Going full Leica...

[douglas fry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use the M for every focal length the M240 and 90mm F2 for portraits is a fine combination, usually in combination with a large soft box and Elinchrom Quadra Ranger on location shoots, but of course as this thread proves, everyone is different, which is as it should be.

I shoot too when the situation demands with a Sony A7ii and the 55mm 1.8 sometimes you can't beat autofocus with eye detection when say just shooting a series of headshots to be cut out for a website etc, its just easier (and lazier). The build isn't as industrial weapons grade as the M however and that does worry me more as I travel frequently, so during a shoot in NY this march I may find myself in B&H looking at Leica SL's

 

My annual report work though with more studied environmental portraits, then I'm v happy shooting all day with the M, its a joy to use

[brill64]

Nothing like an M...

 

this should be in the, "i love my M" thread.

[Advertisement]

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

[Paulus]

this should be in the, "i love my M" thread.

Well, wat's stopping you?

[IkarusJohn]

Well at least some of you realised what my original post was about, so thanks haha. "I'm getting rid of a redundant camera and just using my M. What are you experiences in shooting your portraits with an M instead of a DSLR?"

 

Focused to 1m and shot at f/2.5. Excuse the movie pose selfie! Love the Summarit lenses. Maybe I'll end up with a 75mm eventually if I need a flatter perspective for portraits.

 

 

 

Hi Nick, do you mind if I go slightly off topic, and comment on this image?  It touches on a couple of issues for me which are important to the way I photograph (or what I try to photograph).

 

I notice there is a lot more interest in controlled lighting rather than available light photography, which also means studio settings (generally).  This can have two effects which your image graphically illustrates to me -

 

(1) I find equal lighting on two sides of the face has a strange result, when compared to Pico's portrait.  I don't think the lighting adds anything positive.  I'm no expert on artificial lighting - I've never been able to get a flash to work in a way which I find even remotely reflects what I was hoping to achieve, but I do see that controlling the light is something I need to improve upon.  I would suggest that a single, stronger light source might give the image more drama.  Or, alternatively dial the light back a bit to give a softer rendition ...

 

I'm sure others who know what they're talking about will be able to make a better contribution.

 

(2) In a studio setting, establishing a rapport with the subject is critical.  This thousand yard gaze makes your subject look like he's thinking about World Peace or what he has to write for his next master's thesis.  It looks overly staged ...

 

If you look at other portrait photographers' work (Maplethorpe springs to mind), there is clearly an interaction with the photographer.  The lighting and the subjects draw you in - you can almost feel what they're thinking or saying.  Granted, some of Maplethorpe's images you don't necessarily want to be drawn into, but even some of the "nastier" images still have a very clear interrelationship with the photographer, and the lighting is immaculate.  Just don't start asking your subjects to take their clothes off just yet, or to start engaging in some of their favourite sexual practices ...

 

What stalls me the most in my photography is that a pretty image of a beautiful girl or scenery is just that, as Pico observes (without elaborating on the point - naughty Pico!  Bad dog!), a pretty girl doesn't mean a pretty picture.  I can't count the number of times I look at a scene and say - yes, very pretty, but I'm not taking a picture of it.  It will look like a thousand other pictures of the same scene, and I'm not adding to it.  For many years, I got around it through composition (and I still do), by not taking the picture from head height or straight on etc.  But it is the lighting that makes the difference.

 

Galen Rowell (and plenty of others, but I remember him particularly) made the comment in his book Mountain Light which stuck with me - it is not the subject or the scene which we photograph, but the light.  That's what encourages me to get out of bed or stay up and head off with my camera in the twilight.  I applaud your efforts, and I agree that the M is a great camera for this.

 

Cheers

John

Edited February 5, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[BerndReini]

I have shot lots of portraiture with the M9, some in studio, most of it with available light. It is ludicrous to think that portraiture of all things can't be accomplished with an M camera. You take one quick test shot to figure out your correct frame lines and then you shoot away. Professionals used to shoot a test polaroid for many years before digital came around. Most of studio portraiture is not shot wide open, so focus is less of a problem than when shooting in the street. 

 

I just shot portraits of two friends at work today with my MM and i will post them as soon as I upload and edit them.

[ECohen]

Check out Irving Penn's portraiture 

style, great lighting and  a very comfortable rapport with his subjects

 

Robert Maplethorpe makes me blush  

Edited February 6, 2016 by ECohen

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today's MM portraits.

