This guy is good

[Dan States]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Urban Life with the leica X1 - Home

[Advertisement]

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

[h00ligan]

I like a lot of them, but again it falls into that which I see as a community common post production flow - selective desaturation for lack of a better phrase. perhaps I am wrong and that is how the colors are seen by the cam - but the other click and post shots don't present that. Of course I welcome correction.

[jsrockit]

The fact of the matter is that post production is part of photography. I think many want something magical to happen straight out of this camera. I don't get it. I'm not trying to be rude, but when people get a $2000 camera they aren't generally interested in stopping with the images produced by the camera. You're at least going to want to tweak the exposure, etc. Since we aren't using film, people are trying to replicate certain films by tweaking saturation and desaturation, etc.

 

The fact that the X1 is Leica's true entry level digital camera now means that it'll be used by a wide range of photographers for many different types of photography, from family snapshots to "art."

 

Why are people obsessed with straight of the camera results? I never heard this in film days.

[nippa]

I liked the images somewhat although..........

 

Not aimed at anyone in particular and I'm not being very serious here but the fashion for Vignetting ,Desaturation and High Dynamic Range in recent months does seem to have gone over the top.

Next we'll go back to blurry pictures under the guise of Dynamic:)

 

Oh and Dynamic Black and White ( Ansell Adams-ish ) kind of overdone these days isn't it?

 

I'm all for post processing but nothing beats a simple beautifully composed image of a great subject in great lighting .. IMO of course.

[h00ligan]

Nippa, that's sort of my point but also js - it's trying to decide what is happening with the camera vs the artist. I know for example what a dlux 4, canon t2i, gf-1, sony cybershot, rebel xt all roughly output. When I like some shots i am trying to discern if it's something intrinsic to lens design and camera - or post processing. is it something that Leica's achieve or something the photographer does.. or both? I agree that cam output is just the start of it.. I guess for those without the cams sometimes it's nice to see what the starting point was. I've seen sooooo much of the desaturated high contrast as Nippa mentioned that it almost seems like anyone reviewing leica for the first time in the last 6 months would believe that's what it looks like out of the cam.. and maybe it is and i'm off base - that's the answer I suppose I'm trying to find. Equipment or artistic trend.

 

Another example of this is the club shots that seem to be popping up everywhere... take for example this shot - http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4460340431_652f82144b_o.jpg - it's definitely the in vogue style of shooting club events - in some cases adding even more sharpening to a shot like that - and it seems like all these photogs in that shooting 'scene' really seem to be sticking to the same or very similar style.. so in this case it's easy to see there was a lot of post done - but in some of the leica shots, it's maybe not such an easy thing for newcomers to understand what was and wasn't done - so the starting shots are helpful.

 

Here's another example of the club style - with me in a photo. Shot from a different photog (sorry i can't find a better source) but as you can see similar technique. I'm on the left lol - the technique causes me to not even look like me imho. http://hphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net/hs116.snc1/4716_1153295079941_1454580534_398595_5329051_n.jpg

[lct]

....Why are people obsessed with straight of the camera results? I never heard this in film days.

But why don't you want to crop your less than perfectly composed pics then? Even HCB did this from time to time.

[jsrockit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But why don't you want to crop your less than perfectly composed pics then? Even HCB did this from time to time.

 

It's only not perfectly composed to your eyes sir... but it's exactly what I wanted! We all see composition differently and sometimes perfect is not what I'm after. I'd rather not use an image then crop it. I get your point though, I just think framing should be done with the camera, for better or worse.

 

PS: I think I'm going to crop that photo.

[lct]

[Dan States]

The fact of the matter is that post production is part of photography. I think many want something magical to happen straight out of this camera. I don't get it. I'm not trying to be rude, but when people get a $2000 camera they aren't generally interested in stopping with the images produced by the camera. You're at least going to want to tweak the exposure, etc. Since we aren't using film, people are trying to replicate certain films by tweaking saturation and desaturation, etc.

 

The fact that the X1 is Leica's true entry level digital camera now means that it'll be used by a wide range of photographers for many different types of photography, from family snapshots to "art."

 

Why are people obsessed with straight of the camera results? I never heard this in film days.

 

Lots of folks are more "camera tester" than photography lover. I like seeing what people can create using photography as a medium. If post production is what makes the image match what they imagined then I say go for it. Looked at objectively there is no bigger "Special Effect" I can think of than good old black and white....

[peterb]

It's only not perfectly composed to your eyes sir... but it's exactly what I wanted! We all see composition differently and sometimes perfect is not what I'm after. I'd rather not use an image then crop it. I get your point though, I just think framing should be done with the camera, for better or worse.

 

PS: I think I'm going to crop that photo.

