dkmoore Posted February 17, 2016 Share #101 Posted February 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Both sides of this argument have valid points and we are never going to be able to convince one another who is right or wrong. That being said I do understand those who say that they draw inspiration from using the Leica Monochrom (Leica cameras in general) and that in itself makes them a better photographer because the camera inspires them to be more active and more enjoy the hobby. I think we miss the fact that many of us are hobbyists and do not rely on our Leica's for a living. It would be interesting to discuss and find out which of the many posters reside on either side of the fence and how that corresponds with photography as a hobby versus profession. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Hi dkmoore, Take a look here Are You a Better Photographer b/c You Use a leica Monochrom?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
A miller Posted February 17, 2016 Share #102 Posted February 17, 2016 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. I don't know... 1. How many different film stocks do you really need? It's like how many different varieties of wines does one need?? Just because your neighborhood wine store may be getting smaller, the shrinkage of variety doesn't mean that you won't still enjoy your favorite wines (thankfully, wine varieties are trending in the opposite direction ) 2. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, I am drowning in portra, ektar and even fuji velvia and provia. And then there are the cinestill and other film producers that are on the rise. I could fill dozens of freezers with these film stocks if I wanted to. And the first I hear of a cessation in production in any of these film stocks, that is exactly what I will do. I will plop down $10K in film if I have to in order to keep my enjoyment going for the next 5-10 years. Then it will be down to the NYC labs to process my stuff, which there is no lack of and they will always be some around. So I am not worried in the slightest. 3. I will even turn your point on its head - the more scarce film is the more distinguished and interesting film images will be. Even today, there aint a lot of people shooting very high volumes of "street" photos with color film, and the same goes for medium format cityscapes and landscapes. This is perfectly fine by me as that means that my images will look that much more interesting and authentic further down the road compared to the run-of-the-mill digital images that are a dime a dozen. The MM can produce really fantastic images. But the very capable users and post-processors of high end canon and nikon gear can produce equally striking B&W digital photos. I shot over 11K photos with my MM before I sold it and I can say that the sensitivity to highlights was actually frustrating. It is not a matter of being frustrating. It is simply about not being to get a good exposure in many situations no matter how finely tuned your exposure may be. This impedes creativity, which I submit impedes maximizing one's photography skills and, more importantly artistic potential. My MM was the first version and so I can't say whether the second version has improved on the acute sensitivity to highlights. I understand that it has to some degree, which is great and just may make the issue sufficiently manageable. I just don't know. But I know one thing - film is here to stay and if people don't want to shoot it even better...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 17, 2016 Share #103 Posted February 17, 2016 How many different film stocks do you really need? I don't need many at all, but you can see how at one point the ones I mentioned as discontinued were my favorites. It is very sad when a stock that you have completely dialed in gets discontinued. I am thinking about what you mentioned. I might buy a small fridge and start stocking up, at least on 45 and one 35mm stock, but I am also chasing labs at this point. I have changed labs for the third time in the last year and once the year before. One stopped processing film, one moved, and another one closed (a landmark camera store for decades.) I have to say that I shoot completely differently with the MM than I do with film. I don't think the highlights are a problem. Even when they are blown out, you just pull them back a little bit in printing to make them a little darker than the paper. The roll-off is actually not bad. I sometimes miss the grit of black and white film, but the sharpness and high-Iso detail makes up for it. I treat the MM like Type 55 or TMY instead of TriX. It is just another "film stock" for me that will become no more obsolete than an older emulsion does when a new formulation comes out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 17, 2016 Share #104 Posted February 17, 2016 If you want grit you can always add grain (artificial grain) in digital post processing just as you can increase film grain (artificially) by using a developing regime different from that recommended by the manufacturer. You would be doing it for the same reason, to use image texture to affect the emotional content of the image. Why should digital photography be denied this essential aspect of the photographic language? