Money Can’t Buy Everything

No, it’s not Photoshoped. The images above are really Eric Clapton shooting with the $5,000 Leica M8, with the lens cap on. Wonder why the shots didn’t come out? For all the money he spent on the camera, he could have shelled out a little for photography lessons. (via The Sun )
—Kathleen Davis
Assistant Editor

Comments

[Mikek]

Sheesh. Give the guy a break who among us hasn't done this? Not post worthy.

[R T Geasland]

I agree,give the guy a break.You seem to enjoy making fun of others but how about a photography magazine that hires an assistant editor who doesn't know how to take pictures.Now thats a screw-up.

[Ron Nelson]

I loved the pictures and I am glad it was posted. Yes, EC does not deserve to be ridiculed for something that *used* to happen to a lot of us before point and shoot cameras and DSLRs. But it does remind us of the perils of range finder cameras, even the high end ones.

[Foolackey]

Hmmm, yes, the monied fool. That's the joke here right? "Person with expensive camera doesn't know how to use it expertly comedy shocker!" Hilarious, although some might point out that the author of this post is receiving ongoing instruction in the use of her relatively expensive piece of kit. Maybe Clapton should take that online course you are advertising under the pretense of editorial content on this blog Ms Davis?

[Kathleen Davis]

Thanks for your concern about our editorial content. The nature of a consumer magazine is that we discuss products, websites, and services, and that we at times receive things free of charge for review purposes. Being responsible journalists means that we don’t let that influence our opinions. Look through the magazine, on PopPhoto.com, and this blog, and you’ll find that there are numerous products and services that we have given less than favorable reviews.

[Mr. Viddy]

Sorry but the photo of President Bush looking through binoculars with the caps on is more humorous. $5000? Crazy, he should have gotten a Nikon D40. Nikon D40, the camera for those of you who know what D and 40 really stand for.

[Mr. Kiddy]

Hey Mr. Viddy "the IDIOT"
The caps are SUPPOSED to be on the lenses.
He is using the binoculars just right way. Educate yourself Idiot.
http://www.newcon-optik.com/ng.html

[Mr. Corrector]

Hey Mr. Kiddy, "Master of the Obvious"

Didn't it seem odd to you that El Presidente was using night vision goggles in broad daylight? Nice try, though. I'm sure your dear leader appreciates your fanboy adulation all the more for your desperation. It's folks like you who will delay for years Bush's historical footnote "worst president in U.S. prior to 2008."

[nelson muntz]

Well a NON PRO leaving the cap on---humm HOW GOOD CAN YOU PLAY THE GUITAR???

[Chad Thompson]

That blank frame is probably the closest thing to "art" E.C. has created in the last 15 years.

[Yagu]

This edition does not have a reflex mirror in it. Which means he is not looking trough his lens but a sepperate viewfinder. With just looking trough the vieuwfinder he could not possilby have seen that there was no light entering at all. Exept the litle arrow of the lightmeter that was way down ofcourse. Which means he is shooting in full auto mode! But which total amateur isn't! Give this guy a break. I think many of you are just jealous over his equipment ^^.

[silverbullet]

Long time ago I visited a concert of BB King in Germany. He entered the stage, played some small notes and realized a short moment later that his guitar cable was not put into the amp.
The notes came from his very clever side man who checked the situation and helped his master.

[r0nbo]

no the worst president was jimmy carter followed closely by bill clinton. they were wimps and useless on foreign policy. while bush has made many mistakes he still doesnt match their wimpiness and do nothingness. at least hes tried however bad its turned out.

[Johnie]

I'm a pro photographer, and I forgot the lens cap at least once in a week. My excuse is that I rarely use it, but same thing altogether.

[Anon]

I'm not sure how many of you read tabloids, but you might want to keep in mind a couple of things. 1) Photos, and even quotes, are often taken out of context (even by normal newspapers at times). 2) The Sun, specifically, has on multiple occasions lost court cases (or settled out of court) for libel as a result of falsely slandering individuals. Some samples:
- http://www.carter-ruck.com/Newsletters/2005sum-Yusuf_Islam.html
- http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cameron-Diaz-Wins-Libel-Damage-Over-Sun-5591.shtml
- http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=9e90a975-bdf7-4b60-b431-b1a1a68f2d3f&k=83030
- http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,,1806152,00.html

In this case I'd guess that Eric Clapton made a mistake that many of us have made - raising our camera to take a photo while the lens cap was still on. But which photo is actually proving that he did this and was investigating the shots and mystified at the result? Couldn't the photo on the left have been taken just as he raised the camera as a 1-time mistake, while the one to the right was taken minutes apart as he was reviewing some other photos (maybe even before the shot on the left was taken)? Would he be smiling like that looking at a black screen, for instance, rather than some amusing previous photo?

I wouldn't believe everything you read / see, least of all from a paper with the Sun's history...

What's more amusing is that they're able to settle these cases with £100,000's each time because they apparently have such an incredibly gullible public to continue buying their paper. It might even be a better business model for them to print false statements, so long as they're scandalous and keep up readership... How come they don't run a story on that, I wonder?

[foolackey]

I'm not sure where, if anywhere you have "reviewed" the digital photography course you are giving almost free coverage to. Would you even be able to say conclusively that your photography improved after taking this course? Are you even in a position to review this service?

But it's nice to see that my comments in some way helped provoke more discusion on this blog than any of your questionable articles Ms Davis. I agree with anon above, maybe as a "responsible journalist" you shouldn't be reposting any old detritus you find on tabloid web pages.

[jimmy domingo]

Perhaps Mr. Clapton succeeded in fooling us. Who knows if that photograph of him was taken at the moment that he was making fun of himself and with his leica. Photographs can misrepresent.

[Hilary]

Um, "foolackey?" What a clever disguise. Why don't you quit harassing "Ms. Davis" and take her up on her suggestion that you actually look through the website at all of the products and services that have been given less than favorable reviews. Oh, that's right, you would rather attack her like a petulant child and make veiled accusations.

[Eugen]

Remember it's a rangefinder and you can't really see you have the lenscap on when looking through the viewfinder.