Jump to content

M10 - too refined ?


FrozenInTime

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Strangely I find I am not overly excited in anticipation waiting for my ordered M10 to arrive:

I've traded in my M9 and MM and my heart says right now I am in a good place - before the M10 arrives, using film in a M6 and M-A ( I had predominantly been using a lot of film over the last year ).

I sense the M10 will just be a tool used to justify the continued use of exotic glass.

 

Has digital photography become too perfected ; the craft of wrestling light and technology deminished leaving just the art of visualization and composition ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the M10 does not give me the idea of over-perfection, image-wise. There is nothing clinical or boringly perfect on these images. If you go up in ISO, about above 1600, I can only say that the good old days of interesting and esthetic grain/noise in slidefilms like Kodachrome200 or AgfaChrome 1000 are coming back to me. I have missed that for a long time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has digital photography become too perfected ; the craft of wrestling light and technology deminished leaving just the art of visualization and composition ?

I would say the answer to this question is no. Any technological advance that allows us to focus better on visualizing and creating the image is a good thing. But "wrestling the light" remains one of the most important aspects of taking a great photograph. The M10 can take a dog, as well as a masterpiece. The character and angle of the light and the photographer's skill and vision will determine which outcome is produced.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has digital photography become too perfected ; the craft of wrestling light and technology deminished leaving just the art of visualization and composition ?

How would the M10 be any different in this regard from a 240/262/M9? I don't even understand the premise of this question in the context of these cameras.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense the M10 will just be a tool used to justify the continued use of exotic glass.

 

 

 

Or a tool to take photographs...personally I never considered any of the lenses I use exotic.

 

 

 

 

Has digital photography become too perfected ; the craft of wrestling light and technology deminished leaving just the art of visualization and composition ?

 

digital photography is no different than analog photography...they only difference is the way the image is recorded. As in any craft, the tools evolve and become better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

...Has digital photography become too perfected ; the craft of wrestling light and technology deminished leaving just the art of visualization and composition ?

 

I don't think so. 

 

The day is coming when the M10 will be considered a primitive tool compared to the latest, greatest M camera of the day.  Whether it will take 5, 10 or 20 years to get there is anyone's guess.  But that day is coming.

 

That having been said, technology can only do so much. 

 

Arnold Newman:  "Visual ideas combined with technology combined with personal interpretation equals photography. Each must hold it's own; if it doesn't, the thing collapses."

Ansel Adams:  "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."

 

Owning TBCKTM - The Best Camera Known To Mankind - is no guarantee of photographic success, fame or fortune.  That is all dependent on the person who stands in the right (or wrong) place, sets the aperture and shutter speed and pushes the button on top of the camera.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last six months I've been shooting film. One can ask the same question about Portra 400 which, based on Kodak's latest ciné film technology, is bullet proof in terms latitude and color rendition and fine grain. But sometimes a spade has to be called a spade, so the OP's questions is simply silly — or just misplaced in the sense that it shows little understanding what photography is all about.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your inputs and general rebuffall - I will go and hide in the film section of the forum until these silly thoughts stop ;-)

 

It seems i'm suffering from digital overload in general ; thus coloring my vision , devaluing what's too easy and omnipresesnt , leaning away from the mainstream and to the aesthetic, pace and effort of old school analog photography.

 

Over the last few years I had been pursuing a wide open narrow depth of field style aided my the glossy M9 CCD colors and Californian sum - the exotic glass meant 50/0.95 , 50/1.1 , 28/1.4 .

This is a gear forum; what we choose to use must have and see being used must provide a technicial drive to our own visions.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has digital photography become too perfected ; the craft of wrestling light and technology deminished leaving just the art of visualization and composition ?

 

I think, but I am not sure that I understand the spirit of your question. There was a time when making a correct exposure was difficult enough to cause failures; we had no digital post processing to 'save' an image. Indeed as you wrote, visualization and composition remain a challenge regardless.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems i'm suffering from digital overload in general ; thus coloring my vision , devaluing what's too easy and omnipresesnt , leaning away from the mainstream and to the aesthetic, pace and effort of old school analog photography.