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 17, 2016 Share #105 Posted February 17, 2016 If you want grit you can always add grain (artificial grain) in digital post processing The artificial grain is so different from real film grain that I am not a fan of the film-look plug-ins. Real grain accumulates at the edges of highlights and shadows and creates a transition that is much more natural looking than using the clarity slider and other post-processing tricks. One thing I will do sometimes is using a high ISO like 2,500 in daylight. I have a good mix of film and digital photographs on my website and it is very difficult to tell in some examples which is which, but I never try to make one look like the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both and I believe it makes no sense to take a hardline stance against either product. I mainly bought the MM because I photograph my children and the freedom and flexibility of shooting digital at high ISO is well worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted February 17, 2016 Share #106 Posted February 17, 2016 I have a 246 and the roll-off in the highlights remains, for me, the most frustrating factor of a delightful camera. I use it and my M6 in pretty much equal measure, enjoying both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted February 19, 2016 Share #107 Posted February 19, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Probably not but I am different :-) It slows me down, some time it pisses me off but when I nail it it's really good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 21, 2016 Share #108 Posted February 21, 2016 I am wondering if there is a way to restrict a sensor from clipping - not by under exposure but some other technical means. What if there were some pixels that have much lower sensitivity, similar to what Fuji did years back with their DSLR, so that you always have some gray tones peppered in like grain on silver? Anyone with more knowledge of the physics and mechanics of sensors? My workaround now is that aside from specular highlights, I recover larger areas of white to print them ever so slightly darker than my paper, which is what I used to do with fully saturated areas of silver negative as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 21, 2016 Share #109 Posted February 21, 2016 Auto bracket and use HDR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 22, 2016 Share #110 Posted February 22, 2016 Auto bracket and use HDR. That is not an option for me. I photograph people. I do not like the look of HDR and if I was auto-bracketing, I would at least use a camera with a faster frame-rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 24, 2016 Share #111 Posted February 24, 2016 Forgive the diversion: @hepcat: The BBC editorial on advertising is interesting and makes some cogent points, but generally I found it cynically based on the notion that the consuming public were empty minded and waiting to be manipulated by some "Mad Man" master-minds ... not to mention that it is ancient news. In most cases, political, cultural, ethnic, as well as popular culture influences are what is being tapped into. I became acutely aware of this while serving on a panel of Creative Directors from all over the world ... Advertising simply appeals to what is already there, and it differs considerably from culture-to-culture. For example, the last episodes of the TV series "Mad-Men" shows how changing political and pop-culture attitudes led to the Coke "World Campaign". I'm afraid the academic theory forwarded by that BBC series gives the advertising industry to much credit. The people who create the ads for the most part do so intuitively, and are usually good at what they do because they are no different than the people for whom the ad is created. The only real difference is that they recognize deep seated influences and creatively put them to paper. Ads follow trends not necessarily create them. That studies of advertising often are cynical is no surprise. People love to hate advertising because it supposedly makes them buy what they don't need. In fact that is true ... no one needs any Luxury item, fancy water, or a $7,500. Leica M ... however ... they want it. Need and want are vastly different concepts. Humans only need a certain amount of calories a day, a fur to keep warm, rudimentary shelter warmed by a log fire, and a box camera : -) What they want is more than that. Obviously, the above is a much deeper subject and I'd be willing to share my impressions after 50 years as an ad man off-site. BACK ON SUBJECT: As to the subject of this thread ... my answer would be YES! ... because I choose to believe it true that a camera that matches a particular philosophy of image making that I subscribe to can and does make me a better photographer. In my youth, I took note that most every image that I was drawn to was taken with a rangefinder camera, usually a Leica. It was human nature that I would think a similar camera could be helpful in creating work like that. I recall opening the box with my first Leica and saying to myself, "No more excuses Marc". Of course it wasn't logically true, but I believed it ... so it was my own truth, and self-fulfilling prophecy. While I successfully work with highly complex, very sophisticated cameras (the technologically marvelous Sony A7R-II comes to mind), my creative mind-set still resides with the less complex, direct experience Leica MM for a vast majority of my personal work ... because it is a familiar friend that metaphorically keeps quiet and gets out of the way rather than technically acting like a little child in need