AlanJW Posted November 1, 2014 Share #181 Posted November 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I appreciate there are many for whom this is tat. I have no problem with that, but just because it doesn't ring true for you, that doesn't automatically mean everyone else is wrong. I hope this simple statement doesn't come as a surprise. I used to have a Polaroid back for my Hasselblad - waste of time for me. The truth of the matter, for me, is that I take the best pictures when I am thinking about the light and composition. For that, I need to be aware of ISO, aperture, shutter speed, framing and focus. The times I've left it to the camera, it hasn't worked so well for me. If I have to set them myself, I think about it. So a direct dial for the setting is ideal for me. Not for some, I get it. If anyone takes this camera out of the box, with or without the white gloves, and tries to take a picture with it, I'd think an incident light meter might be a good idea. John, I'm not sure we are in disagreement (though I don't know what "tat" means in context). I agree that good results are more likely when one thinks about light and composition and stays aware of ISO, aperture, shutter speed, framing and focus. That's the way I try to work. But having an LCD to check is not inconsistent with working carefully. I frequently use my M(24)) in Manual mode and try to pay attention to all the things you mention. Having an LCD to look at when in doubt is not inconsistent with thinking about what you are doing. If all you are saying is having a direct way to set ISO is preferable to working through menus and wheels, then I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 Hi AlanJW, Take a look here M(240) Edition 60. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share #182 Posted November 1, 2014 No, I guess I'm saying that losing the LCD and JPGs is intriguing rather than fatal. I'm also saying that the switch from the simplicity of an FM2 to an F5, and all the cameras since has not been a positive thing for me (until the M9). Quite the reverse - I found that my reasonably well developed sense of exposure evaporated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 1, 2014 Share #183 Posted November 1, 2014 John, Alan, my personal take on this is that LCD, or instant preview, are like cigarettes, very addictive. You know they're bad for you, they're disruptive to the creative process if you have to look at them after each shot, but you can't help it. They also make you rely on more automatisms because you can check the result immediately and see if the camera made a good choice or not. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we used to have some special photographic skills in the past. To pre-visualize a shot, take it, and know whether you had it or not. We always worked in manual mode because this is what gave us full control, as we didn't trust the cameras to make the good choices for us. This didn't work for many people, it's not an easy skill to acquire, but those who got it could claim they're good photographers, and now we have all lost it. I agree there is a bit of romanticism. I actually don't know if I could loose the LCD nowadays. I'm too reliant on it and I know it would be difficult for me to work without one, and train my brain back to the old ways. I really love the idea of not having one though. If film could compete with digital in IQ, and still easy to find and process, I would probably shoot film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share #184 Posted November 1, 2014 Hi Edward, I suspect I'm an odd fish - I've been taking pictures since the mid 60s. I've only had a digital camera since late 2010 (an M9), so I'm not addicted to the LCD. Actually, I find it good for adjusting settings, but not many of them - I don't use I have two film cameras I use, but I have little joy in chemistry and scanning. The very best thing about any digital camera is that you start with a digital file. That's when things get interesting. I see no romanticism in dark rooms and chemicals. I do see some attraction in that rare thing - a file worth printing, and it's just a mouse click away. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted November 1, 2014 Share #185 Posted November 1, 2014 John, Alan, my personal take on this is that LCD, or instant preview, are like cigarettes, very addictive. You know they're bad for you, they're disruptive to the creative process if you have to look at them after each shot, but you can't help it. They also make you rely on more automatisms because you can check the result immediately and see if the camera made a good choice or not. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we used to have some special photographic skills in the past. To pre-visualize a shot, take it, and know whether you had it or not. We always worked in manual mode because this is what gave us full control, as we didn't trust the cameras to make the good choices for us. This didn't work for many people, it's not an easy skill to acquire, but those who got it could claim they're good photographers, and now we have all lost it. I agree there is a bit of romanticism. I actually don't know if I could loose the LCD nowadays. I'm too reliant on it and I know it would be difficult for me to work without one, and train my brain back to the old ways. I really love the idea of not having one though. If film could compete with digital in IQ, and still easy to find and process, I would probably shoot film Edward and John: This may be true for some, but for me, I think my work is better now than before digital. and I probably shoot more in Manual mode now than before because I have