shooting leica glass wide open one trick pony?

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

as i do shoot a lot of my leica glass wide open most of the time and i know many/most leica shooters do the same, but just wondering if ever leica shooters feel it gets to be like a one trick pony shooting at 1.4 and .95 much of the time?

 

shots look great at .95 and 1.4 but maybe a little cheap or predicable. kinda of like easy when the background is blurred. just saying sometimes i feel like maybe its too easy to shoot at these wide apertures and make on otherwise boring shot more dramatic.

 

like i said i do like to shoot wide open and it is part of my style but sometimes i do wonder if it is just an easy way out.

[Advertisement]

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

[zlatkob]

I think the wide open look is extremely useful, but I prefer to use a range of apertures for a range of looks, as needed for the situation.

[pico]

Shooting wide open all the time isn't much different in approach than using a Holga all the time. The outcomes differ, but only in look. Philosophically, it's the same thing. One trick.

[hx911]

mabybe 'it's just a phase' and we grow out of it?

I mainly shoot open, but catch myself stopping down when I want some more DOF ..... - do I need help?

[businessasusual]

do I need help?

 

When in LA - therapist - in Perth Pub! :D

[Dougg]

I didn't go through the wide open phase... Getting involved with photography in the 60's and 70's, the common wisdom was to stop down a bit to avoid the typical wide open optical deficiencies. So I got in the habit of keeping at least a half stop away from full open, and that's carried through even now. In truth though when using an f/4 or f/4.5 lens I don't have any qualms about cranking it wide. I vary the aperture for effect as the light allows.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The current M lenses are so good wide open that stopping down for improved IQ is seldom indicated – in some cases it is not even possible! But there is no doubt that there is a fashion current for shooting wide open at any cost simply as a matter of pride and maybe 'authenticity'. I have seen some of these fashions pass, though mostly in the darkroom: cooking negatives in the developer to get as large and sharp grain from your Tri-X as possible ... printing outside the neg to obtain a black surround ... printing without using the rulers of the easel so you got a fuzzy image edge ... they ran their course and disappeared. There seems to be a fashion for fake grain in digital images, and it will probably be superseded by a fashion for colour noise in the future.

 

The placement of the zone of sharpness in the image, and its depth, are important elements of composition. But in order to be meaningful, they have to be applied with some intent different from just being in fashion. Whatever you do must be demanded by the picture, not applied mechanically over the board. All else is mere silliness.

 

The old man who came out from the darkroom

[250swb]

i know many/most leica shooters do the same

 

This is totally and utterly untrue. In fact it is the direct opposite, most Leica users have enough common sense to use their lenses appropriately and to get the most out of them, and that does not mean they use them wide open all the time. You paid for all the stops from wide open to f/16, use them

 

Steve

[andybarton]

 

The placement of the zone of sharpness in the image, and its depth, are important elements of composition. But in order to be meaningful, they have to be applied with some intent different from just being in fashion. Whatever you do must be demanded by the picture, not applied mechanically over the board. All else is mere silliness.

 

 

Agreed

[Lord Fluff]

, most Leica users have enough common sense to use their lenses appropriately and to get the most out of them

 

If you've spunked 7 grand on a Noctilux and are spending more than a fraction of your time NOT shooting at f0.95, then I'd say you've rather over-invested...While it may be a fine lens stopped down, the only truly appropriate f-stop is f0.95.

 

Steve, I think also you give people rather too much credit, or rather imagine a culture of skilled M users. Most Leica owners are affluent hobbyists, and when they buy a new fast lens, of course they shoot it wide open all the time - and why shouldn't they. If people have come from slower lenses and smaller sensors then this is a major appeal.

 

Photography should be about fun, and if you like shallow DOF then play away....

[mmradman]

The current M lenses are so good wide open that stopping down for improved IQ is seldom indicated

 

Exactly my rationale why buying into Leica system.

 

Several years ago I was shooting some evening shots, best lens at my disposal was my Nikon 50mm f1.4. I was so unhappy with images shot at f1.4 (it is good stopped down) that I pledged to buy into system that will give me good performance with lenses fully open. Shallow depth of field comes as an extra bonus .

