Summilux what for?

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That the curriculum was out of touch and generally, I think Art School, in many ways is a waste of time in terms of artists being artists. I think it tends to close your mind off to a set way of thinking and I don't believe that is what art is about.

 

That's unfortunate to hear. I guess that we had very different educations. I attended one of the most avant-garde "out of the box" institutions on the planet. And which has produced some of the world's most 'out of the box' conceptual artists. It was far from "closing one's mind off to a set way of thinking." In fact it is the polar opposite which is what gave it its reputation internationally in the first place (CalArts | California Institute of the Arts) Artforum once said that there is so much energy there that if plugged in it could power all of Los Angeles.

 

But as with any discipline, there are the 'stale' institutions with dogmatic curricula and then those that are much more radical and innovative.

[Advertisement]

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

[Paul J]

lol. OK.

[algrove]

Good discussions, guys. Agree to disagree and let's move on now. Maybe just go out and shoot some images and post them here.

[CalArts 99]

Some entertaining (yet also quite positive in the end) food for thought about trying to find meaning in what we do and taking ourselves (like myself ) too seriously.

 

"Arts degrees are awesome and they help you find meaning where there is none...and let me assure you, there is none. Don't go looking for it. Searching for meaning is like searching for a rhyme scheme in a cookbook, it will only bugger up your souffle."

 

[CaptZoom]

In three years of ownership (and close to a decade of photography) of a Leica RF and after reading this thread, for the first time I took a photo at minimum focus distance with the lux wide open to maximize the bokeh. I now have an artsy photo of a mostly blurred glass of whiskey. I've shot wide open at minimum distances, just never for bokeh alone.

[Gerard]

Whenever I have been drinking whiskey, the glass always looks blurred.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good discussions, guys. Agree to disagree and let's move on now. Maybe just go out and shoot some images and post them here.

Earlier shot OK?

Sample image with Summilux 50mm ASPH done on 400 ISO film, very dark environment, slow shutter speed and close to max f stop.

 

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!

[algrove]

Frankly, right about now any shot is OK. I've taken to reading (admiring) my HCB MoMA book. More enlightening than much else.

[CalArts 99]

Frankly, right about now any shot is OK.

 

I think we all do understand there are going to be many times when using the lens wide open is important in respect to the image itself (and lighting demands, etc.) and not just for 'bokeh' for 'bokeh's sake.'

 

(All captured on film; I don't own a digital Leica anymore.)

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!

[Rick]

I'm one of those pesky wedding photographers who have made ultra thin DOF fashionable. When you work in lots of ultra dim receptions and small messy rooms with peeling paint and a bride getting ready, you use every tool in the bag to turn a bad location into a saleable photograph

 

Gordon

 

Gordon, they have these things called strobes you know. But, I'm all for shallow DOF... how else would I be able to enjoy all of the pictures of restaurant dinner food posted on this forum.

[IWC Doppel]

An interesting thread with different perspectives.

 

I agree the bokeh, for bokeh shake can be overdone, but I still like it quite a lot of the time with certain scenes. I always seem to choose Ebi Katsu for starters at Wagammoma.... I probably need to get out more and explore the menu a little more

 

One thought and observation, stare at something 1m away, particularly in a softly lit room, then keep focused on the object but try to observe the edge of your vision without moving focus. At least I see softness and a smooth bokeh to objects you are not focussed on. Isn't this why we like and appreciate sympathetic bokeh and jarr a little with some more unnatural out of focus rendering ?

 

Some 'realistic' depth of field to a scene gives me a warm glow (whatever realistic depth is)

[tomasis7]

Cal99, swb250, good posts!. That kind of discussion interests me because i started studying fine arts (painting). Lol at comments that the school makes students closeminded. That issue could come up if the teachers happen to be closed minded at first hand. There is no way go around that when the current contemporary art contains a lot of avantgarde stuffs.

 

 

Main issue with using summilux, noctilux that they dont push you to make better photos because it is mechanical,simple exercise capturing one object. Like documenting each bird you see through window. Brainless, melancholic activity. It is how I felt in starter period. Stuck in internalised world, thats interesting. I played video games qute as teenage before and it feels familiar. In other words, if photography puts you out of comfort zone and you keep doing it constantly, you improve under time before you know it.

 

 

I have not seen single good digital picture in bokeh yet. Im counting years now. Every opinion is personal of course. I have seen more better Instagram photos than here. Mobil photogs couldnt find any possibility of thin dof but times will change and we will see 35mm sensors on Iphone due demand.

[Paul J]

I wonder what you suppose Henri Cartier Bresson, Diane Arbus, Elliot Erwit and Richard Avedon all care for your so called semiotics.

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!

[MarkP]

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.

[Paul J]

I agree and I don't recall reading anyone here that was writing to the contrary. 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. Red is not just sex, danger hot etc - it is how it has been portrayed in the past but you can make it what ever you want it to be. It's like buying a book titled 101 Dream Interpretations and expecting it to be a window to your soul and answer to all your problems. There are no standards in art and in any technique so lets not imply any technique is amateurish, "arty", cheap trick, coded or what ever and just accept that everything can be a viable vehicle of expression when used judiciously and cleverly.

 

This is what I meant about art school, which some obviously took offence too - This is what it does, in trying explain something deeply complex to it needs to be simplified and by doing so it puts things in a box and misses the boat entirely. Art is a feeling that shouldn't be analysed, explained or broken down.

[CalArts 99]

This is what I meant about art school, which some obviously took offence too - This is what it does, in trying explain something deeply complex to it needs to be simplified and by doing so it puts things in a box and misses the boat entirely. Art is a feeling that shouldn't be analysed, explained or broken down.

 

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.

[CaptZoom]

I agree and I don't recall reading anyone here that was writing to the contrary. 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. Red is not just sex, danger hot etc - it is how it has been portrayed in the past but you can make it what ever you want it to be. It's like buying a book titled 101 Dream Interpretations and expecting it to be a window to your soul and answer to all your problems. There are no standards in art and in any technique so lets not imply any technique is amateurish, "arty", cheap trick, coded or what ever and just accept that everything can be a viable vehicle of expression when used judiciously and cleverly.

 

This is what I meant about art school, which some obviously took offence too - This is what it does, in trying explain something deeply complex to it needs to be simplified and by doing so it puts things in a box and misses the boat entirely. Art is a feeling that shouldn't be analysed, explained or broken down.

 

Why shouldn't art "be analyzed, explained or broken down"?

 

In the interest of trying to understand your position, I'll take your assertion, "art is a feeling", as granted (though I disagree with it).

[CalArts 99]

 

This is what I meant about art school, which some obviously took offence too - This is what it does, in trying explain something deeply complex to it needs to be simplified and by doing so it puts things in a box and misses the boat entirely. Art is a feeling that shouldn't be analysed, explained or broken down.

 

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IWC Doppel]

Seems that Summulux's are perhaps controversial debate creating expensive objects, that can please on occasion, but to many seem unnecessary, not unlike some wives.

 

My advice buy one and try if you can afford it

[250swb]

I wonder what you suppose Henri Cartier Bresson, Diane Arbus, Elliot Erwit and Richard Avedon all care for your so called semiotics.

 

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