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

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.  

I hear ya.  And what I am saying is as clear.  No skill improves without a camera and the use of.  You want to split hairs on that, then we will just have to agree to disagree.  You wrote quite clearly that the use of a camera won't improve a photographer.  Yes, it will.  We will just have to disagree on the finer points.

 

You also use the car example in your argument.  Well, and to me this is quite diverging but think I can demonstrate.  I learned to drive with a Ford Pinto.  I think I am quite a good driver, in fact.  But driving that car did not prepare me to drive a Ford Mustang Shelby that has close to 700 HP!!!  I drove one of those and felt totally incompetent.  So, to become a better race driver, one needs to know how to drive the tool.  Doesn't happen without having something to practice with.

 

This has become a silly argument.  Why don't we just agree to disagree.

[hepcat]

.  You wrote quite clearly that the use of a camera won't improve a photographer.  

 

No, what I wrote is that using THIS camera instead of THAT camera (presuming each to be of equal competence) will not improve a photographer.

[Advertisement]

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

[Belle123]

hepcat, on 04 Mar 2016 - 06:17, said:

  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 

 

 

I am done trying to correct your statement above.  Have fun!

[AAK]

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. 

The fact that so many people want to simulate film grain in non-film photography says it all. Shoot film!

[Cyril Jayant]

Yes I became a better photographer since I started using my M6 about 17 years ago .

That was when I  happen to go from different SLR and medium formats.

I shot only B&W and my photography started to get shine through and my vision was very clear. It was due to the camera I used . 

That has given me more confident to use my camera more easily and skilfully . This was the facility and main concept of M cameras .

So the same benefit you can expect from the MONOCHROME  no doubt.

 

" It is very minimalistic Camera to use and in a hand of a skilful photographer it is the best tool to  make any one far more better in better Photography" 

[Guest]

The fact that so many people want to simulate film grain in non-film photography says it all. Shoot film!

 

Surely you're not suggesting going back to film just for the grain. Here is a picture shot with the M6/Summicron-50 on Tri-X developed in Rodinal. I've made a 150x100 cm (60x40 inch) print of this and the grain looks very good. But the MM shot at ISO 1250 produces "grain" that looks good to. I'll upload a picture in the next post.

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!

Edited March 5, 2016 by not_a_hero

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As stated in the previous post this was shot with the MM at ISO 1250 (DR-Summciron lens). It’s a darker shot, but you should get the idea of the grain in the arm of the subject in the middle of the frame. The grain looks more distinct viewing this in LR than in a JPG.

 

Generally, even without going to ISO 1250, MM shots processed in Silver Efex can have an attractive grain effect. 

 

As I mentioned in post no. 114 above, I’ve just shot three rolls of Tri-X with my M6, i.e., using film for the first time in 10 years, and am trying to decide whether to go back to film. Not an easy decision.

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!

Edited March 5, 2016 by not_a_hero

[250swb]

The fact that so many people want to simulate film grain in non-film photography says it all. Shoot film!

 

That sort of simplistic advice is OK for those schizophrenic photographers who make individual images and have no concept of making a body of work with their own signature across it. It's OK advice for photographers who let the equipment they use dictate the image, they buy a new digital camera if they need a new type of image, or buy a new lens because the lens allows even closer pixel peeping, it's all the same thing.

 

But for anybody who cares about how all their work looks, that shows the style and vision in a cogent and cohesive way and still wants to be able to keep abreast of technology and the other benefits of digital then it's really inane bad advice. This is why Ralph Gibson wanted to make sure using a Monochrom wouldn't spoil his signature style, it is why Sebastiao Salgado added digital grain to his new digital images, so they hang together as a body of work with earlier film images. It shows that the photographer is thinking about the image more than having the camera dictate how an image should look. They are being in charge of their own work and not having gear freaks say what is and isn't the right thing to do. So I think if anybody wants to add some digital grain because they like grain and it adds an emotional content to the image they shouldn't be swayed by photographers who consider a signature style as something a lens has or how Tri-X can look.

 

 

Steve

[BerndReini]

Here is the irony about all this: I use both film and the MM each for its own strengths, film for the grain and abstract quality, the MM for its incredible ability to capture detail. Then I process each according to these qualities, meaning I don't add grain or abundant contrast to the MM images. So they really do look quite different, and in many cases are easy to distinguish from each other, which I feel is perfectly fine. Despite all this, at my last exhibition of twelve 13x19 prints, not a single person was able to tell with absolute accuracy which prints were made from film negatives vs. MM files. 

 

Again, the MM behaves like just another film stock, probably more like a thin emulsion stock like TMAX rather than TriX, a beautiful choice nevertheless. If we get down to it, a lot of traditional TriX photographers would probably dismiss the new super-sharp TMAX emulsions just as much as the files from the MM.

 

I don't advocate either over the other, and when the MM was originally released I didn't think I'd ever be getting one - until I got to try out one for a week. I had so much fun with it that I ultimately ended up buying one, and I use it a lot more than my other cameras now. I can only recommend to every film shooter to try one out with an open mind and find the strengths instead of obsessing over its weakness, and to every MM photographer, shoot a roll of black and white film every now and then.