Jump to content

New article on overgard.dk about Leica M9 user Chris Tribble of London

Overgaard

By Overgaard
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

vanhulsenbeek

vanhulsenbeek

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well I frankly don't care for the politics of any of it anyway. It's always the undoing of every internet forum!

 

I enjoyed the article, and most of all I enjoyed seeing Chris' excellent work showcased like that. Some great composition but mostly mastery of exposure being, for me, the stand-out aspect of the photo's.

 

+1!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Overgaard

Overgaard

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the comments. I don't see the controversy and why someone would think we should all stay really quiet in this forum. Anyone is free to click on a link or not. I offer help, some of it cost money, other is for free. As long as you keep your credit card away it is a free ride. So feel free to enjoy that part :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick

Rick

Posted
Posted

Thorsten, thanks for the nice article. And Chris, it was very generous of you to give us so much information about your PP with LR3 and to give the ideas on how you approach a space you are going to shoot. By the way, clearly all of the animals here are not equal or I wouldn't have a reason to visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Theodor Heinrichsohn

Theodor Heinrichsohn

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to Thorsten and Chris fo the interesting article. Today I have benefited from 3 posts. Yours, Noah's about ISO 160's better quality with very high enlargements and the confirmation from many posters on fringing with large opening lenses at full openings, mainly with digital sensors.

I noticed no advertising in any of the posts I mentioned and am glad many photographers from whom I learn a lot post their experiences and advice.

Teddy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Foxie

Foxie

Posted
Posted

 

I enjoyed the article, and most of all I enjoyed seeing Chris' excellent work showcased like that. Some great composition but mostly mastery of exposure being, for me, the stand-out aspect of the photo's.

 

...to prevent anyone from calling me a troll beforehand...: I'm a new forum-user and have been a (both digital and film) Nikon user for years and in the film department I still have a 503CW, a 500CM and an x-pan which is where my rangefinder roots lie. For a few weeks I have been lurking here, in anticipation of my soon-to-be M9 delivery.

 

So I was excited to see the announcement of an article about another working pro. The announcement thread (this thread) was already two pages long, so I decided to first read the linked article and then see what the discussion was all about. Another story about a professional photographer working with an M9 in the field, followed by a discussion about his methods and images: must be good!

 

Whilst reading the article and examining the photos, I suspected the discussion in this thread being about the images in the article, because I found a lot of the (M9) images look like unprocessed raw files... 'Mastery of exposure...?' I guess not! There's some nice images in the article (like the Armenia street shot), but the remainder of the photos are underexposed and off whitebalance. In the end I was puzzled about this subpar quality coming from a professional...

 

Some examples I found: the very first shot I saw posted here (Gordon Brown in the office) is just too dark (combined with the strong contrast all the suits are deep black without any details).

The whole series of the string quartet is underexposed and I think the (overhead) lights were just to bad for portraiture which throws dark shadows over the eyes. I have not checked the website of the quartet (like the photographer did), so I'm not sure what style they were looking for, but I can't imagine a paying client being satisfied with these pictures. Whitebalance is poor too although in this kind of light there's hardly anything you can do about it, I guess...

A last example of the whitebalance being off, is in the London Event series; although two different cameras were used, I see shots with green, yellow and purple colourcasts. All shot under same lighting conditions.

Seeing all these examples, I can imagine that a lot of the circumstances were very difficult to get a good shot with proper exposure. But still, coming from a professional photographer, I'd expected more than this and because he states in the interview that he shoots raw, I'd at least have expected proper (or adjusted) whitebalance.

 

I'd rather have articles like this announced, so I can read them and maybe enjoy them, but I wonder if I'm the only one here that is *this* picky and thinks that in these posted (M9) pictures of a working professional there isn't that much to see except for disappointing photographic quality? I wonder if some of the circumstances were beyond the M9's technical limits (causing the severe underexposures), or beyond the photographers limits because his 5D-II could have handled the conditions a bit better, but the image coming from the 5D/70-200 is suffering from a strong colourcast as well?

 

And so I returned to this thread; prepared to find any of my observations in your reactions... But only to find a lengthy discussion about the posting of announcements yes or no... Now that was a letdown ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jager

Jager

Posted
Posted
As both exposure and white balance are judgement calls and not absolutes, I think you are discussing preferences here, not facts.

