Summilux what for?

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well said, Steve.

[Advertisement]

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

[stephen.w]

There never have been any accidentally great photographers where everything is left to chance and a pure and innate instinct, they all know what they are doing and how they are doing it, they all understood semiotic's at some level or other.

Lartigue? He took this in 1911 when he was only 17 (!) with new equipment that he had taught himself how to use.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Paul J]

It's not about putting anything in a box. It's simply a dialectic about a specific subject matter. If it doesn't concern you or you feel attacked by it, then that's okay. Just say that you don't feel comfortable with it and move on. But it's puzzling that you are so vehemently opposed to any such discussion. It's as though you were attacked by a theorist as a child.

 

Often people can feel threatened by what might seem opposite to what they believe in. That's apparent in politics, religion, and.... art. But an open discussion rather than a simple 'it's all bullshit' sort of retort can normally bring to light positive points on both sides of the table.

 

The interpretation of the color red is a social construct and in the western world it has some specific meanings. I beg to differ that someone doesn't read objects or colors, etc., in the same way provided they aren't from another universe. And yes, of course these constructs change over time and within cultures. I mentioned that explicitly. But you have been trained to stop at a red light. And a red warning sign is red for a reason. And that is understood based on my history and on your history.

 

And yes, those very photographers you mention do indeed talk about their work; you'd be surprised how coherent they are about what's contained within the frame. And those images you posted are loaded with information. If you were told to write several paragraphs about why you like those images or simply to describe them, then you would be doing exactly what I'm talking about.

 

If you don't get it, then you don't get it. That's okay. But don't dismiss something only because you feel it doesn't apply to you in your life at this moment in time.

 

Actually, my good man, I'm simply debating about something that I have an opinion of, which to your seeming surprise and disappointment, is not in keeping with your own. Can you not feel challenged without resorting to a childish pulling down of talks of attack as child? It seems you are both putting words in my mouth and it is you who are rather flustered by it, unable to accept that I don't believe in the system you seemingly have a career in. Challenge is OK, you know. Everyone learns something. I'm really quite happy to agree to disagree but it's an interesting discussion and one worthy of debate.

 

I think semiotics is relevant to a point, particularly with regards to the history of man but not to the future. I find it laughable to suggest that everybody could be treated as if cut from the same cloth like some kind depraved of zombie to these ideals. It's somewhat akin to religion, creating a man made structure in something as free spirited as creation and expression is just futile, it's completely contradictory of the process.

 

It's not a case of not getting it, I just don't believe in it and is a matter of my own personal experience. By your same token, do you not think that if you don't get why someone would shoot wide open then you could not dismiss it and tout it as coded as "arty", berating it as if it's cheap, amateurish? The pictures above prove otherwise! It's you imposing of your beliefs on other peoples work that I have a problem with as this can greatly affect people particularly in the earlier stages of their development as an artist, And particularly coming from someone who is supposedly a teacher. Personally, I'm quite happy to accept that people like different things and they can be used with good effect and in good time, and in given the freedom of self exploration they lead onto bigger and better ideas and techniques. However it seems you feel you know better.

 

And do you know me so well that you really think I would be surprised to find out how coherent these photographers are? This is the only point that irks me about all this, right from the your first post, you are continually implying you know something that others don't. If I was in your class I would most likely get up and leave.

[Paul J]

btw, I'm now realizing what I think your fear about theory (and in your own personal experience, art school) is about. I think what you feel is that theory displaces the soul and heart of an image. In other words, that intangible 'thing' that attracts us to an image. It's what the late Roland Barthes himself (the consummate semiotician) called "punctum;" the arrow that pierces the heart.

 

Discussing the way society might culturally interpret images doesn't eclipse that "punctum" which can define memorable images for each of us. But in this thread, we were discussing the cultural interpretation of short DOF as it relates to much of photography seen today (at least in the internet world's photo album.) We weren't discussing anything else and definitely not the emotional pull that certain images can have.