of attention. Perhaps after using a modern tech wonder for 40 years it'll also become a warm pair of slippers. Unfortunately, the nature of technology is to speed ahead like a bullet train blowing it's warning whistle every five seconds until it works your last nerve. : -) - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted February 25, 2016 Share #112 Posted February 25, 2016 I remember reading, years ago, a quote attributed to Kenny Roberts (Famous American motorcycle racer): "I learned most of what I know about going fast from riding some pretty slow motorcycles." Kenny is pretty famous for saying things that are, on the surface, kind of confusing.....Obviously, this statement stuck with me. It strikes me as one of the most profound things I have ever read concerning Man and machine. I am considering the purchase of an M7 because it offers aperture preferred auto exposure. Why? because I routinely screw up exposure on my photographs. Will the M7 make me a better photographer? No; but it WILL allow me to reduce the number of over or under exposed photos I produce. For some reason, at a primal level, I comprehend I will not become a better photographer until I elevate my understanding and skill pertaining to exposure. So often I have read derogatory statements about photography, as it pertains to Art, that are center on: "Hey! all the photographer is doing is pushing a button." But the more I experience of photography, the more I come to comprehend that the Art of photography- if you consider, as I do, Art as being a purely human phenomenon - is almost completely wrapped up in the fact that a "photographer" is able to successfully bring it all to a grand culmination in a simple push of a button: knowledge, skill, experience, appreciation, all brought into perfect alignment...and then..."the decisive moment." I would not become a better photographer because I used an MM. It might even hinder my already slow development. It WOULD allow me to more often mimic some of the characteristics-like proper exposure- of good photography. I suppose if I were already a good photographer the MM would allow me to produce more results. Maybe I should reconsider that purchase of an M7. I could get a really nice IA for the same money. I do like the Liecaphilia BLOG. Great work. Thanks for your indulgence, Wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted March 3, 2016 Share #113 Posted March 3, 2016 I liked Mssr. Overgaard's description of bracketing as a lottery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2016 Share #114 Posted March 4, 2016 Can't say that the MM made me a better photographer, but the Ricoh GRD transformed my photography. From 1988-2006 I shot with two M6s: one for color the other for B&W. I started getting serious about photography in 1990, when I took a darkroom workshop. Then in 2006 I switched to the Ricoh GRD. Shooting on the fly, one-handed, no viewfinder: using the LCD to establish roughly the edges of the frame and then looking only at the subject, and not at the LCD, when pressing the shutter — that made my photography fluid and dynamic. Moriyama Daido describes this in several of his videos: how you can benefit by getting away from a "serious" and valuable camera. Today, I have an MM and an M9-P, and no longer shoot with the Ricoh GRD; but what I learned with the GRD has stayed with me. For example shooting the digital Leica-Ms with a 28mm or a 21mm lens, I often don't use the viewfinder for the final framing in street photography. But what A Miller says about the MM's sensitivity to highlights is something that has been bothering me: I'm always conscious of trying the avoid "those great blobs of fire" (to paraphrase the song). Since last week I've shot film with my M6 for the first time in ten years: three rolls of Tri-X. Must say that, in terms of the act of the shooting experience, I prefer the M6 over the MM. Now, I'm still waiting for the scans to evaluate where I want to go from here. The look that I want from my MM is usually dark and high contrast. I'm shooting in harsh tropical light, often at midday, so the highlights are always an issue, with Tri-X as well. I've pretty much got the processing down to get the look that I want with the MM, but often fight the detail and resolution by increasing the grit using Silver Efex — I don't want the medium format luck, but prefer the 35m aesthetic... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted March 4, 2016 Share #115 Posted March 4, 2016 I am considering the purchase of an M7 because it offers aperture preferred auto exposure. Why? because I routinely screw up exposure on my photographs. Will the M7 make me a better photographer? No; but it WILL allow me to reduce the number of over or under exposed photos I produce. For some reason, at a primal level, I comprehend I will not become a better photographer until I elevate my understanding and skill pertaining to exposure. I asked myself the same question when narrowing down my Leica analog choices to M6 and M7. In the end I decided to go with the M6 which I did not regret. I am mostly using Av mode (aperture preferred exposure) on my digital cameras, but I don't have any issue not having it in the M6. The light meter inside the M6 is very sensitive - it is simplistic but very efficient. The brightness of the "correct" exposure of over/underexposed arrows changes depending on the amount of over/underexposure. Then you simply adjust the exposure according to this