pico Posted August 18, 2011 Share #1 Posted August 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you are a photographer who attempts to make images that make a difference in our ordinary life, then a Leica makes no contribution because the outcome is the from the discipline and also the talent of the photographer. The things we call "Leica Glow" can be made bu many lenses, some of them decades old and 'inferior' because modern technology does not define an aesthetic - but only a characteristic of the tech of the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Hi pico, Take a look here Most exclsive camera means notihng. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted August 18, 2011 Share #2 Posted August 18, 2011 No shit Sherlock! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted August 18, 2011 Share #3 Posted August 18, 2011 No shit Sherlock! How eloquently spoken:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted August 18, 2011 Share #4 Posted August 18, 2011 Noel is right, it's all about the glass! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 18, 2011 Share #5 Posted August 18, 2011 .... are we supposed to comment on this poetic but ultimately rather vacuous statement Ok, I agree. I'll trade my Leica in for a Box Brownie.... Have a look at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/aug/17/1 Mayan Queens taken with an old box camera...... the last in the set is brilliant... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holybasil Posted August 18, 2011 Share #6 Posted August 18, 2011 Right then. Everyone! Let's go trade our Leicas in for Holgas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tietje Posted August 18, 2011 Share #7 Posted August 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) .... are we supposed to comment on this poetic but ultimately rather vacuous statement Ok, I agree. I'll trade my Leica in for a Box Brownie.... Have a look at this: Mayan queens represent Guatemalan states at festival – in pictures | World news | guardian.co.uk Mayan Queens taken with an old box camera...... the last in the set is brilliant... Or this.......... Bert Hardy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 22, 2011 Share #8 Posted August 22, 2011 If you are a photographer who attempts to make images that make a difference in our ordinary life, then a Leica makes no contribution because the outcome is the from the discipline and also the talent of the photographer. The things we call "Leica Glow" can be made bu many lenses, some of them decades old and 'inferior' because modern technology does not define an aesthetic - but only a characteristic of the tech of the moment. Actually, just for arguments sake, I don't agree The photographer is 90% of the picture, however: 1. The M9 + lens is way lighter then equivalent quality from DSLR. Therefore its with me most of the time. They say the best camera is the one you have available to take the shot 2. Pixel level for the M9, and most other FF cameras, is considerably better. Therefore cropping works. 3. A much better photographer then me could take the same composition with a poor camera and the M9. The M9 would look better. QED, as they say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 22, 2011 Share #9 Posted August 22, 2011 The M9 would look better. Different, but not necessarily better. Maybe a pinhole camera would render the intent better. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 22, 2011 Share #10 Posted August 22, 2011 Different, but not necessarily better. Maybe a pinhole camera would render the intent better. Jeff An M9 picture could be edited to look like a pinhole camera A pinhole camera could not be edited to look like a M9 picture Its the way back that defines it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted August 22, 2011 Share #11 Posted August 22, 2011 If you are a photographer who attempts to make images that make a difference in our ordinary life, then a Leica makes no contribution because the outcome is the from the discipline and also the talent of the photographer. The things we call "Leica Glow" can be made bu many lenses, some of them decades old and 'inferior' because modern technology does not define an aesthetic - but only a characteristic of the tech of the moment. Seems like a paraphase--without proper citation--of something HCB said many years ago Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 22, 2011 Share #12 Posted August 22, 2011 An M9 picture could be edited to look like a pinhole cameraA pinhole camera could not be edited to look like a M9 picture Its the way back that defines it! An underwater image then. At some point your argument is silly; we're discussing equipment, not post-processing, which could be done in the darkroom as well as the lightroom. The camera is only a tool, and some tools suit some circumstances better than others. Nothing new about that, nor the fact that the photographer is the key. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 22, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 22, 2011 An underwater image then. At some point your argument is silly; we're discussing equipment, not post-processing, which could be done in the darkroom as well as the lightroom. The camera is only a tool, and some tools suit some circumstances better than others. Nothing new about that, nor the fact that the photographer is the key. Jeff You call my sensible point silly after comparing a pinhole camera to an m camera! Its also no good saying that anything can be done in PP. PP only gives you the latitude of the quality of the original picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 22, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 22, 2011 Sorry, Pico - here we disagree. A Leica M makes significant contributions to my photography: Small, light-weight, (same goes for the lenses), clear window viewfinder, snappy split-image focusing, corner viewfinder eyepiece so the camera doesn't hide my face, relative "low impact" performance in terms of shake and sound. All of these help get the camera the hell out of the way of both me and my subjects, so we can get on with photography - or life, as the case may be - without distraction. There are smaller, or lighter, or quieter cameras - but no "package" that equals the Leica M, especially for FF digital. Nothing at all equals the viewfinder(s) - again in digital (I'll leave some wiggle room for the film Konica RF and current Zeiss Ikon). You are probably partly correct about the lenses (in terms of image quality) - I'd take an M body with anyone's lens over any other camera with a Leica lens. With the caveat that I use long Leica R glass on my Canon 5D because I want the darn aperture