 

In fact, Barthes last book was about an image of his deceased mother that he had found misplaced in a drawer. The image pulled at his emotions so much that he went on to explore what this emotional appeal of certain images might be all about. Although he was certainly an academician he didn't script the book as a theoretical treatise but instead looked at the more 'existential' aspects of looking at photographs (btw, Berger is also very good at this poetic approach with the work he's done after Ways of Seeing.) He wanted to explore the essence of a photograph (its noeme.) Barthes divided the interpretation of photographs into "punctum" (the piercing of the heart; the experience that is private and escapes meaning, it 'pricks or wounds' the observer) and "studium" (the theoretical underpinnings of reading an image; i.e., its unary and coded language that is available and obvious to everyone.) It's a great read and filled with some of history's compelling images: Camera Lucida.

 

So please don't assume that one approach to looking at an issue (e.g., the use of DOF) supersedes the other. Both "punctum" and "studium" are important parts of understanding the cultural and personal meanings of a photograph. And certainly many photographs are quite personal and may never see the light of day (e.g., personal family photos.) Although with internet postings of photographs today it seems like there is no more personal anything.

 

Photographs can be beautiful and intriguing and emotional things to look at. Nothing takes that away.

 

OK, this is a change in tone that I appreciate. Thank you. I do believe that theory does replace the soul of a work with something similar to an autopsy. But a work of art is something quite fleeting and by the time it has been made, the artist and human nature has already moved on. It's fine to take it all in the begining, but at some point, as an artist, you need to step away from it and create within your own experiences and findings. live richly and report back purely.

 

I believe that soul of the image is the soul of the artist and it's not something you should try and quantify or explain. It can't be, it's a container of infinite proportions. I'm not for one moment trying to suggest you should walk away without analysing how it makes you feel personally, that would make art pointless, but this should not directly explain what others should feel from it either. I don't actually believe for one moment that red means a certain something set in stone and we should avoid using it for that reason, or only use it in such context that we've learned. "Learning" has a lot to answer for! As long as we consider learning transitory, then great, learn away but always be open to replace it with new learning, new thought, new experience. We as humans have a limited understanding to the realities of the universe so why would deny ourselves of something because we've drawn a line between two instances and formed some structure out of it. It's not more different to me than stabbing in the dark.

[Paul J]

From my experience a good photographer is usually able to talk about their photograph and recognise where its power comes from. And that involves acknowledging the understanding of media, the use of signs, words, and even emotion.

 

There are some great photographer's who do the 'I only take photographs, I don't analyse them, I don't even know how the camera works' routine, but they are rare, and I find them untrustworthy because inevitably they do know about the things they are denying. But take a modern photographer like Martin Parr (who often use's shallow DOF, but never 'always'), and he can talk the hind legs off a donkey when it comes to explaining his work. And he isn't alone because others get to be where they are by showing that they know what they are doing, where their work fits in the world, what it is saying, and understanding how it is seen.

 

A great photograph may be a chance event, completely unplanned and almost accidental, but the only way the photographer can know it is a great photograph is to know about photography, know what it 'says', and know that it will appeal to an audience. Knowing isn't instinctive, it is learned by understanding the visual lexicon, otherwise a heavily motion blurred photograph of a man jumping across a puddle at the 'Gare Saint-Lazare' would have gone in the bin. This photograph wouldn't have won the monthly photo club competition, but Bresson was way ahead of that. He showed via many images that motion blur, being accidentally out of focus, tilted horizons, frame numbers encroaching onto the print, all had a valid place if the underlying image was strong and the subversive ethos was intellectually sound.

 

Bresson, Arbus, Erwitt, and Avedon would all have known about semiotic's even if they didn't know the word itself, because it is the language they would have talked in to the gallery owner, the picture editor, the lecture audience, and via their photograph to the viewer. There never have been any accidentally great photographers where everything is left to chance and a pure and innate instinct, they all know what they are doing and how they are doing it, they all understood semiotic's at some level or other.

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve, I agree, well said.

 

Semiotics has their place, but I don't feel you switch off to things because of some previously described notion of them. Take them, use them, twist them. That is art and the media can be art itself.