and your preference plus choice of film (having the aperture on the lens preselected) - done! I am sure the M7 is a great camera, too - but it depends on the battery and is also more expensive just to have automated modes compared to the M6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted March 4, 2016 Share #116 Posted March 4, 2016 Forgive the diversion: @hepcat: The BBC editorial on advertising is interesting and makes some cogent points, but generally I found it cynically based on the notion that the consuming public were empty minded and waiting to be manipulated by some "Mad Man" master-minds ... not to mention that it is ancient news. That studies of advertising often are cynical is no surprise. People love to hate advertising because it supposedly makes them buy what they don't need. In fact that is true ... no one needs any Luxury item, fancy water, or a $7,500. Leica M ... however ... they want it. Need and want are vastly different concepts. Obviously, the above is a much deeper subject and I'd be willing to share my impressions after 50 years as an ad man off-site. - Marc Good observations, Marc and in general I'd have to agree with you. Greed plays a huge role in advertising, and the western human cultures probably have never seen the level of greed throughout society as we have today, which is what the advertisers play on. But my cynicism comes from watching nearly forty years of photo advertising. In the late '60s the camera ads were still about the camera's features, and what they were capable of. Today, ads are about how the camera makes you a more important person. That's just a mite different, and from my perspective, dishonest. That's actually the point of this thread. "Does the camera make you a better photographer?" Can the "jewelry" improve you as a person? Apparently there are many folks, and even some who've posted to this thread who believe the hype. And the nonsense Canon came out with a few years ago... "Shoot like a pro!" What nonsense! But think how many Canon consumer SLRs and DSLRs were sold to gullible consumers under that pretext. Remember the Keds commercials from the '50s and early '60s? "Run faster, jump higher!" It wasn't about the comfort or durability of the shoes, it was how they made you a superior being. That's dishonest and has led directly to my cynicism. Which leads to: BACK ON SUBJECT: As to the subject of this thread ... my answer would be YES! ... because I choose to believe it true that a camera that matches a particular philosophy of image making that I subscribe to can and does make me a better photographer. In my youth, I took note that most every image that I was drawn to was taken with a rangefinder camera, usually a Leica. It was human nature that I would think a similar camera could be helpful in creating work like that. I recall opening the box with my first Leica and saying to myself, "No more excuses Marc". Of course it wasn't logically true, but I believed it ... so it was my own truth, and self-fulfilling prophecy. While I successfully work with highly complex, very sophisticated cameras (the technologically marvelous Sony A7R-II comes to mind), my creative mind-set still resides with the less complex, direct experience Leica MM for a vast majority of my personal work ... because it is a familiar friend that metaphorically keeps quiet and gets out of the way rather than technically acting like a little child in need of attention. Perhaps after using a modern tech wonder for 40 years it'll also become a warm pair of slippers. Unfortunately, the nature of technology is to speed ahead like a bullet train blowing it's warning whistle every five seconds until it works your last nerve. : -) - Marc I appreciate your comments and thoughts. And for you, it is indeed a self-fulfilling prophecy... (cut to Dorothy clicking her heels together and whispering "there's no place like home...") There are really very good reasons to shoot manual cameras. I returned to Leica after using Olympus E-series pro digital gear for ten years, and Canon EOS1 gear for ten years before that. I had brief fling with an X-Pro1 that brought me back to Leica after a ten-year absence (I've actually shot Leica since 1974 off and on.) I bought back into Hasselblad a couple of years ago, but recently re-sold the last of that gear. I decided to re-enter the 21st Century and bought a Mamiya 645AFDii kit. After three weeks, I realized that AF/AE just really doesn't do it for me, and I like a WLF. I didn't bond with the AFDii so it's up for sale, and a lovely Mamiya 645 Pro TL outfit arrived yesterday. I can create the same kinds of images with any of that gear... but the reason I've played around is because I want the features I'm comfortable with that are intuitive. That leads to less frustration, less thought, and more ability to concentrate on making images. It doesn't, however, make me a better photographer, it just makes for less frustration for me when I'm making the image. As I said in an earlier post that to ascribe the ability to "make me a better photographer" to the gear takes the credit for the knowledge, experience, and skill level away from me and places it on an inanimate object. I just can't buy that. The damned camera doesn't do anything sitting on a table by itself regardless of how automated it is. Regardless of make, model, or features, it takes a photographer to use it as a tool to make images, and the use of it doesn't make anyone any better or worse as a