 

Believe it or not the camera plays a critical role in what you see and the pictures you take. I started with a rangefinder years ago (a Yashica Gold) then went to SLR for many years. And then, back to the M6. I went digital with the D2 (SLR like in viewing) and also got the Ricoh GR digital (which got fried on a heli-hiking trip in British Columbia) and the LX-1 (a.k.a. D-Lux 2) both of which were set up to be rangefinder like. Now I use the G1 for the D2 experience I never had with an EVF and articulating LCD (which I really really like.)

 

In all that time, I found when I used the SLR way of viewing I tended to create more 'composed' shots. That is I often would move or zoom in or out to make the picture 'fit' the frame. When I used the rangefinder (and also using an OVF on the Ricoh GR Digital and the LX-1, with an adapter I'd fashioned) what I saw was a bit different. I saw the ENTIRE scene with frame lines telling me what the camera would capture WITHIN the scene. It forced an entirely different way of taking. Instead of 'making' a picture I was 'FINDING' the shot within the larger scene. The results for me seemed more personal and intimate. I don't know why it just seemed that way. And, personally, I think that is what gives Leica (and any other rangefinder photography) that certain undefinable 'LOOK" that so many admire.

 

Not that you can't do that with an SLR. You can. It's just that the urge to compose a more dynamic shot is so much more compelling when all you see is the frame and nothing but the frame. (You rely on your own eye and experience with the lens at hand to tell you what you are seeing within the scene BEFORE you bring the SLR to your eye.

 

When all you're using is the LCD a la the X1 you are in effect composing to 'fit' the frame much as you would with an SLR. BUT, interestingly enough, with the camera held at arms length as you compose on the LCD you can also see the 'larger' scene much as you would with a rangefinder. With the OVF on top however, you can view your potential shots that way you see things as HCB did, again FINDING the picture within the scene. And not forcing a scene to fit as you would with an SLR.

 

That to me is the appeal of the X1 (and perhaps the GF1)

 

Just something I noticed over the years.

[peterb]

By the way, the G1 (and I suppose all DSLR's for that matter) gives me both worlds. An SLR like experience when I want to 'compose' my shots peering at the EVF. And a rangefinder-like experience (sorta) when I'm looking at a scene from an odd angle while observing the 'capture' I'll get on the LCD that's either flat or articulated outwardly. The grid is also pretty handy in composition too.

 

I really love the digital age.

[peterb]

I think part of the 'charm' of rangefinder shots was their 'imperfection'. That is their lack of being truly composed perfectly (possibly due to the parallax error) to fit the frame as one would with an SLR. They're just a little imperfect and a little off. And THAT may be what makes the shots a little more perfect sometimes than the ones achieved with an SLR.

 

Just a thought.

[stkorn]

I liked the images somewhat although..........

 

Not aimed at anyone in particular and I'm not being very serious here but the fashion for Vignetting ,Desaturation and High Dynamic Range in recent months does seem to have gone over the top.

Next we'll go back to blurry pictures under the guise of Dynamic:)

 

Oh and Dynamic Black and White ( Ansell Adams-ish ) kind of overdone these days isn't it?

 

I'm all for post processing but nothing beats a simple beautifully composed image of a great subject in great lighting .. IMO of course.

 

I also have a problem with alot of the vignetting, toning, simulated holga etc techniques that are being done all the time these days in digital. But my problem is that these are artifacts of the film world that had a real basis in the technology of the time. When applied to digital it feels very artificial, undermining the authentic feel of the image. Its a fraud and everyone knows it. But I don't think we have to limit ourselves to only the beautiful composition either or even to the beautiful for that matter. We just need to devise expressive techniques authentic to this new medium, that deal with the physical reality of digital imaging - the sensor, the pixel, the underlying data structure of the image file itself. This is were digital photography as an art form needs to go, not faking the 1890's.

[daubsphoto]

I liked the images somewhat although..........

 

I'm all for post processing but nothing beats a simple beautifully composed image of a great subject in great lighting .. IMO of course.

 

But in the days of film, post-processing was mandatory---printing the image required a multitude of adjustments to get it looking right. There is no such thing as a straight-from-the-camera image in the analogue ague.

 

steve

[h00ligan]

But don't you feel the images lose originality and impact when everyone copies a certain style?

[jsrockit]

But don't you feel the images lose originality and impact when everyone copies a certain style?

 

Yes, but that isn't the cameras fault. People are followers for the most part. It is hard to have a clear, original vision in Photography. Many people, including myself, have to learn from the past, experiment (even with all the cliches), and then maybe you start to get a clear vision of what you want to do and it comes of semi-original. That is, if you are lucky.

[Gentleman Villain]

Believe it or not the camera plays a critical role in what you see and the pictures you take. I started with a rangefinder years ago (a Yashica Gold) then went to SLR for many years. And then, back to the M6. I went digital with the D2 (SLR like in viewing) and also got the Ricoh GR digital (which got fried on a heli-hiking trip in British Columbia) and the LX-1 (a.k.a. D-Lux 2) both of which were set up to be rangefinder like. Now I use the G1 for the D2 experience I never had with an EVF and articulating LCD (which I really really like.)