 

In terms of analysis I'm quite happy to speak of my work and what it means to me. There are countless interviews, blogs and videos about my work already and in a way I feel ridiculous doing them because it's almost irrelevant beyond someones fascination. I will talk till the cows come home because it's my life and I'm passionate about it and I am thankful for someone interest but what that means to you in your art is irrelevant and that is what I'm trying to say. Art is a process and much more than theory. It's too easy to spend so much time studying art thinking you can apply it to your own but it's really not the case. You need to make it. The same can be said for photographers assistants. They can assist the worlds best photographers and be a lousy photographer even when they know the photographers and their work intimately. Art is about expressing your own life and emotions. It's about living richly and interpreting your own personal experience into ideas and imagery. It's about facilitating that expression and letting it be free from influence (or too much influence) and artistic taboo. The moment you question something you hinder the process of letting it out. Let it out and let it grow into something else. Make mistakes and learn which ones to keep. Pardon my french, but fuck the rules, the tradition the boxes. Get to work and do it quickly because it's like a conversation and an d exploration - the more you work on it the more you understand what you want to say and how you should say it and then more importantly, the clever ways you can try and say it.

[CalArts 99]

By your same token, do you not think that if you don't get why someone would shoot wide open then you could not dismiss it and tout it as coded as "arty", berating it as if it's cheap, amateurish? The pictures above prove otherwise! It's you imposing of your beliefs on other peoples work that I have a problem with as this can greatly affect people particularly in the earlier stages of their development as an artist, And particularly coming from someone who is supposedly a teacher.

 

For the record this was never said. And not by anyone here. We were simply discussing the phenomenon of the proliferation of very limited DOF images that are popular today and suggesting that they are interpreted as being 'arty' (and was originally Steve's word and not mine although I do agree with him.) And then the conversation went further as most dialogues tend to do. I brought up the notion of 'codes' in images that we respond to and limited DOF as a current one in respect to 'bokeh' just for 'bokeh's sake.' No one here said limited DOF was to be dismissed as something "cheap" or "amateurish." In fact, quite the opposite (I even posted some of my own limited DOF images.)

 

I think MarkP summed it up well:

 

I don't think many of us are saying that use of shallow DOF is not an appropriate part of the artistic photographic repertoire. It's just that:

 

1. there is far more to photography than a razor thin plane of focus

2. Leica lenses can be used other than wide open

3. shallow DOF is often just an expected consequence of shooting wide open in low light rather than an end unto itself

4. use of shallow DOF for it's own sake is often just plain tedious or inappropriate for the image.

5. It is only part of, but not the photographic repertoire.

 

 

But somehow, somewhere, a nerve was clearly struck in you. And for that I apologize. But please understand this is all simply a dialogue.

 

And do you know me so well that you really think I would be surprised to find out how coherent these photographers are? This is the only point that irks me about all this, right from the your first post, you are continually implying you know something that others don't. If I was in your class I would most likely get up and leave.

 

Forgive me for offering you references. As I had mentioned before, I have a big fault and that's being always in 'teacher mode.' But no, I don't know where you're coming from (and I have sent friendly private messages to you for more info but never received any answers.)

 

And the only reason I mentioned that the photographers you posted certainly were coherent about what they were doing was because you said, "I wonder what you suppose Henri Cartier Bresson, Diane Arbus, Elliot Erwit and Richard Avedon all care for your so called semiotics." But I think Steve posted a well written post in respect to this. And better than I could.

 

So I'm not sure why we needed to be dragged through the whole codes, signs and semiotics nonsense anyway, particularly when these pictures above prove it utter nonsense.

 

I didn't think anyone was dragging anyone through anything. If you feel it's all utter nonsense, then I accept that. But I don't feel it's reason enough to shut off dialogue. You never attempted to "challenge" anything other than say it's all utter nonsense and just my "opinion" (and it's not my opinion and it's not "so called semiotics.")

 

Again, sorry to have hit a nerve in you. I didn't realize it was so close and personal to you. Anyway, enough's been said now about the Summilux

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This dialogue has gone way beyond the OP's initial question about the need for Summilux lenses and the thread has been now been hijacked by 2 or 3.

[algrove]

For a while I thought I needed to change from summicron to summilux for my 35 & 50mm. But then I realised that I almost never use them wider than f4 for portraits and f5.6 or f8 would be the widest for landscapes.

 

I've tried my summicrons at f2 but the DoF is really shallow, f1.4 would be even less. It is difficult to get the eyes in focus with such narrow DoF.

