Luminous-Landscape M8 in the field: Morocco

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

>My point was that few here are likely to be able to, and that the criticism is really pointless.

 

Carsten, of course I know what you mean. The point is that bringing images onto a scale of bad, good, great,... is already a bad thing. And you can be sure I am guilty of the same by many counts.

 

Read this excellent article by Alain Briot:

 

Being an Artist

 

He shows the big difference between the artist and the art critic.

 

Uwe

 

Thanks for the link, Uwe. I have read this a long time ago, and will re-read it tonight.

 

Meanwhile, I have to admit that your initial rebuttal, as well as those of others, bothered me a lot, but I couldn't put my finger on it until much later, when I was lying in bed trying to sleep.

 

The crux is that your answer almost seems to imply that no photo can be any better than any other photo. While that is clearly true in some sort of metaphysical sense, we would all be lost if you were right. What is the sense in trying to improve? Why do so many of us prefer the photos of photographer X to photographer Y? Clearly, some photos are better than others, at least in a practical or statistical sense, if not in any absolute sense.

 

Coming back to Michael Reichmann's photos, I think that his photos from Morocco are not as strong as much of his other work. Maybe it is something to do with the little web images, but maybe they just aren't as strong. I watched one of his video DVDs last night, and clearly his strength lies more in landscapes and bird photography. His people pictures, while good, aren't AS good as those other types. He does manage to get some great pictures, like some of the ones from China, but I find this set less compelling. I cannot say that they are not "good" photos, or that they are "worse", but I like them less. The colours are nice, but the people are not only absent, but in many of the photos, they seem to lack detail, mostly in the colour. Like I said, maybe the prints remove that complaint.

 

Perhaps then it would be better if two things happened: I change my original statement to say that people who want to complain about Michael's photos ought to at least put up some of their own work for discussion, and in my mind, really ought to be posting photos which they feel are more compelling. Then a discussion could ensue based on relative, subjective merit, rather than the anonymous potshots from the sidelines which I dislike so much. Secondly, people could criticise by saying that they don't feel the photos are so strong, rather than saying they are bad. One is a personal statement, the other an absolute one.

[eronald]

Secondly, people could criticise by saying that they don't feel the photos are so strong, rather than saying they are bad. One is a personal statement, the other an absolute one.

 

Why bother to criticise ? If I don't like the work of X, then I simply ignore it. I'm a photographer and an equipment reviewer, not a photography critic. And I have enough enemies already

 

As for MR, I really do like some of his landscape pictures.

 

Edmund

[Guest stnami]

who are you to say it didn't?

........ I am Imants that's who I am..... one eye open one eye sleeping....... .

The images appear to be timid, much like the China ones, Bangladesh he seemed to be more in his photographic element, thus a lot stronger series.

[dannirr]

The crux is that your answer almost seems to imply that no photo can be any better than any other photo. While that is clearly true in some sort of metaphysical sense, we would all be lost if you were right. What is the sense in trying to improve? Why do so many of us prefer the photos of photographer X to photographer Y? Clearly, some photos are better than others, at least in a practical or statistical sense, if not in any absolute sense..

 

This has long been my thinking - once the technical aspects are accomplished (mechanical and aesthetic technique), it becomes a matter of taste. I have always thought photography competitions silly - how is one picture better than another? It might appeal to you more, but it's not better. Same for the movies - the Academy Awards are silly. Art competitions are silly.

 

A picture either talks to you or it does not.

Best,

 

Danni

[Photoskeptic]

Well said, Danni. I am in one hundred percent agreement.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I find it interesting when comments come as they don't like a certain image for this or that but what they may fail to realize is the artist like them so if he or she likes there work than really who cares. I am a commercial shooter and there maybe some images I take that i honestly don't like but the client does and he is writing the check so really how can we judge what is art and what is not good art. There are no rules to say so and there should never be it is up to you what you like to look at or not. You may not like the image but a guy in some part of the world may buy a print for 1500 dollars to hang on his wall, does that say the image was a failure or a success. I try never to critize ones work because that is what they intended to do and it is not up to me if it is good or bad . I may not like it but there is no absolute law that says i should or should not . Maybe i am wrong here not sure but his work is his and it's not mine so i just don't say anything negative about peoples work. i will make suggestions though and try to help folks out if there looking for help.

