Your most Leica shot

[PauloSm6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica IIIf , Elmar 35 3,5 and TriX

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

Andy, this is lovely...Reminds me of W. Eugene Smith's "a walk in the garden" shot.

Excellent!

Paulo

[PauloSm6]

This is very Leica to me, I love it very much.

 

 

M8 + Summilux 35/1.4 Asph.

Very lovely image indeed, Enrico!

Paulo

[Woodrow]

Stamford - This shot really fits the bill....Nicely done.

 

W.C.

[derek_stanton]

A Leica image, to me, is supposed to be a honest representation of any given scene. Unadultered by the photographer, without any gross manipulations.

Unraped by photoshop and programs that can be used to change the original scene.

 

A Good Leica M photographer will capture the essence, the soul of a moment by simply clicking the shutter.

An inexperienced photographer will capture nothing and will hopelessly try to insufflate, by cropping or post-processing, any kind of soul to the image. Hopelessly.

 

A True Leica image is supposed to be, to me, a very simple image of a stolen moment where the light is hitting the subject and fully understood by the photographer. Where the whole work has been done before and during the image acquisition. Where clicking the shutter is the sum of many mental actions and years of understanding how seeing translates photographically.

 

A Leica image is done once the second shutter has closed. Never afterward. It will never be born in a program but will rather die in photoshop.

 

I expect some folks to jump on me, yet again, for having my own personal views. But it won't change my perception of imposture when I see doctored-to-death images... Which are about anything they wish but not about what Leica is about.

 

 

 

Funny.... My first thought upon seeing your first image was, "i wonder what kind of PS work was done there." Vignetted corners, the 'off' colors.... Beautiful image, but i thought it had been "doctored." So, although i can appreciate a photographer who doesn't need to manipulate an image, i don't think it matters in the end. The final result is the product, not the 'magnificent moment' when the photographer pushes the button. I think this kind of prejudice also ignores the contribution of developing and printing, and someone who takes pride in being responsible for every stage of the imagemaking (capture, development, print) is marginalized, sort of against logic. MORE involvement should be appreciated, whether or not you have a personal bias against Photoshop. If the image IS the most important thing, one should assess IT, and how it resulted is less important that some self-aggrandizing statement (not necessarily yours) about 'doing it all in the box.'

 

If someone uses a lens that vignettes naturally, for example, versus a person who hand prints and burns in his corners.... Well, which is 'lazier' and which is the more responsible, hands-on approach? The image does not - ever - end when the shutter is closed. If it did, it exists only in the photographer's mind. It's not an image at that point. Just a memory. Suggesting otherwise gives me the mental image of a burly dude, bare (and hairy) chested, hands on hips, proclaiming, "it is done! I have clicked!" Okay, but then, where is it?

 

Also ignored is that to make this photograph visible, choices DO have to be made. Whether you're scanning, developing a RAW file, or printing from a negative - there's no such thing as an unmanipulated image. Even if you accept the default settings from any of the electronic pieces in the equation, a choice has been made. If you've chosen a developer, or even a TIME of development - you've made a choice. Grade of paper.... Whatever. Why would it be considered more virtuous to NOT have some say in that matter?

 

The point probably is this: it's all about taste. What exactly is a "gross" manipulation is an individual's right to decide. You've made your decision, but it doesn't seem accurately defined. Photoshop is not a sin. It can be no different from a literal digital darkroom. And, if you can't appreciate a photograph without first seeing proof of its provenance, you're probably living an angry and empty existence.

[tyler]

New Orleans Wedding

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[NB23]

Derek,

Excellent post.

 

To answer your questions in short, I agree it's all a matter of taste. But in this case, it's simply a matter of personal definition.

 

What is a "Leica Image"? Why necessarily a "Leica" image?

To me, an image can be anything. But a "Leica Image" takes a new definition.

 

To me, a "Leica" Image is supposed to wrap up all what Leica is about: Unobtrusive, the ultimate P&S, small therefore almost unnoticeable, and so on. We all know the song.

The Leica heritage comes from the film days and mostly the darkroom, where doctoring images was quite impossible. The essence of the image was acquired at the shooting stage, not at the post-processing stage.

 

That's the definition of a "Most Leica Image" to me.

 

About my pic, it's a Kodachrome scan. Shot with the Noctilux, therefore the light falloff. The colors we're calibrated to match the slide. I submitted this image in accordance to what a "Most Leica image" means to me.

If the subject was "your favorite image" or "your Best shot", then my submission would have been totally different, even though it would have probably been captured with a Leica, still.

[tecumseh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica M7 v Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[leicadig3]

......................The essence of the image was acquired at the shooting stage, not at the post-processing stage. ..............................

 

 

Although I don´t mind the use of PP (in fact I use it often), I understand your approach about this subject. I believe that you look for the essence of photography.

 

What do you think about converting B&W in digital photography?

Do you think the shot should be done directly with the B&W camera mode (equivalent to the B&W film)?

 

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards.

[likalar]

Tyler, your New Orleans wedding shot is most impressive! Framing, lighting, pp, subject, design are all so good. I love this image!

 

Larry

[melissah]

..."To me, a "Leica" Image is supposed to wrap up all what Leica is about: Unobtrusive, the ultimate P&S, small therefore almost unnoticeable, and so on. We all know the song.

The Leica heritage comes from the film days and mostly the darkroom, where doctoring images was quite impossible. The essence of the image was acquired at the shooting stage, not at the post-processing stage."

 

While this may be your belief in so far as ideal, the facts of the matter simply arent true.