ring and manual focus feel, and I'll put the APO Telyt 180 f/3.4 up against any other 180-200 from anyone at f/3.4. For resolution, not "glow." You are perfectly correct that talent is also a requirement - but it is an additive function. A camera less suited (EVF lag, slower lenses, bigger lenses, louder operation) to my needs is going to impose distractions or handicaps, and my talent isn't going to reach its full potential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 22, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 22, 2011 You call my sensible point silly after comparing a pinhole camera to an m camera! Its also no good saying that anything can be done in PP. PP only gives you the latitude of the quality of the original picture. No, you just criticized your own comments, not mine. You made the point that the same composition taken with two cameras (one a cheap one) would be better on the M9. I used the deliberately ludicrous example of a pinhole camera to suggest that, no, different cameras serve different intents and that pics couldn't be compared. Then you tried to support your case by suggesting the M9 pic could be post-processed to look like the pinhole pic. I'm the one who suggested PP is irrelevant to the discussion. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted August 22, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 22, 2011 My 'M' is a ludicrous pinhole: Day Dream | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 22, 2011 Share #17 Posted August 22, 2011 My 'M' is a ludicrous pinhole: Day Dream | Flickr - Photo Sharing! And according to the Colonel, the M9 pic is obviously better than a similar print from a pinhole camera. Alert the media...the M9 does it all, and there's no need for anyone to ever buy another type of camera. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 22, 2011 Share #18 Posted August 22, 2011 In between shoots, my wife and I are editing over 35,000 Kodachrome slides, a lot of them shot with Leica glass on M bodies. Sometimes there was very little difference between Leica and Nikon glass. Then in lower light, flatter days and scenes with more light sources, it made more of a differerence. But in using digital, I just don't see that big of a difference between high end Leica Glass and high end Nikon glass and what ever the difference, it is easily made up for in post because Nikon glass has gotten that much better. But the big thing...in all my treasured photo books, NPPA photo annuals and in literally every publication I have seen......no matter what the subject or who won POY that year, I see no disadvantage in those who chose an SLR for their reportage and documentary work compared to those who used an M. Jonas Bendiksen used a single 5D, 28 1.8 and 50 1.4 for his brilliant street work in the slums of India. Another well known Magnum shooter used a D700, M9 and GF-1 for his work in an upcoming article that included being in and around dangerous South American drug lords. Even he stated that the M9 was fun to use but slow, the D700 a real work horse like his film M's. I would love to see more images that show seriously brilliant shooters pushing the limits of the M9 to the utter brink, but I don't......I wish I did, and I so see a lot of work... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted August 23, 2011 Share #19 Posted August 23, 2011 If you are a photographer who attempts to make images that make a difference in our ordinary life, then a Leica makes no contribution because the outcome is the from the discipline and also the talent of the photographer. The things we call "Leica Glow" can be made bu many lenses, some of them decades old and 'inferior' because modern technology does not define an aesthetic - but only a characteristic of the tech of the moment. I disagree, there are many levels at which gear can make a difference. The first thing that comes to mind is psychology. People always underestimate the role of psychology. Simply loving the way a camera works or feels, or holding something that feels specials because you invested a lot in it, can make a huge difference. It doesn't matter whether or not this is objectively true, simply feeling it is enough. I've been into sports my whole life and have seen many world class athletes do the most silly things just to get their minds into the task at hand. As for photography and Leica. People who invest a lot in gear they love will be more tempted to use it (it becomes easier to have discipline), making the difference between a picture taken and one not taken (and thus the difference between a talent developed or left unused). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted August 23, 2011 Share #20 Posted August 23, 2011 If you are a photographer who attempts to make images that make a difference in our ordinary life, then a Leica makes no contribution because the outcome is the from the discipline and also the talent of the photographer. The things we call "Leica Glow" can be made bu many lenses, some of them decades old and 'inferior' because modern technology does not define an aesthetic - but only a characteristic of the tech of the moment. "...images that make a difference in our ordinary life..." How do these images make a difference? By conveying emotion, by making us pause and react? Some are extraordinary pictures of the ordinary. Others are better described as ordinary pictures of the extraordinary; just being there is what counts. Getting a great picture obviously depends on a combination of talent, being in the right place at the right time, having the right gear, and luck. By discipline I assume you mean "technical proficiency". "A Leica makes no contribution..." I presume you mean the camera itself. If the camera is light, easy to take anywhere, and you are comfortable using it, then it makes a contribution. If you are able to hold it steady at slower speeds and you are shooting in low light without a tripod, then it is the camera design that makes a contribution. If the camera is rugged and performs faultlessly time after time then it is the design that contributes to a successful image. "Leica glow" generally refers to pictures produced with older lenses that had some aberrations. I don't think most Leica photographers aim for "Leica glow"; they prefer to use lenses with the fewest aberrations that perform to the highest standards. Leica lenses, which have excellent performance at all apertures, contribute to sharper, richer, more detailed pictures that can be enlarged to greater sizes than pictures shot using inferior optics. Thus both the Leica camera and Leica lenses do contribute to the emotional impact of an image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.