[albertknappmd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

a very well written article that touts the real versatility of the M8. Dslrs of the world, watch out!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Don't have to read that , been throwing everything at the M8 and it is scoring on many counts. This camera is more useful than a reportage camera that is for sure

[xrogers]

This has long been my thinking - once the technical aspects are accomplished (mechanical and aesthetic technique), it becomes a matter of taste. I have always thought photography competitions silly - how is one picture better than another? It might appeal to you more, but it's not better. Same for the movies - the Academy Awards are silly. Art competitions are silly.

 

A picture either talks to you or it does not.

Best,

 

Danni

 

I think you have a valid point, and certainly a photo speaks or it doesn't. Some photos speak in more fundamental, universal languages than others. Some photos are simply clever, or cute. Compare Lange's Migrant Mother to any of Wegman's weimaraners, or to any of Geddes' flower babies. Despite the fact that some few may prefer the others, Lange's photo is (for all but strange, forced or intensely personal definitions) better. That doesn't mean the others are bad.

 

Now, I do agree that comparing great photos and claiming one is better than another is silly (and the typical art competition comparing mundane photos and claiming one is better is equally silly). And I definitely agree that the academy awards are silly. I firmly agree that basing your opinion of a work on what someone else says is foolish (perhaps that is all you're really saying, and I'm just picking sematic nits).

 

Looking at the work of great photographers, even photographers I don't particularly care for, is humbling. I would feel foolish claiming that my photos are in any useful sense "as good as" Kertesz's or Adams'.

 

Clyde Rogers

[elviskennedy]

At the very least, Michael's site with his opinions and work are free. If you don't like what you read or what you see - you got what you paid for.

 

I appreciate the time that Michael puts into his site and have found many useful things there. Do I agree or enjoy all of his stuff? Of course not. But that's not the point. Like I said; he offers it up at no cost

 

Sure, he has links to commercial sites as well as info on how you can purchase his stuff so it's not commercial free, but it is completely free to the casual visitor. Michael has decided to "earn" sales. Which differs greatly from pay-to-visit sites.

[terrycioni]

Having had a chance to think about why I haven't had an M8 switch problem.... I realized that I had put an Abrahamson soft release on the M8 - day one - RapidWinder.com Home I have used them on M film bodies for a long time and like the way they work. In the case of the M8 it actually protects the switch from moving easily, and makes the release considerably smoother (potential for slower shutter speeds in low light).

 

If you follow the Tom A. recommended way to use it - it adds a certain amount of stealth. This may not work for every one (rather than the tip of the shutter finger - you use the middle part of the shutter finger) but it does work well for me and others I know who use one their Ms. A pretty inexpensive solution to the problem and worth a look.

 

Like all accessories it is a matter of personal taste... so this is a suggestion - you folks are a tough crowd these days.

 

Cheers. Terry

[davidada]

The point is that these are photographs which have been cropped to most appropriately represent the subject, and my impression of it, not to show some technical attribute of the camera.

 

As for JPG vs raw, I almost never shoot JPG. This article on my site http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml from a few years ago explains why not.

 

Michael

Wonderful shots Michael - love the Cart and Donkey- have you selectivly desaturated that shot?

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

The images appear to be timid, much like the China ones, Bangladesh he seemed to be more in his photographic element, thus a lot stronger series.

 

Imants--I completely agree with you here. I do think the Bangladesh images (which Michael worked on a lot longer, IIRC, and showed at an exhibition here in Toronto) are stronger. The images posted here are exactly "timid;" I just happen to like that timidity in this context.

[mitchell]

Of course some photos are better than others. It's just impossible to reliably agree on which are which, or to say why. One of the greatest pleasures of viewing is to see a photo that you are surprised you like .