 

+1.

 

Not having had any sense that Chris' photos were underexposed when I looked at them a couple days ago, I went back for another look. They certainly look fine to me. Bumping the exposure would have detracted from the mood and atmosphere that Chris was trying to convey, IMHO.

 

My thanks to Chris and Thorsten both...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Foxie

Foxie

Posted
Posted
As both exposure and white balance are judgement calls and not absolutes, I think you are discussing preferences here, not facts.

 

No absolutes in exposure and WB? From a Leica user I'd expect better than this! ;-)

Each and every beginners guide to photography starts by explaining the need for correct exposure and hands you the same absolute again and again. Correct exposure is the same in every camera and lightmeter out there (being it absolute) and people who lack the knowledge or skill about this, let the camera do the metering. But this doesn't mean that metering isn't there or that you can prefer to photograph under any kind of (bad light) circumstances. You can over- and underexpose for art's sake, but you always start out from the same absolute value and overdoing it too much results in film or a sensor that can't keep up. In overdoing it lies no preference at all; in an assignment situation you can even call it (technical) failure.

Same applies to whitebalance: blacks and whites (and even greys) can be metered because they always have the same value. 'Yellowish' white can be metered and adjusted to be 'real' white (your missing absolute), thus adjusting all other colours accordingly. When shooting in raw and there's only one type of light used, this is a fairly easy to do in Lightroom. Ofcourse you can prefer leaving the WB off in your shots, or use a wrong preset, but when all faces in your portraits turn out yellow or orange, it might not be what the client had in mind for this assignment.

 

Back to the original article: with metering this far off, whitebalance that's all over the place and severe colourcasts... Calling this a matter of preferences is just as far off as his WB ;-)

I expect a paid professional to tackle difficult circumstances, coming out with a better picture. He obviously didn't (or just can't) in most of his shown shots and I wonder why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
elgenper

elgenper

Posted
Posted
No absolutes in exposure and WB? From a Leica user I'd expect better than this! ;-)

Each and every beginners guide to photography starts by explaining the need for correct exposure and hands you the same absolute again and again..........

 

I expect a paid professional to tackle difficult circumstances, coming out with a better picture. He obviously didn't (or just can't) in most of his shown shots and I wonder why.

 

Here´s some interesting reading for you:

 

The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet

 

I´m sure you´ll agree with most of the comments there...:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick

Rick

Posted
Posted

Foxie, thank you for your comments. They are a breath of fresh air around here. I, for one, have thought for a long time that Thorsten was way too much of an individual to be posting on a technical forum like this. And, Chris, of course, is just flat out too artistic to be taken seriously as a professional. He hasn't done anything here of technical and professional substance since he posted his series of, "Kitchen with Wine Bottle," comparing the M8 to the 5D2, over a year ago. Brilliant series!

 

Also, I, as well, read the article on Thorsten's site and found the part where Chris talks about walking around the space before he shoots, looking for his shots, was a little too artsy-fartsy. Any professional knows, that time would be better spent walking around looking down at your light meter, in order to get the correct exposure and shadow detail. And, a professional doesn't need to walk around before taking pictures because, a professional uses an expensive camera and can crop the crap out of an image in PP as long as the exposure, focus and white balance are correct. A professional knows that these technical aspects are much more important to a client than any amount of creativity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nryn

nryn

Posted
Posted

Foxie, I agree some of them are darker than perhaps I would have processed them. But they do all seem very natural to me, and I appreciate that and the restraint Chris seems to show in processing. And I think the quartet photos are outstanding. If you've ever been in a space like that, you know the lighting conditions are very difficult. And I love that those photos aren't trying to make that space any different than what it really is. (great job, Chris)

 

But it's one thing to say you don't like the photos. It's another to say they are wrong. Clearly there are people who value Chris' style and technique, Leica or not. Please post some of your photos of Gordon Brown from the last time you were invited to photograph in his presence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
diogenis

diogenis

Posted
Posted
...Each and every beginners guide to photography starts by explaining the need for correct exposure and hands you the same absolute again and again....

My god what are you suggesting here Foxie? Correct and absolute are very strong words.... rarely can we see them in real life...

As an example: the picture that struck me is the one with the baby, the very dark one...

 

As for the link, well lol :D How many stereotypes!! How great pictures... Thanks for the link

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...