photographer. It just captures light. How well it does that is up to the photographer, and is entirely dependent on the photographer's skill level and how well the photographer has chosen the right camera with the right features for the job at hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted March 4, 2016 Share #117 Posted March 4, 2016 The damned camera doesn't do anything sitting on a table by itself regardless of how automated it is. Regardless of make, model, or features, it takes a photographer to use it as a tool to make images, and the use of it doesn't make anyone any better or worse as a And, you aren't going to be a better photographer unless you USE it. If the camera inspires you to use it, then you just might becomes a better photographer. You can't becomes a better photographer without a camera. Please explain how you become a better photographer without 'using' a camera??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted March 4, 2016 Share #118 Posted March 4, 2016 And, you aren't going to be a better photographer unless you USE it. If the camera inspires you to use it, then you just might becomes a better photographer. You can't becomes a better photographer without a camera. Please explain how you become a better photographer without 'using' a camera??? That's my point exactly. YOU are the photographer. YOU learn. YOU make images. The camera is merely a box to hold the film By itself, it does nothing. It cannot, then, make you into anything or anyone that you're not already. It cannot give you skills merely by you picking it up and holding it. If you pick it up and use it, then YOU are (presumably) working on becoming a "better photographer," but that is YOU, not the equipment. As I said above, some gear can certainly be more comfortable or intuitive or easier for you to use, but that has nothing to do with your ability as a photographer; merely that you are predisposed to finding the controls a certain way. The logic of believing that a camera can make you a better photographer is exactly the same logic that owning Snap On tools makes you a better mechanic, or that going to a dealership and sitting in a Ferrari gives you the skills to be a race car driver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted March 4, 2016 Share #119 Posted March 4, 2016 That's my point exactly. YOU are the photographer. YOU learn. YOU make images. The camera is merely a box to hold the film By itself, it does nothing. It cannot, then, make you into anything or anyone that you're not already. It cannot give you skills merely by you picking it up and holding it. If you pick it up and use it, then YOU are (presumably) working on becoming a "better photographer," but that is YOU, not the equipment. As I said above, some gear can certainly be more comfortable or intuitive or easier for you to use, but that has nothing to do with your ability as a photographer; merely that you are predisposed to finding the controls a certain way. The logic of believing that a camera can make you a better photographer is exactly the same logic that owning Snap On tools makes you a better mechanic, or that going to a dealership and sitting in a Ferrari gives you the skills to be a race car driver. Pardon me, but that is wrong. You can't become a better photographer without a camera. Can't be done. You haven't explained that yet. I can't make images without a camera. Can you??? I think you are lost in the weeds of your own argument. Of course the camera plays a part. I will agree a better camera doesn't mean you will be a better photographer necessarily. But, regardless, the camera helps you learn to be better if you have it within you to bring out. Why you keep insisting the camera is not a player in any equation, if even just to inspire a person to shoot more, baffles me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted March 4, 2016 Share #120 Posted March 4, 2016 Pardon me, but that is wrong. You can't become a better photographer without a camera. Can't be done. You haven't explained that yet. I can't make images without a camera. Can you??? I think you are lost in the weeds of your own argument. Of course the camera plays a part. I will agree a better camera doesn't mean you will be a better photographer necessarily. But, regardless, the camera helps you learn to be better if you have it within you to bring out. Why you keep insisting the camera is not a player in any equation, if even just to inspire a person to shoot more, baffles me. I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing... I didn't say you can be a photographer without a camera in any of my posts. What I've said (and I'll rephrase it for you) is that presuming that cameras are of equal competency to do the job you want to do, then a camera is a camera is a camera. You, as a photographer with a given proficiency level, will be a photographer of that proficiency level with any camera. None of them will magically imbue the user with the light from heaven which causes them to be a giant among photographers. Nor can any particular camera cause your skills to magically improve. Skills improve with practice, not because you're using a particular camera. And yet many folks here have said that they believe that their photography has improved by the use of a talisman (camera) rather than crediting the improvement they've made in their own skill set. I think what I'm saying is quite clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.