 

So my question is what type of image needs f1.4? Or is it about the quality at f4 and summilux being ahead of summicron?

 

I'd like to see why you need summilux over summicron or even Elmarit or Summarit as for my images these small units are probably adequate?

 

Thanks Lincoln

 

The type of image that NEEDS f1.4 is where one is in a dark environment and where ISO and speed have been exhausted.

[CaptZoom]

This dialogue has gone way beyond the OP's initial question about the need for Summilux lenses and the thread has been now been hijacked by 2 or 3.

 

Indeed...the asides have been most interesting. I now have a couple of additions to my reading list.

[jankap]

The type of image that NEEDS f1.4 is where one is in a dark environment and where ISO and speed have been exhausted.

 

One of the image types, I would say.

See the work of Thorsten Overgaard, for instance.

Don´t fashion or portrait need open lenses too?

Jan

[algrove]

Given that Overgaard uses most Leica lenses wide open all the time makes him more the exception than the rule. After having shot with him though, I do respect his techniques and solid attitude toward image making.

[250swb]

The type of image that NEEDS f1.4 is where one is in a dark environment and where ISO and speed have been exhausted.

 

Which is very rare, one stop extra over a regular Summicron hardly ever makes a big difference.

 

I was a theatre and concert photographer for a few years, and film needed up rating anyway and a Summilux was not essential to the job, you just used the camera in different arty ways and planned ahead for the work you were doing. The history of low light photography has never been dependant on the Summilux or other very fast lenses, it is mostly the domain of slower lenses and faster film. Today's digital camera's mean you can uprate the ISO to suit the occasion during a shoot, and unless you are determined to try to replicate the image quality of daylight while shooting at night time one stop extra latitude over an f/2 lens will rarely be absolutely essential, especially as there is the downside of shallow DOF (which despite opinions to the contrary is not always desirable). This is why the conversation turned towards the implications of using the Summilux for 'style' rather than by necessity, because it rarely gets used for its speed by Leica photographers and is mostly used wide open for its 'look'.

 

Steve

[IWC Doppel]

Perhaps need should be explored or ignored ?

 

I don't 'need' a Leica M, a large number of lenses, I have a panasonic GF1 on the shelf and an iPhone, I'm not a professional and so 'need' could be misunderstood. When does something become essential ?

 

I don't want to go off topic, but being too definitive about 'need' for a Summilux distracts the point a little for me. It's more about the benefits which I do feel have been covered at least in part ?

 

Perhaps the OP might reframe the question if he needs more information and anther thread started regarding DOF ?

[Gerard]

I don't need my Summilux, but I feel lucky to have it.

 

I exploit my Summilux, and it makes me happy.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/303297-proper-marmite.html

[FlashGordonPhotography]

.....The history of low light photography has never been dependant on the Summilux or other very fast lenses, it is mostly the domain of slower lenses and faster film. Today's digital camera's mean you can uprate the ISO to suit the occasion during a shoot, and unless you are determined to try to replicate the image quality of daylight while shooting at night time one stop extra latitude over an f/2 lens will rarely be absolutely essential, especially as there is the downside of shallow DOF (which despite opinions to the contrary is not always desirable). This is why the conversation turned towards the implications of using the Summilux for 'style' rather than by necessity, because it rarely gets used for its speed by Leica photographers and is mostly used wide open for its 'look'.

 

Steve

 

I don't buy the "historical use" argument. It seems to assume that what happened in the past is either correct or better when neither are usually the case.

 

Historically, lenses were stopped down because their performance wide open was "variable" to say the least. Most lenses benifited greatly from being a stop or two from wide open. Using a lens wide open was a last resort because image quality suffered so much. If the lenses had been better we would have seen much more work shot at wide open apertures.

 

Today's lenses are significantly better. Wide open they're better than lenses from" the good old days" stopped down. And it's easier and cheaper to make a good fast lens than ever. The tools are now available that we didn't have access to in the past. So it is quite possible to consider the use of lenses wide open without being worried about image quality, in most cases. Photography continues to develop and change as we are able to do things that were simply more difficult in the past.

 

Gordon

[250swb]

I don't buy the "historical use" argument. It seems to assume that what happened in the past is either correct or better when neither are usually the case.

