brill64 Posted November 2, 2011 Share #21 Posted November 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) if you READ, it does actually say: WARNING: This article contains some HDR images and images enhanced with Photoshop. If you don’t like HDR or you don’t like Photoshop, that is cool, but I don’t need to hear about it. he also states that he likes vibrant colour. he's been to some interesting places and shown some fantastic photos! thanks for sharing the link. it covers all the important points for someone thinking of buying an m9 and isn't too technical. I enjoyed it. & as for the enterprising chap in the rubbish skip, he's recycling - tin cans, electronics, plastics - anything that can be sold to make a livelihood. where there's muck there's money and these days, that's a lot of money. believe me, he's really not bothered and that's an obliging wave, not a "b*gger-off" one. it's not a photo-essay, which perhaps would have made that more clear. anyways, great stuff! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Hi brill64, Take a look here Great article on '14 months with an M9'. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest sterlinstarlin Posted November 2, 2011 Share #22 Posted November 2, 2011 I'm sorry, but the "Leica look" is pretty much obliterated when one goes digital. There could be a "digital Leica look," but the traditional Leica look everyone refers to is limited to film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted November 2, 2011 Share #23 Posted November 2, 2011 What have you got against pretty girls ? Oh absolutely nothing, quite the contrary, I'm a big fan of them. Just that living in NY and especially going to an artsy school has gave me the opportunity to meet a good number of them. And there's hordes of these girls who call themselves photographers simply because they can point the camera at something and press a big silver button. It gets annoying. Especially since I still consider photography a discipline. I'm sorry, but the "Leica look" is pretty much obliterated when one goes digital. There could be a "digital Leica look," but the traditional Leica look everyone refers to is limited to film. I'm not so sure about that. I always felt like the "Leica Look" people spoke of referred to wide angles with fast/large apertures. Which is something you can absolutely still see on digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 2, 2011 Share #24 Posted November 2, 2011 When I was in art school (I hold the MFA degree in both photography and live action film), wide angle lens images were considered the genre of photo journalism. Of course, things change but the point was not to attract attention to the methodology of one's work and instead let the content speak for itself. And these days HDR is considered the realm of commercial real estate photographers (look at any realtor's web site.) And so it has to enter into the dialogue. As a viewer of images, one cannot ignore the style of the image as part of the translation of the image. It has a connotation that cannot be avoided. It becomes part of the image despite the subject matter. If you see an image that suggests a technique, then that technique cannot be dismissed as not being part of the semiotics of the image. The images aren't very impressive despite being HDR or not. When I see images like these, it's as though I've seen them before. Part of the issue is that random photographs always seem out of context. What's the purpose/point of those images? They seem redundant considering the ever growing landfill of digital images out there we see every day (what Marshall McLuhan called once 'information overload' has become 'image overload.') But the guy can do whatever he wants with his camera. He's having a lot of fun and enjoying his new found tool, and it seems to suit him. More power to him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted November 2, 2011 Share #25 Posted November 2, 2011 Ugh. Thing I hate the most is the all over the map cropping (not to mention the all over the map processing). Pick one format and stick to it - that's what makes a photographer unique and the viewer's ability to connect with the work as a whole. The lack of cohesiveness is most amateurs downfall. The first thing I tell students is to lock the crop ratio - cropping small amounts is fine but keep it original. Certainly processing style might change from essay to essay (ie one might be color for a trip to India, b&w for a trip to Montana). I like Steve and talked at his workshop here in Seattle btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted November 2, 2011 Share #26 Posted November 2, 2011 I'm sorry, but the "Leica look" is pretty much obliterated when one goes digital. There could be a "digital Leica look," but the traditional Leica look everyone refers to is limited to film. I am new to Leica, but looking at historical images it seems the Leica look is really the lenses. At least I don't remember Leica ever making its own film !!! The M9 and M8 have excellent colours and sharpness. I'd say they show this pretty well. i.e. you can see big differences between lenses in the pictures. the ever growing landfill of digital images out there we see every day . Sometimes you want to take a good picture, but someone has taken that location or that style before, so what ? A picture is for you, your client or the life you are documenting. The pompous idea that every picture has to be fine art, totally unique and a totally new concept is ridiculous. And that is judged by who anyway ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borbarad Posted November 2, 2011 Share #27 Posted November 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, saw that article. However when it comes to HDR and Photoshop... It's really a no-go for me. As long as it stays at Capture One, Aperture, Lightroom( or similar) plus the NIK Complete Collection and a Lens Correction Tool( if needed anyway) its fine and can be called photography. But as soon as you get all that HDR and Photshop(ed) images its not anymore photography and should be listed as Digital or Computer Art or so. Just my 2c. B, while waiting for my M9P in Chrome.