 

The self-righteous judgment in this sentence is astonishing. "Too easy and omnipresent" to you means that many creatives who couldn't or can't currently afford the notably higher cost of film means that they have access to producing creative work.

 

Your casting of digital photography as "mainstream" and therefore less appealing is not only absurd but shockingly ignorant of the politics of artistic expression. Digital tools can allow people of more modest means and cash flow to engage in creative pursuits previously limited to people of greater wealth than them. If you want to arrogantly dismiss that as "too easy" or "mainstream," that reflects entirely on you and your astounding ignorance, arrogance, and class status. Consider the photographs, music, movies, and digital art that have been created by people of lower socioeconomic status thanks to digital tools, and maybe check your privilege before making sweeping generalizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital is the easy way..film is harder..paint is even harder..

As our tools get smarter..we get dumber..

Skills atrophy...talents diminish.. lack of use..

Go back to film...get back to real work..

Go back to your soul..

It got lost with digital..

You can still go back..

You don't have to spend 10K on an intro Leica digital M..

Film is a savings..in $$..and a development..in skills..and perception..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh. Such navel gazing. 

 

Digital capture is neither harder nor easier than film capture. Both are easy and both are hard, depending on how much you know and how much practice you have had.

Doing Photography instead of 'snapping pictures' is what's hard.

 

"The greatest limiting factor in your photography is your imagination."

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

.... Digital tools can allow people of more modest means and cash flow to engage in creative pursuits previously limited to people of greater wealth than them.....

You do realize that this thread is about the Leica M10? What people of modest means would buy an M10 instead of film?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that this thread is about the Leica M10? What people of modest means would buy an M10 instead of film?

If you read both comments by the OP carefully, you'll note that he made sweeping generalizations about technology, not just this specific camera. That's exactly why I called him out. He broadened the discussion to include technology as a whole as it relates to creative expression in photography. My point was about the perspective, underlying biases, and attitudes that animate his thinking. I'd wager that this same self-righteous judgment shows up in other areas in his life, and again, that's why I called him out. Everything is political, and the implicit ideas we have about photography and technology connect to how we see different kinds of people, the problems we face culturally, and how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves. You may not want to acknowledge that or you may say that it's not germane to a discussion about a camera. I'd disagree. If you or anyone else made a comment as part of a discussion about photography that was notably insensitive about race, gender, sexuality, religion, or social class, you can be assured I'd comment on it. That's what happened here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read both comments by the OP carefully, you'll note that he made sweeping generalizations about technology, not just this specific camera. That's exactly why I called him out. He broadened the discussion to include technology as a whole as it relates to creative expression in photography. My point was about the perspective, underlying biases, and attitudes that animate his thinking. I'd wager that this same self-righteous judgment shows up in other areas in his life, and again, that's why I called him out. Everything is political, and the implicit ideas we have about photography and technology connect to how we see different kinds of people, the problems we face culturally, and how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves. You may not want to acknowledge that or you may say that it's not germane to a discussion about a camera. I'd disagree. If you or anyone else made a comment as part of a discussion about photography that was notably insensitive about race, gender, sexuality, religion, or social class, you can be assured I'd comment on it. That's what happened here.

I think your own preconceived biases are showing and you are reading all kinds of things into that post that simply aren't there. O.P. referred to himself and how he perceives the technology affecting his personal vision and photography. How digital affects him personally and why he felt the need to go back to analog photography. You took that and turned it into some grand political statement on the overall social impacts of technology on artistic expression and class bias. That is nothing more than you projecting your own personal issues onto the O.P. His statements contained none of that. You simply inferred it and went on a diatribe against it.

 

Then again, any time someone pulls out the self-righteous "check your privilege," I pretty much disregard anything else they have to say. No reasonable discussion tends to come from that perspective.

Edited by Dirk Mandeville
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again, any time someone pulls out the self-righteous "check your privilege," I pretty much disregard anything else they have to say. No reasonable discussion tends to come from that perspective.

Same here. If you or the OP aren't willing to hear how your comments/attitudes reveal all kinds of implicit bias, I can pretty easily write off your thoughts. Good luck to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...