Are You a Better Photographer b/c You Use a leica Monochrom?

[leicaphilia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://leicaphilia.com/youll-be-a-better-photographer-if-you-use-a-leica/

[Herr Barnack]

Overall an okay article, but interwoven with some seriously flawed thinking:

 

Let’s face it: Leica cameras are ridiculously expensive and technologically crude.

The M240, M-P and Monochrom 246 are "technologically crude??"  Not hardly.  Do they have all the bells and whistles that Nikon and Canon's flagship DSLRs do?  No.  Does that make them technologically crude?  No.

 

They can be finicky and incredibly expensive to maintain and repair.

In 12+ years of shooting with a film MP and an M4-P, That is not the case.  Not in my experience, anyway.  Maintenance?  $300 for an overhaul once every ten years.  An operating cost of $30/year does not qualify as "incredibly expensive to maintain" by anyone's standards that I have ever met.

 

Digital photography is radically democratized. Everybody can do it, and do it well without any real understanding of the mechanisms involved.

Not from what I have seen on the interweb, in galleries and in art shops that sell art photography.

 

Photography need no longer be a craft, a practice that requires something other than a common aptitude. Anyone can do it, and do it well.

Again, this is simply not the case - based on what I have seen.  Technology is not a viable substitute for craftsmanship, skill and photographic insight.  These skills take years to hone, not just a quick flip through a DSLR's manual to see what all the buttons do.

 

I would suggest that, in spite of the tired cliche that “it’s not the camera,”, your skills are dependent, in a real sense, on the camera.

Okay - now we have some real nonsense to think about.

 

A camera does not define your skills.  It does not determine your skills.  You cannot "take pictures just like Mr. Cartier-Bresson" ( as a man who was going to buy a Leica for his son once said back in the days of yore) just because you buy the same camera and lens that he used.  There's just a little more to it than that.  If not, then both my Leicas and my four lenses are all defective and I should be pissed as hell at Leica. 

 

If I buy an 8x10 camera, will my photographs magically become "just as good as" Ansel Adams' photographs?  If I buy a set of surgical tools and scalpels, does that mean I can now assert that I am a cardiothoracic surgeon and commence to performing heart surgery on living patients?? 

 

On second thought, perhaps calling this "an okay article" is being far too generous.  YMMV.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[leicaphilia]

Don't mince words, Carlos.

 

You think my article sucks. That's OK. I'm used to being the contrarian in most matters. As a general rule, I'm of the opinion that the common view is almost invariably wrong, the product of muddled thinking or no real thinking at all. good to see it got you fired up.

[sanyasi]

Answer to question: No.

[LocalHero1953]

No. Or maybe yes. I am a better photographer for having once bought a Leica (though never an MM). After the first few shots I realised I had a camera that was far more capable than my then skills could justify. It gave me the incentive to work hard at it to become a better photographer. It was like spending years driving Fords and then getting into a Ferrari. It doesn't automatically make you a better driver but it sure makes you want to BE a better one.

 

I also believe that the common view is nearly always wrong. I believe in a flat earth, Father Christmas and free lunches.

Edited June 10, 2015 by LocalHero1953

[Printmaker]

I'm not sure about the "better" part but I'm certainly happier using a camera that feels like an analog camera from the 60s yet delivers a digital file capable of making fine art prints. And, yes, the Monochrom is an inspiring tool which is very satisfying to use.

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't mince words, Carlos.

 

You think my article sucks. That's OK. I'm used to being the contrarian in most matters. As a general rule, I'm of the opinion that the common view is almost invariably wrong, the product of muddled thinking or no real thinking at all. good to see it got you fired up.

Fired up?  No.  Exasperated?  Yes. 

 

What we have here is a difference of photographic viewpoints. 

 

My philosophy is to attack ideas rather than to attack the person who presents them.  Therefore while we have a difference of viewpoint, we can still respect each other. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[Winedemonium]

Leicaphilia, I enjoy your articles and subscribe to the feed. I've often thought to drop you a note, but there doesn't appear to be a way to contact you via that site. I'm glad to have finally put 2-and-2 together...

 

Your article was pause for reflection at the weekend.

 

Truth be told I take most of my photographs on my phone - like most people. It's always ready for the 'decisive moment'. As photographs to critique, not many would stack up, because I didn't take them as any sort of artistic output. But some of them I have, and a small number I count amongst the best photographs I've taken. The camera I use next most might be a tie between the M system as a whole (various bodies and lenses), and a Ricoh GR. I have little affection for the Ricoh, but it gives me what I want most times I use it, and it is very flexible. (I just forget what I've done with settings and get confused by it a bit). In distant 4th place I use my D810 and some nice Zeiss glass. In my mind this is a tripod-only set up, and it only gets used when I have something specific in mind. 

 

Which means, roughly speaking, I use my cameras in reverse order of resolution! 

 

But this, I think, comes back to the point of your article, and perhaps the point of your question. I would phrase it like this -- "does the burden of learning to use camera X well, and the ergonomic hurdle of carrying it and using it, lead you to better photographs?" If not, its the wrong camera for you. I love the form, and method of the rangefinder, and quality of Leica. When I use this system I feel inspired by it, occasionally frustrate by it. 