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 2, 2011 Share #28 Posted November 2, 2011 I respect all of your opinions. "But to go from image capture to getting a fine art print, (without using Photoshop*) one must have to work with a master printer or be a master printer themselves to get that fine art print. But to get that fine art print countless things have to be done to the original, whether the process is digital or chemical. So by the time the multitude of things have been done, the look of the printed photograph is different from the look of the original negative or transparency. The amount of difference varies from photographer to photographer, but different it is. There isn't a single print in existence that is an exact representation of the negative, transparency or RAW file." How true Alain Briot's words above are in "Mastering Photographic Composition, Creativity, and Personal Style", 2009. *(My opinion inserted here.) Keep in mind what we saw and what the camera records are not always the same and the workflow can help bring them closer together. None of my comment means that I believe every single image I make is to become fine art, but why not make every image you print the best you can make it from your recollection of the scene, not the camera's recollection of the scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 3, 2011 Share #29 Posted November 3, 2011 Keep in mind what we saw and what the camera records are not always the same and the workflow can help bring them closer together. None of my comment means that I believe every single image I make is to become fine art, but why not make every image you print the best you can make it from your recollection of the scene, not the camera's recollection of the scene. I think we all know that photography historically did not try to "accurately" reproduce a scene. It was and still is an interpretation. And how to do that interpretation is up to the photographer. But overall there may be a basic bias against too much HDR. Back when I was in photo school it was explained that the reason that a typical pictorial film characteristic curve is designed to have less contrast and detail in the shadows was that sampling of many different images with large numbers of individuals showed they generally preferred images that looked like that. I don't know why this is. Also keep in mind that there are many types of photography where reflectors or supplemental lighting is used to open up shadows or otherwise alter the lighting and look of an image. And we all like "good" lighting and hate "bad" lighting, whatever that means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 3, 2011 Share #30 Posted November 3, 2011 I think we all know that photography historically did not try to "accurately" reproduce a scene. It was and still is an interpretation. And how to do that interpretation is up to the photographer. But overall there may be a basic bias against too much HDR. Back when I was in photo school it was explained that the reason that a typical pictorial film characteristic curve is designed to have less contrast and detail in the shadows was that sampling of many different images with large numbers of individuals showed they generally preferred images that looked like that. I don't know why this is. Also keep in mind that there are many types of photography where reflectors or supplemental lighting is used to open up shadows or otherwise alter the lighting and look of an image. And we all like "good" lighting and hate "bad" lighting, whatever that means. Very good point on the lighting, which really is the key isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgio Posted November 3, 2011 Share #31 Posted November 3, 2011 I am glad to see his work here! He has a certain style, not that I like everything but at least he is not trying to copy that black & white street photography taken in poor suburbs, that I also see constantly in the Leica magazine. Is this what is the M series is all about? As if the camera is just build for that type of photography. Hope to see more work here than Street photography. GEO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2mini Posted November 3, 2011 Share #32 Posted November 3, 2011 I am glad to see his work here!He has a certain style, not that I like everything but at least he is not trying to copy that black & white street photography taken in poor suburbs, that I also see constantly in the Leica magazine. Is this what is the M series is all about? As if the camera is just build for that type of photography. Hope to see more work here than Street photography. GEO Haha, agreed. People buy a Leica or any rangefinder or rangefinder-esque camera and immediately try to produce gritty b/w "street photography" or candid shots of strangers drinking coffee in a diner, then try to blame their lack of individuality on "the leica look". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 3, 2011 Share #33 Posted November 3, 2011 I foud this to be a grat read. The Leica M9 – 16 Months Later by Scott Graham | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS John Thank you John. While I have a few reservations about a few of the pictures and their treatment, I thought the article was refreshingly frank and honest. Many of the pictures held amazing content and interest. Live and let live! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottygraham Posted November 6, 2011 Share #34 Posted November 6, 2011 Hi guys....Scotty Graham here... Thanks for all the comments....never once thought my photography would spark such contrasting remarks...I guess that is a good thing...from this forum and the comments on Steve's site, I don't know what to think or learn about my own photography....I guess it is always the negative that sticks in the mind even if I had way more positive comments than negative...that's the way it is when it comes to art, and photography is an art. I would like to "defend" myself if you would allow me, and to also apologize... First the apology... The photos of the garbage pickers...the comments about those photos are right on...it was inappropriate to include those in my article. They were part of a series I did here in Jakarta about the life of the community living and working at the dump....I did the series to strike interest in the service clubs at the school I work in to help...and we now have a big fundraising and school building program for that community....it is very sad what goes on there, and it is disturbing...however, the people I photographed there were super friendly and all wanted their photo taken. Having said this, you all had no idea of the context of those two photos, and I should not have included them....sorry about that. HDR....only 4 of the 30 photos I sent Steve were HDR photos....believe it or