Leica SL Image Thread ...post your examples here ....

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

SL + Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 at 72mm f/3.8, ISO 800.

 

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!

[ropo54]

SL and Noctilux 0.95

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!

[taosantamonica]

oxnard/noct

 

 

oxnard/35fle

 

 

venice beach/R80lux

Edited May 16, 2017 by taosantamonica

[steppenw0lf]

That's it folks. What a lens!

 

At the Zoo # 12

 

Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-S4PLbt/

 

ISO 200, 180mm, f/10, 1/50s

 

At the Zoo - May 14, 2017 # 12.jpg

 

 

 

Which zoo is it ?

[vikasmg]

oxnard/noct

 

I love the colours in this first one!

 

- Vikas

[Chaemono]

Which zoo is it ?

 

It's one near Frankfurt a.M. called Opel Zoo. It's named after the founder of the car maker so hopefully they won't change the name to Peugeot Zoo now

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

SL plus Elmar M Pano

 

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!

[IkarusJohn]

SL plus Elmar M Pano

 

 

Neil, buddy.

 

Over the years, a lot of people on this forum have offered you advice about equipment, how to use it and what it all means.  Your enthusiasm has been truly infectious, and we've all enjoyed your creative spelling.  Do you mind if I stray into the more sensitive territory of your pictures? and this one in particular?

 

What is this a picture of?  I can see it's a ship, but what were you wanting to capture?  I don't get it.  It has horrendous flare on the right, the lighting is sort of okay, but not that interesting, and the subject seems to be a ship with a helicopter pad.  I'm sure it means something to you, but ...

 

You will recall Ansel Adams, when we were talking about the zone metering system.  He has a great quote - "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

 

Can I suggest when you look at other people's photographs, you try to work out why it is a great photo.  It starts with the quality of light, and where to put your camera ...

 

PS - look at Taosantamonica's images just up the page.

Edited May 18, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[wattsy]

Neil, buddy.

 

Over the years, a lot of people on this forum have offered you advice about equipment, how to use it and what it all means.  Your enthusiasm has been truly infectious, and we've all enjoyed your creative spelling.  Do you mind if I stray into the more sensitive territory of your pictures? and this one in particular?

 

What is this a picture of?  I can see it's a ship, but what were you wanting to capture?  I don't get it.  It has horrendous flare on the right, the lighting is sort of okay, but not that interesting, and the subject seems to be a ship with a helicopter pad.  I'm sure it means something to you, but ...

 

You will recall Ansel Adams, when we were talking about the zone metering system.  He has a great quote - "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

 

Can I suggest when you look at other people's photographs, you try to work out why it is a great photo.  It starts with the quality of light, and where to put your camera ...

 

PS - look at Taosantamonica's images just up the page.

 

 

I quite like Neil's photograph. It's not a masterpiece by any means but so what? I don't see any "horrendous flare" either. Nothing wrong with a bit of constructive criticism but I think your comments are a but unwarranted in this case.

[pop]

I think it's a snapshot of the place where he works; if so, it means something to himself.

[geetee1972]

 

It's not a masterpiece by any means but so what?

 

I guess there is an unspoken assumption that someone spending £30k on camera equipement probably aspires to take great pictures rather than just photographs and snapshots (the 'fuzzy picture' referred to in the Adams' quote). I'm not saying there is anything wrong with buying a £10k camera to take snaps; whatever floats your boat (see what I did there). Ikarus' comment merely points to the underlying belief that there is something more motivating Neil than just spending money on expensive camera equipment because he can; perhaps Neil aspires to create something that speaks to people, moves them, challenges their thinking or offers insight into the nature and experience of the human condition. Or maybe he's just a middle age bloke with far more money than imagination. I don't know i'm just speculating.Either way, Ikarus' was simply trying deveop what might be a latent creativity within Neil.

Edited May 18, 2017 by geetee1972

[IkarusJohn]

I quite like Neil's photograph. It's not a masterpiece by any means but so what? I don't see any "horrendous flare" either. Nothing wrong with a bit of constructive criticism but I think your comments are a but unwarranted in this case.

You don't see flare going half way across the image from the right? Okay, maybe it's my monitor.

 

A snapshot of the workplace is one thing. My comments were not meant ot be anything but constructive.

 

I'll return to my hut, and leave the "nice shot" brigade.

[geetee1972]

You don't see flare going half way across the image from the right? Okay, maybe it's my monitor.

 

A snapshot of the workplace is one thing. My comments were not meant ot be anything but constructive.

 

I'll return to my hut, and leave the "nice shot" brigade.

 

I don't think it's flare, it's just strong, specular light. But that doesn't really undermine your original point.

 

The problem with it though (your point) is that you're pointing out the elephant in the room or at least making the false connection between an assumed aspiration to talent and art and buying expensive equipment. It's a bit like the majority of Porsche drivers being uninterested in learning how to actually drive their cars on a race track. People rarely by high performance cars because they care about performance.

[wattsy]

I guess there is an unspoken assumption that someone spending £30k on camera equipement probably aspires to take great pictures rather than just photographs and snapshots (the 'fuzzy picture' referred to in the Adams' quote). I'm not saying there is anything wrong with buying a £10k camera to take snaps; whatever floats your boat (see what I did there).

