Are You a Better Photographer b/c You Use a leica Monochrom?

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would say not.  However, because I am personally more inspired by the images out of this camera.....because I prefer b/w in general.....it inspires me to shoot more often.  If that makes me a better photographer, then yes.  But just having the camera not.  It does however force you, at least me, to think of what I am photographing in 'values' (or the term 'tones' if you prefer)  instead of color.  That's a plus for me.  I prefer dynamic images rather than everything close in value.

[peterjcb]

sort of....because since I spent all this money on Leica gear....it forces me use it more ....hence the more you do something the better you get...no?..... )

[hepcat]

I would say not.  However, because I am personally more inspired by the images out of this camera.....because I prefer b/w in general.....it inspires me to shoot more often.  If that makes me a better photographer, then yes.  But just having the camera not.  It does however force you, at least me, to think of what I am photographing in 'values' (or the term 'tones' if you prefer)  instead of color.  That's a plus for me.  I prefer dynamic images rather than everything close in value.

 

So, because of the b&w sensor, you "think" differently shooting with the M246 than you would shooting with say, any film camera,  loaded with b&w?  I would counter with that the tonality of b&w is the tonality of b&w, and it's not the camera that's causing you to think that way, but rather the part of the color spectrum you're using to record your images.

[pico]

I just have to toss this into the salad. Those who photograph to document are robbing their viewers by doing only monochrome. The world is color. Show it.

.

[Peter H]

I just have to toss this into the salad. Those who photograph to document are robbing their viewers by doing only monochrome. The world is color. Show it.

.

 

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

But this is a big subject that some are here are very reluctant to engage with, and even those who happy to talk about it would probably rather do it in a thread started for that purpose.

[A miller]

 Now there is no film. 

Really?  

 

The best retirement present that I will (G-d willing) someday give myself is a Linhof Technorama with all the custom fit lenses and other trimmings - because there really is nothing like film - except FILM! 

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

The best retirement present that I will (G-d willing) someday give myself is a Linhof Technorama with all the custom fit lenses and other trimmings - because there really is nothing like film - except FILM!  

I hope you shoot black and white because I am getting worried about color film.

[A miller]

I hope you shoot black and white because I am getting worried about color film.

 

funny. 

 

The technology of the MM will become obsolete long before the sales of color film will cease...

[pico]

The best retirement present that I will (G-d willing) someday give myself is a Linhof Technorama with all the custom fit lenses and other trimmings - because there really is nothing like film - except FILM! 

 

An associate has proven that so well for fifty years.

[Belle123]

So, because of the b&w sensor, you "think" differently shooting with the M246 than you would shooting with say, any film camera,  loaded with b&w?  I would counter with that the tonality of b&w is the tonality of b&w, and it's not the camera that's causing you to think that way, but rather the part of the color spectrum you're using to record your images.

Excuse me, but you are putting words in my mouth!  I didn't say anything about film.  In fact, currently, I own no film camera.  And I also didn't say exactly it was the camera.  It just that having a monochrome does force one, at least me, to think about what the resulting image will be like in BW.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  Not appreciated.

[hepcat]

Excuse me, but you are putting words in my mouth!  I didn't say anything about film.  In fact, currently, I own no film camera.  And I also didn't say exactly it was the camera.  It just that having a monochrome does force one, at least me, to think about what the resulting image will be like in BW.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  Not appreciated.

 

Oh, no I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, or offend you at all... I was asking you a question.  What I AM trying to do is understand how the camera itself would cause you to engage in that process (as that's what the thread is about...)  What I'm trying to understand is how that process is different between your Monochrom, or shooting b&w film.  And if the process isn't different using b&w film or a Leica Monochrom, then doesn't that remove the camera itself from the process "of seeing in tonal values rather than colors?"

 

My issue with most of the posts in this thread is that they're suggesting that the equipment itself either somehow forces you or allows you to be a "better photographer."  Since the equipment does nothing you don't tell it to do, I struggle with how equipment takes that role in being a photographer.  I am under the impression that I make the image... and the camera is just the box I capture it with.  If that's the case, then I can enjoy the box...  I can enjoy shooting with the box...  but my skill set as a photographer is entirely independent of the box itself.  And it follows then that if my skill set is independent of the box, and presuming that the box has a set of core competencies that we all expect from our boxes, that box itself isn't that relevant, and can't make me a "better photographer."  Only me, improving my skill set further, can do that.  

