...again, although,(probably) taken with a Leica, this web site is very well done http://www.jamesbareham.com

-- Yogesh jeram (Yogeshjeram@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002

Answers

it is nice, but why would you think it was taken with a leica? I think this could have been done with a number of different brands.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 13, 2002.

A nice site, but if you had taken the time to look at the images closely, your supposition that they were made with a Leica would have been obviously wrong.

Most of the images were shot 120 (both 6x6, 6x12 and 6x17), and while I've not personally tried to load 120 film into my M6, I suspect it would be a rather tight fit.

-- Mark (funn@mindspring.com), April 13, 2002.

FYI, James Bareham certainly used to use contax G, contax slr's (the dancing series was done on rts3's and 851.2's I think), a leica m6 with 351.4 and Rollei slr's (although sometimes he seems to use Hasselblad). Fwiw, I think he's a very fine photographer.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 13, 2002.

looks like he's got an xpan too.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 13, 2002.

It sucks. Is it supposed to be a web site or a video game? I spent close to a minute (on a cable modem) trying to find the first photo, got disgusted and found I couldn't even use my back-arrow to leave the place.

-- Mark Ciccarello (markci@yahoo.com), April 13, 2002.

This is a Flash site they are always very slow.To add images to it makes it super slow.Back to the drawing board.

-- chris c lloyd (cclloyd@talk21.com), April 13, 2002.

complain when u see a photo, complain when u can't see one.

if u can't even be bothered to wait for the display to show up, why bother telling us? MARK?

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Proves that any camera can be used to make truly lackluster images.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 14, 2002.

complain when u see a photo, complain when u can't see one. if u can't even be bothered to wait for the display to show up, why bother telling us? MARK? And I complained when I could see a photo exactly where? I told you, TRAVIS, because the site in fact sucks because of awful overblown design? What exactly was the profound point if your useless post?

-- Mark Ciccarello (markci@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

Sorry Mark, u were right. The site truely sucks.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I am not all that happy with flash sites either, but I did other things while the pages loaded. Once they loaded, the images came up very quickly.

However, I find the images to be highly competent standard commercial work. There's nothing presented that would distinguish his work from hundreds or thousands of other commercial photographers. I'd rather see less slick presentation and photography and more feeling and communication.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 14, 2002.