney Spears may sell more than the Beatles - who is
more important, and who is more influential, and who carries the greater statistics? Who cares?!?
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise Monahon
Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer
peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