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!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hi Nick, do you mind if I go slightly off topic, and comment on this image?  It touches on a couple of issues for me which are important to the way I photograph (or what I try to photograph).

 

I notice there is a lot more interest in controlled lighting rather than available light photography, which also means studio settings (generally).  This can have two effects which your image graphically illustrates to me -

 

(1) I find equal lighting on two sides of the face has a strange result, when compared to Pico's portrait.  I don't think the lighting adds anything positive.  I'm no expert on artificial lighting - I've never been able to get a flash to work in a way which I find even remotely reflects what I was hoping to achieve, but I do see that controlling the light is something I need to improve upon.  I would suggest that a single, stronger light source might give the image more drama.  Or, alternatively dial the light back a bit to give a softer rendition ...

 

I'm sure others who know what they're talking about will be able to make a better contribution.

 

(2) In a studio setting, establishing a rapport with the subject is critical.  This thousand yard gaze makes your subject look like he's thinking about World Peace or what he has to write for his next master's thesis.  It looks overly staged ..

 

 

Cheers

John

 

John, I agree with the lighting even though that's a personal choice. But for your point 2, did you miss the bit where he said it was a self portrait deliberately over posed?

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

Yes, I guess so. Posed is partly it, and I guess it will do.

 

I'm a little uncertain about people pictures. I don't mind unguarded moments, provided they are sympathetic, or pictures of strangers provided their identity is not disclosed in an unsympathetic way, but for most portraits, I'm more comfortable if the subject knows the camera is there and they are relaxed or there is rapport with the photographer. 

 

Posed images always look staged and lacking in real impact unless the artifice is broken by a smile or a moment of reflection (often just after a smile).  Photos of strangers (eg, many "street" photos) have zero appeal, unless there is that moment of spontaneous interaction with the camera or photographer (preferably a smile) or strong context. 

 

The image above almost has a socialist realist quality about it. My comments were intended to be helpful, rather than negative - the picture is well exposed, and well taken.  Just not for me, unless it has that Cindy Sherman quality, which it hasn't - not enough context and not staged enough.  If you take Sherman as an example, her posed images reflected that record cover period, with unlikely compositions and strong use of colour. They worked for me because I could relate to that 1950-70s period of art photography, and you could see the context when a number of her works were hund together - reminiscent of the cover of Supertramp's Crisis what crisis album. 

 

A self elf portrait is hard, unless you get someone to interact with you. I hate having my picture taken ...

 

Not it sure if any of that makes sense!

Edited February 6, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[pico]

[...] The image above almost has a socialist realist quality about it. [...]

 

That struck me to the core. Thank you.

[Nick Bedford]

This thousand yard gaze makes your subject look like he's thinking about World Peace or what he has to write for his next master's thesis.  It looks overly staged ...

 

That's me in the photo by the way... Did you read the post? I was deliberately doing a brooding movie pose with cinematic poster portrait lighting.

 

But it is the lighting that makes the difference.

 

Lighting is the first thing I think about when making a photograph. This one photograph is very deliberately lit, as are all my other lit portraits. My photography isn't confined to movie poster portraits (nickbedford.com if you're wondering).

[Nick Bedford]

I have shot lots of portraiture with the M9, some in studio, most of it with available light. It is ludicrous to think that portraiture of all things can't be accomplished with an M camera. You take one quick test shot to figure out your correct frame lines and then you shoot away. Professionals used to shoot a test polaroid for many years before digital came around. Most of studio portraiture is not shot wide open, so focus is less of a problem than when shooting in the street. 

 

I just shot portraits of two friends at work today with my MM and i will post them as soon as I upload and edit them.

 

Richard Avedon often used a manual focus 12-photo per roll Rolleiflex for crying out loud! No one would tell him to go and use a DSLR.

 

Today's MM portraits.

 

 Great B&W portraits.

[Nick Bedford]

P.S. If you're really wondering, this was the image I used as inspiration for that self portrait.

 

I love Star Wars.

 

[image deleted for copyright reasons]

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by LUF Admin
[Image deleted for copyright reasons]

[LUF Admin]

Please do not post images you don't have full publishing rights.

 

Legal situation here in Germany can cause real trouble - for me...

 

Thanks

Andreas