 

In all that time, I found when I used the SLR way of viewing I tended to create more 'composed' shots. That is I often would move or zoom in or out to make the picture 'fit' the frame. When I used the rangefinder (and also using an OVF on the Ricoh GR Digital and the LX-1, with an adapter I'd fashioned) what I saw was a bit different. I saw the ENTIRE scene with frame lines telling me what the camera would capture WITHIN the scene. It forced an entirely different way of taking. Instead of 'making' a picture I was 'FINDING' the shot within the larger scene. The results for me seemed more personal and intimate. I don't know why it just seemed that way. And, personally, I think that is what gives Leica (and any other rangefinder photography) that certain undefinable 'LOOK" that so many admire.

 

Not that you can't do that with an SLR. You can. It's just that the urge to compose a more dynamic shot is so much more compelling when all you see is the frame and nothing but the frame. (You rely on your own eye and experience with the lens at hand to tell you what you are seeing within the scene BEFORE you bring the SLR to your eye.

 

When all you're using is the LCD a la the X1 you are in effect composing to 'fit' the frame much as you would with an SLR. BUT, interestingly enough, with the camera held at arms length as you compose on the LCD you can also see the 'larger' scene much as you would with a rangefinder. With the OVF on top however, you can view your potential shots that way you see things as HCB did, again FINDING the picture within the scene. And not forcing a scene to fit as you would with an SLR.

 

That to me is the appeal of the X1 (and perhaps the GF1)

 

Just something I noticed over the years.

 

Sorry for the long quote to take up the page, but you're totally right, What you just described is something that I call "SLR disease." Lots of photographers suffer from it, especially professionals. SLR disease is one of the things that bothers me when looking at the last 10 years of my work with Canon. Everything was almost clinically framed by formula and mindlessly devoted to the rule of thirds.

 

I think part of the 'charm' of rangefinder shots was their 'imperfection'. That is their lack of being truly composed perfectly (possibly due to the parallax error) to fit the frame as one would with an SLR. They're just a little imperfect and a little off. And THAT may be what makes the shots a little more perfect sometimes than the ones achieved with an SLR.

 

Just a thought.

 

I know exactly what you mean by "a little off"

 

The place I really notice this phenomenon is in fashion editorials. Fashion photographers often have to fill multiple pages in a layout and they often strive to break away from formula compositions in an attempt to throw things "a little off" and keep the flow of the editorial interesting. Unfortunately, most of them are shooting with SLRs so their attempts to break out of formula compositions often looks forced and contrived. Ya'll might notice this phenomenon when looking through fashion magazines with weird crops and dead space that goes nowhere. Rangefinders are great for getting away from formula composition while not necessarily appearing contrived or forced in the process..

 

Just one guy's opinion and others are certainly free to disagree

[h00ligan]

Yes, but that isn't the cameras fault. People are followers for the most part. It is hard to have a clear, original vision in Photography. Many people, including myself, have to learn from the past, experiment (even with all the cliches), and then maybe you start to get a clear vision of what you want to do and it comes of semi-original. That is, if you are lucky.

 

I agree, and I have been using others' tutorials to help me learn - my end goal though I suppose is to use those tutorials to work out what I see in my head - which is still nowhere near what I see on screen/paper.. but I just came across the examples I posted earlier - what the technique is - it's named after the guy who made it famous - Dave Hill... now it seems that gritty style is all 'style' photographers are using in the urban fashion / club scene.. harsh light - super contrast - super recover - super fill - super vibrance - soften skin in photoshop. It's that sort of thing I find to be a let down - I could link to another 5 shoots I've seen that relate to people I know that use this style... it's already played out I guess..ymmv.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jsrockit]

I could link to another 5 shoots I've seen that relate to people I know that use this style... it's already played out I guess..ymmv.

 

This happens all of the time when something genuine is taken by people who are just looking to make money. If it works, people will steal it and try to make money with it.

[stkorn]

It is hard to have a clear, original vision in Photography. Many people, including myself, have to learn from the past, experiment (even with all the cliches), and then maybe you start to get a clear vision of what you want to do and it comes of semi-original. That is, if you are lucky.

 

this approach seems reasonable but I don't believe it will get you where you want to go. if you just try to 'learn from the past' you will likely internalize that way of seeing, and this will unconsciously steer you to similar shots, similar styles. it is a form of pattern recognition which our brains are very good at. nothing wrong with this but for an original vision i think its best to ignore the past altogether and see the world fresh without the weight of all the photos that have come before. an original vision is a highly personal way of seeing the world, it is much harder to do this when you are used to seeing the world with someone else's eyes imho.