 

Only yesterday I managed to take some test shots with M9 in the shop, I was using Lux 50mm ASPH mostly fully open. Made some prints with some high magnification crops and I think I am getting sold on the camera (was sold on lenses for a while), only need to eat less from now on to save a bit.

 

Here is a sample, cropped a lot and bit out of focus, lens almost fully open M9 Test Shot - Terrific Sensor, not much of Leica RF composition (user) | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Stateowned]

i agree with lord fluff.. why buy a 0.95 lens and not use it @ 0.95..

 

for my most of my shooting i do @ biggest aperture unless i choose not to focus where i set it to hyperfocal distance.. so everything is sharp.

[Ronan]

i agree with lord fluff.. why buy a 0.95 lens and not use it @ 0.95..

 

for my most of my shooting i do @ biggest aperture unless i choose not to focus where i set it to hyperfocal distance.. so everything is sharp.

 

By that statement, why buy a sport car and not floor it from light to light?

 

 

Edit: Apple still sucks... Worst keyboard ever on those iPhones...

[Peter H]

One candle? Perfect.

 

The vanishing tip of the eyelash? Great.

 

In fact, so great, I'm going to look for opportunities to use my super-fast lens where no other lens would do.

 

That will make for great photos, won't it?

[pgk]

Aren't we forgetting something - the subject. If the best treatment of a subject would be to shoot wide open then that is how it should be photographed. If on the other hand using a different aperture would produce a better photograph then surely it isn't rocket science to realise that a different aperture should be used? If you have a fast lens then its possible to use it wide open when the situation demands, if you haven't then you can't. The usefulness of a fast aperture lens IMHO is that it increases versatility and enables shots that can't be taken on a slower lens, that's all.

[algrove]

I just acquired my first 1.4 M lens. Sure I use it wide open, but also use it all the way up f16 if the situation and lighting dictate.

 

Often since I am new into Leica photography, I will take a series of exposures, when allowed, at varying f stops in order to determine later which image I prefer.

 

I imagine later on and with more experience I will know the look and corresponding f stop I want before hitting the shutter, but at the moment that is my practice.

 

Does this make sense?

[Peter H]

Aren't we forgetting something - the subject. If the best treatment of a subject would be to shoot wide open then that is how it should be photographed. If on the other hand using a different aperture would produce a better photograph then surely it isn't rocket science to realise that a different aperture should be used? If you have a fast lens then its possible to use it wide open when the situation demands, if you haven't then you can't. The usefulness of a fast aperture lens IMHO is that it increases versatility and enables shots that can't be taken on a slower lens, that's all.

 

Exactly.

[daveleo]

As a viewer, I feel that way too many portrait style images are shot with too shallow DOF (very fast lens wide open). The plane of the subjects eyes in perfect focus but his ears, hair, neck and nose are out of focus. Looks too strange.

 

Too shallow DOF, in my opinion, is seriously overdone. What the motives are, I could only guess.

 

Edit: I think this thread belongs in Barnack's Bar ( ? )

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mahakalaka]

I for one am not digging the wide open for everything phase. I work in the movie business and I see it there too. People even want big pictures, of whole houses and stuff, to have shallow depth of field. For me, that just looks artificial and tasteless. Very modern in a way that will look dated in a not a far future.

 

I do have a 1.4 lens. Pretty much the only time I shoot it there is when the light is low and calls for it. Which is very useful and happens regularly as I seldom carry a flash. Every once and a while if the background is hideous I'll open up too, but not often.

 

I used to shoot portraits wide open, but I am now no longer interested in headshots for my personal work. Now I want to show a whole person and it's surrounding. In these cases I want a large depth of field.

 

But if you like the look of wide open shots all the time, great! You've found your thing!

//Maximilian

[bill]

The placement of the zone of sharpness in the image, and its depth, are important elements of composition. But in order to be meaningful, they have to be applied with some intent different from just being in fashion. Whatever you do must be demanded by the picture, not applied mechanically over the board. All else is mere silliness.

 

Spot on.

 

Where you put the zone of sharpness is far more important than just shooting wide open per se. Isolating your subject is an art; isolating your subject from the background is just physics.

 

Regards,

 

Bill