 

from

[url=http://digital-photography.suite101.com/article.cfm/are_digital_prints_real_photograph]Digital Prints vs Film Negatives: Digital Processing Techniques Have Evolved from the Darkroom[/url]

Philip Northeast-

"Some purists have expressed disdain for prints from digital images. They suggest that the reliance on software tools instead of direct physical involvement in the printing process makes digital prints less of an expression of real photography.

 

In a 2001 article, Luminous Landscape featured Christopher Burkett’s preference for traditional printing, “Veracity is at the heart of why I print my work by hand onto conventional photographic materials. My images must be trustworthy if they are to be believable.”

 

However, many of the basic software manipulation tools come from and do similar things to traditional film processing carried out in the darkroom. How trustworthy are the old methods when Michael Freeman suggests, “Printing offers very creative opportunities for print manipulation” (Freeman 106)?

 

Digital photography and the convenience of manipulating images in Photoshop is a hallmark of modern photography. This carry over of techniques and terms to digital photography from common darkroom practices suggests that print manipulation in the chemical based darkroom is a normal part of the photographic process.

 

For example, cropping photographs is a basic technique common to both the chemical and digital darkrooms and involves selecting only part of the original image for final printing.

 

Some purists have expressed disdain for prints from digital images. They suggest that the reliance on software tools instead of direct physical involvement in the printing process makes digital prints less of an expression of real photography.

 

In a 2001 article, Luminous Landscape featured Christopher Burkett’s preference for traditional printing, “Veracity is at the heart of why I print my work by hand onto conventional photographic materials. My images must be trustworthy if they are to be believable.”

 

However, many of the basic software manipulation tools come from and do similar things to traditional film processing carried out in the darkroom. How trustworthy are the old methods when Michael Freeman suggests, “Printing offers very creative opportunities for print manipulation” (Freeman 106)?

 

Digital photography and the convenience of manipulating images in Photoshop is a hallmark of modern photography. This carry over of techniques and terms to digital photography from common darkroom practices suggests that print manipulation in the chemical based darkroom is a normal part of the photographic process.

 

For example, cropping photographs is a basic technique common to both the chemical and digital darkrooms and involves selecting only part of the original image for final printing."

 

as i read more and more of your posts im led to believe you dont have alot of art history knowledge and/or history of photography.

 

this isnt a slam, perhaps its not interesting to you.

however, i do believe that you should know from where you speak when speaking in absolutes.

 

this is important to me as it should be to all photographers because i believe your approach is a kind of condemnation that prevents people from experimenting

and consequently making good work.

 

photography is still a very young art.

one of the most exciting aspects of it is its rapid growth due to all of the different processes.

 

you might be interested in,

Darkroom Manipulation | Evan Baines Photography

 

this has several images that address simple photo manipulation.

[NB23]

And your "facts" are based on what? On one man giving his opinion?Christopher Burkett?

That's what you call "facts"?

 

You can also quote britney spears' vision on Classical Music. But please don't call it a "fact".

[NB23]

Although I don´t mind the use of PP (in fact I use it often), I understand your approach about this subject. I believe that you look for the essence of photography.

 

What do you think about converting B&W in digital photography?

Do you think the shot should be done directly with the B&W camera mode (equivalent to the B&W film)?

 

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards.

 

Yes Enrique, I firmly believe that B&W should be acquired in camera and not during PP. This is called Knowing what you're Doing.

 

Converting Color images to B&W is Blasphemy, travesty. Of course it is.

I believe that a good photographer sees the image before clicking. And he sees it in either Color or B&W. There are no in-betweens. No salvaging bad color shots by converting them to B&W.

 

There is no substitute to Knowing what you're Doing.

[azzo]

Enrique -

 

Do yourself a favour and do not pay attention to most of what nb23 said up here !

[melissah]

I heart Ivan

[NB23]

LOL!!

 

Enrique, by all means listen to ivan, the living proof that blindness can be salvaged by a few hours in photoshop.

I particularly like the shots where people have makeup added on their face with severe dodging and burning for an added dramatique. Very Leica, if you ask me.

[andybarton]

Ned. Ivan.

 

Will you please take this personal feud off forum. It's getting extremely tiring. If you can't do that, your posts will be moderated. Thank you.

[Guest]

Sorry Andy, but Ivan did nothing wrong

and I'm sure he will not get provoked again into writing anything unfitting his good nature and style.

 

Ciao tifoso!

Simone

[azzo]

Ned. Ivan.

 

Will you please take this personal feud off forum. It's getting extremely tiring. If you can't do that, your posts will be moderated. Thank you.

 

Excuse me Andy but when one is talking crap, someone has to point it out IMHO.

 

ned states ...

 

" I firmly believe that B&W should be acquired in camera and not during PP. This is called Knowing what you're Doing.

 

Converting Color images to B&W is Blasphemy, travesty. Of course it is.

I believe that a good photographer sees the image before clicking. And he sees it in either Color or B&W. There are no in-betweens. No salvaging bad color shots by converting them to B&W.

 

There is no substitute to Knowing what you're Doing."

 

 

 

@ All - Read carefully what ned is saying here.

It is only his personal opinion and by No Means what he says is right !!!

[andybarton]

Unfortunately, this is another in a series of spats that you two have had on here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Ash]

@ All - Read carefully what ned is saying here.

It is only his personal opinion and by No Means what he says is right !!!

 

Ivan, you are perfectly right. It is Ned's opinion - but he is free to share. I do not see any need to be provocative but of cause you are also free to share a non provocative opinion.

 

My personnel opinion regarding shooting B&W is that one is free to shoot raw and pp the file in B&W later if one is capable in doing so. For some reason I like B&W conversion applied in the M8. My pp ability is really lacking.

 

Regards

Steve