 

We don't become better photographers because we blow $10k on a camera and lens... nor does that force us to shoot more.  Your conscience may make you go shoot more... and certainly one is more likely to improve one's skill set with practice, but again that's not caused by the camera or the amount of cash you dump into it.  

 

Everything I've read here so far leads me to believe that the photographer improves by improving his/her skill set through motivation and practice, not because of any particular piece of gear.  Buying a Leica will not cause a mediocre photographer to be a brilliant one. 

[Paulus]

I became a better photographer, because of my Minolta 7000AF, because it was the first camera for me.

 

I never have learnt more in a year from taking pictures than with this camera. It opened my eyes for aperture, shutterspeed and in and out of focus. The 1,7 /50mm was a great lens. Gave wonderful results and made me long for more and better photos.

 

It learned me that if I wanted to make better pictures, the camera was not the problem. I was, so I took lessons and became a better photographer.

[Belle123]

Oh, no I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, or offend you at all... I was asking you a question.  What I AM trying to do is understand how the camera itself would cause you to engage in that process (as that's what the thread is about...)  What I'm trying to understand is how that process is different between your Monochrom, or shooting b&w film.  And if the process isn't different using b&w film or a Leica Monochrom, then doesn't that remove the camera itself from the process "of seeing in tonal values rather than colors?"

 

My issue with most of the posts in this thread is that they're suggesting that the equipment itself either somehow forces you or allows you to be a "better photographer."  Since the equipment does nothing you don't tell it to do, I struggle with how equipment takes that role in being a photographer.  I am under the impression that I make the image... and the camera is just the box I capture it with.  If that's the case, then I can enjoy the box...  I can enjoy shooting with the box...  but my skill set as a photographer is entirely independent of the box itself.  And it follows then that if my skill set is independent of the box, and presuming that the box has a set of core competencies that we all expect from our boxes, that box itself isn't that relevant, and can't make me a "better photographer."  Only me, improving my skill set further, can do that.  

 

We don't become better photographers because we blow $10k on a camera and lens... nor does that force us to shoot more.  Your conscience may make you go shoot more... and certainly one is more likely to improve one's skill set with practice, but again that's not caused by the camera or the amount of cash you dump into it.  

 

Everything I've read here so far leads me to believe that the photographer improves by improving his/her skill set through motivation and practice, not because of any particular piece of gear.  Buying a Leica will not cause a mediocre photographer to be a brilliant one. 

Well, I didn't say the camera itself made me better except for the fact am loving the images out of it so am using it more than say the M240 for BW, so much so am selling my 240.  The BW out of the 246 is just better.  If you want to discuss that, I suggest looking up more info on the internet.  But I would probably say if you shoot film and strict yourself to BW, you might begin to see things in values, tones.....shades.....instead of color.  If not, well then not everyone can do that.  I can.  It is the same for artists who draw or paint monochrome.  To do it successfully, you start to translate the colors you see into values and can anticipate what the resulting image might be.  Sure, it's NOT the camera but the use of.  Same thing with any camera if you restrict yourself to BW.  I will just also add, with the 246 void of color, it is different in post processing.  You don't have any identification of color so restricted.  A bit more challenging yet rewarding.  And also, the 246 being ultra sensitive and easy to blow the highlights, adds another interesting challenge.

 

no, it's not the camera but the exercise.

 

would you argue film makes you better?  Of course not.  

[Paulus]

 

no, it's not the camera but the exercise.

 

would you argue film makes you better?  Of course not.  

In fact, I think film made me a better photographer.

 

The Monochrom can be " ultra sensitive and easy to blow the highlights, adds another interesting challenge ".

 

With film there also is not really much room for mistakes. There is only one real good lighting and developing of the negative. The rest just makes it worse or more difficult to make a good print. The most rewarding print is one, in which the negative was so good, that the printing an selecting of the paper is hardly any work at all.

 

If you master this way of making a good negative, I think one has learned a lot. But maybe  I am only talking here more about a good craftsman. maybe a good photographer is something alltogether different?

 

Maybe it's good to define " better photografer " ?

 

 

 

 

I think Ansel Adams was very clear about that.

[Belle123]

In fact, I think film made me a better photographer.

 

The Monochrom can be " ultra sensitive and easy to blow the highlights, adds another interesting challenge ".

 

With film there also is not really much room for mistakes. There is only one real good lighting and developing of the negative. The rest just makes it worse or more difficult to make a good print. The most rewarding print is one, in which the negative was so good, that the printing an selecting of the paper is hardly any work at all.