 

Historically, lenses were stopped down because their performance wide open was "variable" to say the least. Most lenses benifited greatly from being a stop or two from wide open. Using a lens wide open was a last resort because image quality suffered so much. If the lenses had been better we would have seen much more work shot at wide open apertures.

 

Tastes change, people nowadays are on the shallow DOF pseudo-arty bandwagon, but don't confuse stopping the lens down with the inherent quality of the lens, it was/is generally about the quality of communication.

 

As a news and theatre photographer it really wasn't acceptable to have three people in the picture and only one was in focus because I decided to use my lens wide open. Sure enough exceptions can be made, but it is about wasted space, those other two blurry people would be cropped out by the picture editor. The idea you are trying to communicate is that there are three actors interacting at this point in the play, or three politicians in earnest discussion. But having two OOF doesn't 'say' anything as the viewer can't see who they are. This simple paradigm is as relevant now as it was from the first time people started to be photographed. So nothing at all to do with the lens being a bit softer wide open.

 

But on a wider perspective Leica camera's have traditionally been used to tell stories, they have been reportage camera's, and what is more, unlike an SLR the photographer can't see the DOF, only guess it (the lens scale is only a very rough guide). So you'll tend to find that photographers when faced with world changing events didn't choose that moment to go all arty and open the lens up wide on the off chance that shallow DOF would be the killer shot. So now you have two paradigms.

 

That is the historical perspective. But bringing it back up to day, we know have the internet, we now have a lot of disposable income, and we now have more amateurs than professionals taking photographs. And amateurs have time, they can play with shallow DOF, they can get it wrong without jeopardy and have another go, they can indulge in personal imaging making where communication is irrelevant, they can talk up great pictures proclaiming that they 'only use my Lux glass wide open' on the internet. In the history of Leica they are 'Johnny come lately', new leisure users without a living to earn, without a picture editor to please, without a war to warn the world about. Stopping a lens down is about communication to somebody other than yourself, applying context in the image, seeing other peoples faces, seeing what is in the background.

 

Steve

[Gerard]

While I agree with some of what you say, Steve, I also find one of your comments extremely sweeping.

 

I have to earn a living from photography, and my photography does need to communicate. However, on many occasions, it has to communicate specifically about the subject - the setting or scenario are irrelevant. Using the lens wide open strengthens the focus on the subject on occasion.

 

Not all working photographers produce images for news.

[250swb]

While I agree with some of what you say, Steve, I also find one of your comments extremely sweeping.

.

 

I went to the extra trouble of saying that 'sure enough exceptions can be made' specifically to address your point. There will always be an exception in life, but general conversation on the internet always means exceptions are focused upon rather than brushed over in person to person conversation when the sense of what is being said takes precedence over the exact words.

 

It is a general point I was making, Leica's have historically been used for communication, not art (although exceptions can be made). Communication involves using simple cognitive devices that mean as many people as possible understand what is going on in the image. Generally speaking (and exceptions can be made) the use of ultra wide apertures in reportage has been limited to very low light and not for artistic effect because artistic effect is open to ambiguity. I was responding to was the assumption that if lenses had been better in the past more photography would have been done with them wide open. And to a point this is true, but only amongst the amateurs, as it is now. They would have been the minority, not the majority. But it is academic as nobody really knows what would have happened, it is just hard to imagine that reportage photographers who were using f/5.6 would suddenly have started using f/1.4 just because it was possible and for the hell of it.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IWC Doppel]

Why would Leica Cannon, Nikon and others continue to produce ever better performing lenses at greater apertures if there was no demand ?

 

I have no doubt Leica could produce incredible small and near perfect f4, f5.6 but I for one wouldn't be very interested. Surely the ability to manage depth of field has value

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Whether to use a Lux or Cron is all about the DOF at wide apertures, but there is so little in it below f2 that I think most people would find it impossible to tell the difference between the two comparing prints side by side.

 

What a lot of people get wrong is that (using film) you adjust the shutter speed to compensate for changing light not the aperture. The aperture is changed to adjust DOF.

 

There are so many bad images out there with shallow DOF.... a look that gets boring very quickly if there is nothing else in the image to sustain one's attention.