not, most of the photos I submitted to Steve had only minor adjustments made to them, and most of the adjustments were made in Lightroom. Maybe I am blind to my own style, but I really don't see where you guys think I plastered photoshop or abused my images with too much PP. Really? ALL of my images were over the top with Photoshop? You can't take me seriously as a photographer because of my PP? As I stated clearly in my article, I love colors!! Big colors that pop off the page!! That's me, and maybe not you....I have sold hundreds of prints, so others seem to like it too. I would never tell a photographer I can't take him seriously because he likes colorless photos of park benches or people sitting in a cafe...to each his own...they are no less respected by me if they like those kind of photos....so why would I be less respected because of my style? There are no laws written when it comes to shooting with a Leica....it's just a camera....a damn good camera...seems like the attitude of many Leica shooters I meet is that if you don't shoot black and white images that are like Henri Cartier Bresson's street scenes, then you have no right to own a Leica and will gain little respect as a photographer....this is 2011...the digital age....are you open to doing some new things with your Leica? This is supposed to be fun....right? Anyway, no hard feelings....I do respect your opinions, and I always want to learn and get better at my craft....if anything, you guys have made me think more about my PP and perhaps re-evaluate my style.... But could use your help in specifics how you think one of my images in the article could have been better. Cheers, and keep on shooting.... Scotty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2mini Posted November 6, 2011 Share #35 Posted November 6, 2011 Scotty, thanks for stopping by and commenting! I still say no apology is necessary for any of your images, because like you said, " you all had no idea of the context of those two photos", so no one here had the right to pass judgement. As to the PP... i fully agree with your statement and explanation. The leica is just another tool in the tool box. What you do with it is up to you, no one else. I think I mentioned early on that some of your images were pushed a little too far for my tastes, but that's just me and it didn't stop me from enjoying your article and photos. I also mentioned that most of those were not hdr, so thank you for confirming that. There is such a hatred for hdr or anything that looks like it around here, so don't be surprised about the comments in that respect. It literally comes with the territory. I use it all the time for my architecture work. I find it to be yet another very helpful and valuable tool. There is more to photography than the recording of an event. Sometimes that's exactly what's needed, but why stop there if you don't have to? Imagine if all painters were realists. OMG, how boring! Thank you for bringing a bit of expressionism and your personal artistic eye to your photos. I seriously hope you decide to stick around or at least poke your head in and contribute once in a while. Even if it's to give the pot a much needed stir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted November 6, 2011 Share #36 Posted November 6, 2011 First, I found this a great article and well worth reading. I can however understand that some people have trouble seeing past the"HRD-like" images. I have seen the same reaction in other sites. What I cannot understand is the aggressive, harsh and what I believe is offensive comments to one chosen style. I would also like to thank scottygarham for taking the time to answer, and say that Im impressed by his attitude in the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 7, 2011 Share #37 Posted November 7, 2011 Scotty- What guts to reply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 7, 2011 Share #38 Posted November 7, 2011 What I cannot understand is the aggressive, harsh and what I believe is offensive comments to one chosen style. Perhaps in some cases. The thing is that for a while, there has been a lot of complaint that people haven't been saying what they think - to many "Nice Shot" comments, without people actually being constructive or critical. There is some truth in this, as a lot of the shots posted elsewhere were pretty bland. Then again, this is an internet forum, and people will often post ill considered comments they would never say to the person's face ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted November 7, 2011 Share #39 Posted November 7, 2011 I also agree that no apology was needed for the garbage picking pictures... I actually found them more interesting than some of the others- and I don't need to know the context of the photograph to know what it depicts. How I react to the depiction is up to me. I think it is good to be reminded of some of the darkness that is in this world. Ignorance may be bliss but for how long can you keep your eyes shut? It is true that many photographers walk a fine line between depiction and exploitation- but that fine line produces some of my favourite photographs... To remove them because they are 'controversial' would be stupid: after all i have no idea what the context of a girl jumping on a beach was- or any of the images really- should they all have been omitted? Or does every controversial image need a detailed accompanying explanation? I think also many commentators confused HDR with fill light- and other post processing... I actually found a few of your images pushed the fill light a little too much for my own tastes- so that parts of the image looked natural (the better exposed areas) whilst other parts looked a little unreal... at times this was disconcerting but in the case of the jakarta dump it worked well to add definition to the filth. A final word: I cannot believe the snobbery that is associated with Leica cameras sometimes. It is true that the price of the camera puts it firmly into the high end luxury market- but the preciousness and pretension of some 'Leica commentators' is frankly sickening... It's just a !@#$ing camera and you can use it however the !@#$ you like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted November 7, 2011 Share #40 Posted November 7, 2011 Well done Scotty. I didn't think the pathetic comments here warranted a civil reply but good on you for not stooping to that level in yours. I come here less and less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.