 

If you master this way of making a good negative, I think one has learned a lot. But maybe  I am only talking here more about a good craftsman. maybe a good photographer is something alltogether different?

 

Maybe it's good to define " better photografer " ?

 

 

 

 

I think Ansel Adams was very clear about that.

I agree with everything on film.  

 

Think the confusion on this topic with some is the notion that a "thing" makes you better.  It's not the thing, but the 'use of'.  And no guarantees really.  The properties of the "thing" in practice can enlighten ones ability and talent.  But, not necessarily for everyone.

[hepcat]

I agree with everything on film.  

 

Think the confusion on this topic with some is the notion that a "thing" makes you better.  It's not the thing, but the 'use of'.  And no guarantees really.  The properties of the "thing" in practice can enlighten ones ability and talent.  But, not necessarily for everyone.

 

Very nicely said. 

[Manoleica]

According to my lovely Aunt, you must be a good photographer to buy that camera (Leica M-P Safari Set)!!!  She doesn't realize the hours, days, weeks & years using Leica's & other makes endeavoring to perfect my skills...  

[hepcat]

I agree with everything on film.  

 

Think the confusion on this topic with some is the notion that a "thing" makes you better.  It's not the thing, but the 'use of'.  And no guarantees really.  The properties of the "thing" in practice can enlighten ones ability and talent.  But, not necessarily for everyone.

 

 

According to my lovely Aunt, you must be a good photographer to buy that camera (Leica M-P Safari Set)!!!  She doesn't realize the hours, days, weeks & years using Leica's & other makes endeavoring to perfect my skills...  

 

I believe that anyone who says either that their gear makes them a better photographer or who blames their gear for their failures is missing some exceptional learning experiences.  Once you've determined that the successes and failures are really yours, with no blame or accolades to be given the camera itself, you can begin to honestly assess your own skills.  I think that photographers who use auto modes on their cameras also deprive themselves of the practice necessary to acquire and maintain those skills as well.   I'm as guilty as the next guy in that regard.  I do use "A" mode from time to time when I'm being lazy, but not so frequently that I've forgotten how to read the light and set the camera for how I want the image to appear rather than how the programmer decided it should look. 

[Jan1985]

I am following this thread since a longer time. I always thought about if i should share my oppinion or not. Because sometimes this thread gets a strange direction.

 

In short: Yes the Monochrome made me better. Why? I was a passioned shooter before the MM, for sure. But no other camera showed me my deficits like the MM in terms of looking for quality light and composition. It is truly not the camera itself that previsualizes the picture. It just records some light rays. But over the last months i used in very intensive on weddings, commercial portrait shoots and street photograpy and it sharpened my view. I think it made me better in looking for the right light which i need in a certrain situation. and it changed my view in general. mostly i only look for luminance and not color contrasts anymore. I love the concept and pureness of this camera concept. Thanks Leica for this special product.

 

But in the end the photographic development is only in your brain and the MM is just a tool that helps you to make your visions come true. But i learned that you need to be passioned with your equipment and if that is the fact than it can get you better results. I worked with 1dx, 5d MK III and other cameras. But none of them touched my heart like the MM.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BerndReini]

 

 

funny.  

Actually, not funny. I think you misinterpreted my post. I shoot a lot of film and I am not arguing against it, very little 35mm, but a lot of 120 and 4x5. I shoot only color in the larger formats. Before you think this is a joke, why don't you check and see how many different kinds of color film are left and what the prices are. Trust me, it is no laughing matter. Fuji and Kodak are all that's left and I believe Kodak is only producing film because of the commitment from movie studios to purchase a set amount for the next couple of years. Within the last couple of years I have experienced the discontinuation of many of my favorite films, Portra 400VC, Fuji Neopan 400 (first in 120 then 35mm), Polaroid Type 55 (then everything else), recently all of Fuji's instant films in 4x5. I just read that Fuji is discontinuing another consumer color negative film, and they have increased prices for their remaining films again at the beginning of the year. Price of Portra 400 in 35mm: $7.35 per roll 120 $7.99 per roll (220 rumored to be discontinued), 10 sheets of 4x5: $42.50.

 

Still laughing? i own a Leica MP, an M7, a Contax 645 with full set of lenses, a Fuji GF670, and a Sinar X with every lenses ranging from 75mm to 300mm. If you assumed that I was trying to rub in the demise of film just because I own an MM, you are mistaken. So I will repeat what I said: I hope you shoot black and white because color film is disappearing.

 

P.S.: I like your film street photographs.