 

The interesting thing about the Monochrom is that it is not worth firing the shutter if the image is not going to be interesting for its luminance. A woman in a bright yellow coat waiting to cross a black road in grey surrounding, but with road marking painted yellow might make an interesting photograph in colour, but the whole message is lost in black and white. If you carry the Monochrom, there's no point. Therefore, you are actively looking for a certain type of shot, where light and shadow play to create a certain look or mood. If that inspires you, then the inspiration (rather than the relative technical arguments about the loss of a bayer filter on resolution, etc) of the Monochrom might make you a better photographer. But you could just as easily make the argument for an iPhone.

[BerndReini]

 

 

Are You a Better Photographer b/c You Use a leica Monochrom?

No, I use a Leica Monochrome because I am a better photographer.

[honcho]

...... I'm used to being the contrarian in most matters. As a general rule, I'm of the opinion that the common view is almost invariably wrong, the product of muddled thinking or no real thinking at all......

Heh!

 

You certainly revealed some muddled thinking by the predictable reaction of slavish indignation.  I enjoyed your post and found  myself in agreement with much of it.  You should do it more often.  

[M9reno]

Thank you for the article.  I follow you on intentionality, but I'm not sure how that leads us to the Monochrom, as opposed to any Leica M or screw-mount model.

[MarkP]

Of course it does - I'm living the dream!

[AlanJW]

No. 

I think the premise that cameras take photographs is about as valid as "word processors write books".

They're computers.  But the computer between one's ears is the one that results in creativity.  The reason I have a Leica with its capabilities is so I can never blame the camera for a poor image.  Anything that goes wrong is my fault.

 

What I will agree with is having a good tool in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing is going to make it easier for them.   I also will comment that getting a new camera will sometimes rekindle dormant creative instincts.  But this is merely a temporary effect.      

[peterjcb]

I don't know if it makes me a better photographer on not...most likely not.... but I like the way it feels and love using it so I guess there's some intangible value in there somewhere...

...and MarkP....I agree with you totally...

Edited June 11, 2015 by peterjcb

[asiafish]

http://leicaphilia.com/youll-be-a-better-photographer-if-you-use-a-leica/

I enjoyed the article, agree with some parts of it, disagree with others.

 

As for the question of this thread (the Monochrom) and the article (film M), do they make us better photographers?  I'd have to say no.

 

I own film Ms (M2 and M5), digital Ms (M-E and M Monochrom classic) and modern Leica digitals (X Vario, X 113) and some non-Leica as well, an Olympus OM-1 and my trusty iPhone 5s.  ALL OF THEM are great cameras in their own way.  

 

One of the best pictures I ever took was a digital picture with poor white balance, poor lens performance in the corners and since it is a JPEG there is not enough latitude in the file to correct everything.  I took it with my old iPhone 4, and the technical problems don't matter because it is such a great shot of my wife and daughter on a special night at a special event.  I made an 11X14 print and got it to quite acceptable quality and have it displayed proudly where we all enjoy it.  It is the best possible result of that scene with the equipment I had available and within the limits of my processing skills.  It would certainly have been technically better with a Leica or other high end camera and lens, but I could not (and would not) have brought a camera with me that evening.

 

I love using my Leicas, and actually enjoy all of them about equally.  The X is not built anywhere near the standard of the M2 or M5, but I enjoy using it just as much, and my results with it are just as good.  In fact I recently attended a workshop focused mostly on film and shot almost exclusively with the M5 (my favorite camera of all time), but I also carried the little X with me and used it both as a "polaroid back" and for casual use.  My best photo of the entire workshop was taken with the X.

[gunston]

yes, i believe a at least you will good while holding a monochorm, mentally intrigues for better photographer even with meaningless photos outcome

[Jager]

I don't think the Monochrom, per se, makes one a better photographer.  But most of us dance around too much equipment and engage too many photographic options.  I think anything that distills those choices into a smaller universe does help make us better.  Doing that forces us to spend less time on gear, and thinking about gear, and concentrating instead on light and shadow and color and texture and confluence and composition - all the stuff that matters a great deal more.

 

So in that sense, the Monochrom, as a B&W-only camera, can help make us a better photographer.  But so does choosing one film, or using one camera, or one lens, etc.

 

[Jeff S]

 

So in that sense, the Monochrom, as a B&W-only camera, can help make us a better photographer.  But so does choosing one film, or using one camera, or one lens, etc.

Of course that assumes that the MM is the person's only camera…not likely around these parts. 

 

Jeff

[250swb]

Better than what? Where is the starting line?

 

There are photographers using iPhone's that consistently make better photographs than some who use a Monochrom (same goes for those using Holga's or in fact any other camera).

 

But if any photographer feels a particular camera goes even some tiny way to making them more comfortable, then yes if it's a Monochrom it makes them a better photographer. I for instance like the Monochrom because the resolution approaches large format film, the aesthetics of which I am comfortable with, and it allows me to carry a lighter kit when needed, so sometimes a Monochrom makes me a 'better' more productive photographer. But it's a completely inane question, nobody uses or buys a camera because they anticipate it will make them a worse photographer!

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BerndReini]

I think the MM makes me a better black and white photographer simply because I shoot more and more freely. Any camera that inspires you and gets you out there and practice your craft is the one that will make you a better photographer. The M8 was the greatest investment I ever made to further my style as a photographer, and I have owned plenty of cameras that just didn't speak to me. I ended up not using them a lot and ultimately sold them again. Hopefully the photographers that bought them are inspired by them and create wonderful work. The last one of these cameras I sold was a Hasselblad XPan. And I am currently selling my medium format back, mostly because I am having so much fun with the MM and would rather put my money into another lens for it.