 

I don't mind people having preferences, and expressing them. But, I think it's rude and infantile to COMPLAIN about someone else's pictures, as if you or the laws of photography have somehow been injured by them. It's like complaining about a camera that you haven't bought.

 

We like what we like before we have reasons. We make up aesthetic laws later to understand and justify our preference, and change the laws when something new comes along.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[dannirr]

Looking at the work of great photographers, even photographers I don't particularly care for, is humbling. I would feel foolish claiming that my photos are in any useful sense "as good as" Kertesz's or Adams'.

 

Clyde Rogers

 

Every evening after dinner, when taking the dishes back to the kitchen (as my kids tell me to do), I walk past 6 pictures (originals) - Adam's Moonrise, Steiglitz's Steerage, Adam's Taos Church and three Cartier-Bresson's. I think I am a pretty decent, even good printer, and a decent photographer - but every evening I am humbled by these pictures - their vision, their technique. They are, to me, timeless in their appeal and infinately deep in their quality.

 

But is one "better" than another? Not in my opinion. They all connect with me very profoundly.

 

Best,

Danni

[Riley]

this discussion is past being polite

who among us would stand this ?

 

just my view

i dont like to comment on other peoples work at all

except when i can say something good

and that because the work carries me somehow

that isnt my normal condition

[bnelson]

I caught a show by Magnum photographer Jonas Bendiksen the other night, and what blew me away was his form and content over any sort of technical concerns. Noise, fringing, etc. galore, and it didn't matter a bit. The photos were just stunning. Very refeshing and inspiring. Also check out the Constatine manos piece on the M8 at Magnum:

 

Magnum Photos - American Color

 

Another from my Marrakesh hotel room. Sometimes it's in the details.

 

The Magnum essays and podcasts are outstanding. I had not seen them. Thanks for bringing them to our attentions.

[sean_reid]

Michael just got the M8 grip and it essentially solved the switch problem for him. See LL for updates. I'll tease him just a little and say that I strongly recommended that accessory to him back in September and he just now *finally* got one. <G> I think having a grip on the M8 makes a huge difference because it changes the way the right hand holds the camera, as I mentioned in that first M8 review. This is especially true if one, like myself, does not have small hands.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Michael just got the M8 grip and it essentially solved the switch problem for him. See LL for updates. I'll tease him just a little and say that I strongly recommended that accessory to him back in September and he just now *finally* got one. <G> I think having a grip on the M8 makes a huge difference because it changes the way the right hand holds the camera, as I mentioned in that first M8 review. This is especially true if one, like myself, does not have small hands.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

Completely agree here also . i have had the grip since pretty much since the beginning and never had a issue.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marknorton]

I used the wide angle Tri-Elmar on my Morocco trip and will have my report online next week. I'll also have a report on the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon.

 

The TE is an excellent lens.

 

Michael

 

Michael

 

I hope you'll be able to comment on the two issues I have with the WATE which I have covered elsewhere but repeat here in case you have not seen them.

 

The WATE can be used with a lens hood or filter holder but not both. To counter the IR sensitivity, a IR 486 filter is pretty much required all the time which will mean the hood and lens cap are redundant and there is no offering of either for use when the filter holder is used.

 

The consequence of using the IR filter will be red vignetting and cyan in the image corners which we know changes with focal length and needs to be corrected in firmware. The WATE does not tell the camera what the selected focal length is, unlike the old Tri-Elmar, so it's not clear how the camera will ever be able to correct for the cyan accurately unless there's some sort of manual selection of focal length on the camera.

 

- Did you use the filter adapter and IR cut filter?

- If so, what did you do for a lens hood and cap or did you always remove the filter when stashing the lens?

- Did you see cyan in the cormers of your images?

- What (that you can repeat in open forum) are Leica telling you about these issues other than a shrug of the shoulders?

 

My fear (as someone who has one on order) is that Leica will quickly see that events have overtaken the orginal WATE design and that we'll see an update, just like we did for the original Tri-Elmar. I have tried to get some information out of Leica UK on this but they are being characteristically useless. Can you shed any light on the subject?