 

I think you are mistaken in thinking there is such an unspoken assumption, especially in the world of camera equipment where the money spent on gear has only the vaguest correlation with the production of art, irrespective of the user's intent. I also think you are saying there is something wrong with "buying a £10K camera to take snaps", otherwise why keep on making the point about this apparent elephant in the room? I suspect you are probably right. It would be better if we didn't live in such a materialist world where wealth is spread so unequally and with such disregard to talent but I'm not sure a photo thread, in a Leica gear forum of all places, is the best place to advance the argument.

 

As an aside, I also think there is sometimes a fine line between doing something seriously (striving to a higher end) and taking oneself a bit too seriously (being a bit of a tosser).

 

A snapshot of the workplace is one thing. My comments were not meant ot be anything but constructive.

 

I'll return to my hut, and leave the "nice shot" brigade.

 

 

Yes, I know you meant well, John, but it read a little like you were about to launch into some kind of camera club type assessment about what constitutes a good photograph.

[almoore]

I also think there is sometimes a fine line between doing something seriously (striving to a higher end) and taking oneself a bit too seriously (being a bit of a tosser)

 

I think we've all fallen either side of that line at one time or another.

 

In John's defence, I think it can be hard to separate Neil's winning personality from the quality - or otherwise - of his images. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by almoore

[IkarusJohn]

I think you are mistaken in thinking there is such an unspoken assumption, especially in the world of camera equipment where the money spent on gear has only the vaguest correlation with the production of art, irrespective of the user's intent. I also think you are saying there is something wrong with "buying a £10K camera to take snaps", otherwise why keep on making the point about this apparent elephant in the room? I suspect you are probably right. It would be better if we didn't live in such a materialist world where wealth is spread so unequally and with such disregard to talent but I'm not sure a photo thread, in a Leica gear forum of all places, is the best place to advance the argument.

 

As an aside, I also think there is sometimes a fine line between doing something seriously (striving to a higher end) and taking oneself a bit too seriously (being a bit of a tosser).

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know you meant well, John, but it read a little like you were about to launch into some kind of camera club type assessment about what constitutes a good photograph.

Hell no. I was just risking that terrible crime of saying what I thought.

[geetee1972]

 

I think you are mistaken in thinking there is such an unspoken assumption, especially in the world of camera equipment where the money spent on gear has only the vaguest correlation with the production of art, irrespective of the user's intent.

I'm confused now because I agree with your assessment - there is no correlation beween gear and talent (well actually there might be but it might be negative).

 

 

As an aside, I also think there is sometimes a fine line between doing something seriously (striving to a higher end) and taking oneself a bit too seriously (being a bit of a tosser).

 

Possibly; I think it depends on your motives and values and these should be evident from how you engage with the world and the people in it. If you're taking yourself very seriously so that you can garner fame and win the approval of a wide audience in order to satisfy your ego, then yes, I think that's where you might cross the line.

 

 

but I'm not sure a photo thread, in a Leica gear forum of all places, is the best place to advance the argument.

 

 

Some might say it's precisely the place to advance that argument. I don't know maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's an important subject and if you come across people willing to enage in that debate I think you owe it to humanity to do so.

[Chaemono]

Get yourself on safari man

280mm is too short a focal length for a safari. I think you said this. Maybe Botswana would be OK with the 90-280 as I’ve read that one can get closer to the animals there (I think Jaap mentioned it). Besides, I don’t like to travel to exotic places. I just got this lens last week and, I must say, I’m blown away by the IQ. Will try to shoot some horseracing with it this weekend. Let’s see how the AF with this baby performance. By the way, l like most of the pictures you post here except maybe the last one.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Chaemono

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Wow f@cking Wow.

 

Let me try and explane. Some guy called Paul on this forum https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/272554-is-this-an-age-thing-or-an-epithany/ posted a picture shot with a 21mm SEM and the parsecs was a little wonky, So I replied to that thread with some help/tips on how to stitch some pictures together to help elevate the perspective issues.

 

I am currently looking after that horrendous picture of a drill ship for Chevron here in Tenerife. So with Paul dilemma in mind, I decided I would go down to the Key Side and take a picture with that low life cheapo Elmar M 50mm lens and stitch a panorama and send it to Paul (which I did). When I took the picture I new that there was a sun setting in the far right and deliberty wanted to show that as I had already explained to Paul that when shooting a pano its important to shoot in  manual so that the exposure is the same all the way across the frame.............I'm surprised how well the SL handled that explosion of light from the right hand side :)  

 

So there you have it. The picture is of my home from home for the next 18 months until I retire. and seeing as it was taken with the SL I decided to post it up in the SL section as well.

 

If the picture is really given anyone heartburn, then please have the mods remove it. On the other note of having $10k camera equipment, its a wee bitty hypocritical saying that sh!t on a Leica Forum......dont you think???

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[steppenw0lf]

You should leave away all comments about all prices anyway.

In the 90s I bought a Summilux  M 35 Aspherical for less than 3000 dollars. This was expensive, but is a cheap/average lens price compared to prices of current lenses. If I needed to get a replacement I would maybe have to pay more than 10k dollars.  So when commenting, should I treat it as a highly expensive lens, or as a cheapo lens ?

Would the pics look different (would the comments be different) ? Better leave away all references to price.

 

Go on showing your pics - if art or not. Just no price tag.

 

"Art" is difficult for everybody - for the taker as for the looker. Often I like pics that are certainly not art, and there are "art pics" that I would never want hanging on my walls (not even for money).

Edited May 18, 2017 by steppenw0lf