a better understanding of what changes look like. I feel that it is the immediate feedback, positive or negative, that has made me learn to be better and actually frees me from some of the automation. In any event, you can turn off image review if it is disruptive. Then if you really really need to check, it is there. No different than built in light meters and "A" mode. They're all tools to be used judiciously, not slavishly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share #186 Posted November 1, 2014 I've never chimped, not even for the histogram. It's no temptation for me to review images on the LCD. that is not the issue for me. I'm not really sure why this camera seems so polarising. Removing the screen has knock on effects, which Leica has apparently dealt with. This has caused many of us to examine what impact this would have on our workflow. I find that interesting; as I've said before, this camera has also shed the things I was ambivalent about with the M(240), with one exception. Live view brings the opportunity to use other non-CRF lenses. But that's also part of the problem. As to cost, if you take the new price of the camera and lens, the premium for a solid stainless steel camera which is very unlikely to make general production still doesn't seem that bad. I remain on the fence, but very interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 2, 2014 Share #187 Posted November 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was reading Wim Wenders interview in the latest LFI and the following excerpt really reminded me of this thread and some of the points I expressed. LFI: What do you perceive as the advantages of analogue over digital photography? Wenders: In digital photography, you can preview your image. In analogue photography, you sense the image, and know instinctively whether you have a picture or not. So you invest in faith. In digital photography, this is no longer possible - taking photos becomes something else. If I can see the final image while I'm in the process of taking it, I forgo a relationship with the image I am hoping to achieve. I see a product before it should even exist. This is really fantastic stuff! It is the usual false dichotomy. With analog photography, you can preview the image too. with digital photography, you can sense the image too, and invest in faith. When I make a digital photograph, it doesn't exist until I make it — the same as with analog. The difference is that with digital the review can come much sooner. Check out the interesting interview with photographer Anne Geddes on DPReview. She describes the problem of everyone crowding around the digital camera's LCD to check the lighting, etc. But then she relates what she did in the film era. She'd shoot a Polaroid and everyone would crowd around to check the Polaroid. All of the people crowding around her Polaroid would prompt her to take the Polaroid into the restroom so she could check it by herself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 2, 2014 Share #188 Posted November 2, 2014 It is the usual false dichotomy. Actually it isn't a false dichotomy unless a polaroid photograph is the desired end product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 2, 2014 Share #189 Posted November 2, 2014 I cannot say that I use the LCD often for checking the image. Only if it really matters for composition I may take a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 2, 2014 Share #190 Posted November 2, 2014 Actually it isn't a false dichotomy unless a polaroid photograph is the desired end product. The polaroid can be a desired end product or it can be an early preview of an end product. The image on the camera's LCD is almost never the desired end product, but can be an early preview of the an end product too. I think Wenders' distinction between analog and digital is false. He claims that in analog photography, you sense the image, and know instinctively whether you have a picture or not. But one's instinct can be wrong. With digital you also sense the image, and know instinctively whether you have a picture or not. And again one's instinct can be wrong with digital too. The difference is that with digital the confirmation of whether one has a picture or not comes a lot sooner. That is a big difference, but it doesn't change the relationship to the image, the "investment in faith" that he talks about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 2, 2014 Share #191 Posted November 2, 2014 All I can say is you are all far better photographers than me ....... particularly those of you that 'know' a photo is 'perfect' without a glance at the LCD. I have a whole computer full of shots with the wrong exposure, poor or wrong focus, camera shake, the wrong ISO setting, the wrong exposure compensation, wrong DOF, wrong file format, wrong file setting, wrong flash settings..... and of course the inevitable lens cap left on ...... At least with an LCD review I can remedy these instantly and come home with a few decent photos. For those of you that enjoy the surprise and disappointment of photography of a previous generation and want to test your innate photographic abilities, by all means go ahead. I'm afraid my limited skills can only be enhanced by the odd chimp, so for me the LCD is a must ........ ...... and what is more ....... the majority of the 'killer' images I thought I took at the time turn out to be disappointing....... and the really good photos are those I didn't really notice at the time but turn out to be great after a little bit of processing. These days I often leave images to 'mature' for 3-6 months before returning to evaluate and process ...... your view is then less coloured by memory and expectation ...... and the potentially really good images then just jump out at you ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 2, 2014 Share #192 Posted November 2, 2014 The thing is I too don't want to go back to film days. Processing, scanning was a pain, and when done by others, never satisfactory. I am also addicted to chimping. I can't help it, it's beyound my control. I think chimping kills the photographic experience. I totally agree with WW in that regards. Disappointment and failure are also part of the photographic experience. When I go back home and download the photos from the LCD-less camera and find out they are all crap. But I can only blame myself for the failure and try to do better next time. This said, I agree with John that the edition 60 is an interesting and intreeguing idea but not fatal I would love to own one but couldn't afford it anyhow. I also rely too much on the LCD preview in my current shooting style, so it's indeed very interesting and a challenge. And I too think that the best replacement of an LCD is a reliable and accurate incident light meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 2, 2014 Share #193 Posted November 2, 2014 I think the photographic experience, whatever that may be (is it like freezing toes when skiing? I use heated boots...) is wholly subordinate to the final image. Having said that, I find this a very alluring camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 2, 2014 Share #194 Posted November 2, 2014 The polaroid can be a desired end product or it can be an early preview of an end product. I thought you were bright enough not to need things spelling out for you but the difference between a polaroid preview (for it is when used as a preview not as an end product that we are discussing instant film) and looking at an LCD preview of a digital shot is that in the case of the latter you are viewing a preview of the actual end photograph. The polaroid qua preview is typically used to check lighting ratios and/or static composition. I think Wenders' distinction between analog and digital is false. He claims that in analog photography, you sense the image, and know instinctively whether you have a picture or not. But one's instinct can be wrong. With digital you also sense the image, and know instinctively whether you have a picture or not. And again one's instinct can be wrong with digital too. The difference is that with digital the confirmation of whether one has a picture or not comes a lot sooner. blah blah. I think even people like you know what Wenders is driving at, we don't have to be so literal and anal about everything. Wenders might be wrong, I'm not sure how much I care, but I know I'm more interested to know what he (with his creative track record) has to say than someone like Anne Geddes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 2, 2014 Share #195 Posted November 2, 2014 I think chimping kills the photographic experience. I totally agree with WW in that regards. Disappointment and failure are also part of the photographic experience. When I go back home and download the photos from the LCD-less camera and find out they are all crap. But I can only blame myself for the failure and try to do better next time. This is a bit like arguing between the relative merits of premature ejaculation and impotence. Neither are terribly satisfactory for an enjoyable experience ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 2, 2014 Share #196 Posted November 2, 2014 This is a bit like arguing between the relative merits of premature ejaculation and impotence. Neither are terribly satisfactory for an enjoyable experience ....... It is not as simple as that Self-defeating personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 2, 2014 Share #197 Posted November 2, 2014 This is a bit like arguing between the relative merits of premature ejaculation and impotence. Neither are terribly satisfactory for an enjoyable experience ....... I was actually referring to your post in which you mentioned you are unable to get the right metering and focus without the help of the LCD preview. If what you said is true, I think you need to work more on your technique rather than relying on the LCD to show you what you did wrong. Fortunately I get my exposures and focus very fine the first time, and most of my images are one time shots that are unrepeatable, so either I get the shot the first time or I don't. I just like to review my shots too often, which I find distracts me from finding other photo opportunities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2014 Share #198 Posted November 2, 2014 Hard to convince a believer that faith is nothing but imagination . Those who prefer facts will gladly use preview and/or review features but others can perfectly use their M240 like a film M if they need so. Leica did think of them when implementing the "Classic/LV disabled" feature in FU 2.0.1.5. The LV button can now be disabled this way but photogs of little faith can still use the EVF if they dare to do so . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share #199 Posted November 2, 2014 Don't have an M(240), and not particularly interested. To my mind, that camera is a classic case of what is possible, rather than what actually improves (my) photography. I have a Leica T for those features. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 2, 2014 Share #200 Posted November 2, 2014 John, Alan, my personal take on this is that LCD, or instant preview, are like cigarettes, very addictive. So if digital is like cigarettes, then is analog like chewing? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.