Leica M 240. Might be the camera for ( war-) photographers if...

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They're not pesky. They are sensationalist, neophyte, amateur morons.

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

But there is a point in Exodies' post. Of course there is war photography that exposes, informs and shapes opinion, often at great risk to the photographer. But too much that makes the newspapers is not much more than the obligatory running-with-gun uniformed type amidst demolished buildings which tells us nothing, or devastated civilian mother with tear-stained child type of stuff that is pure cliché.

If the photographer was the only one at risk.

[zlatkob]

But there is a point in Exodies' post. Of course there is war photography that exposes, informs and shapes opinion, often at great risk to the photographer. But too much that makes the newspapers is not much more than the obligatory running-with-gun uniformed type amidst demolished buildings which tells us nothing, or devastated civilian mother with tear-stained child type of stuff that is pure cliché.

 

Oh yes, Exodies has a point.  Those demolished buildings meant something to their owners, and it meant something to demolish them. But when the viewer gets nothing out of that picture, we can conclude that the war photographer should move on to more stimulating subjects, perhaps something with a bit of pizzaz.  Likewise, cliché photos are an unfortunate aspect of similar tragedies happening over and over again.  No doubt viewers' eyes would encounter less cliché if wars were conducted in a more visually creative fashion, or if they were simply not photographed at all.

[zlatkob]

They're not pesky. They are sensationalist, neophyte, amateur morons.

 

I defer to your experience.  It seems you know all of the war photographers on the planet, so generalizing about them is not a problem for you.

[jdlaing]

I know three of them. They are cast from the same mold.

[edwardkaraa]

Even Nachtwey himself was bought by one side of the conflict the last time he was in town. Photographers, just like journalists, are for hire, and are not neutral in their reporting. They only show/tell what they want you to.

 

Also, I have witnessed and luckily survived 16 years of civil war in my home country. I have covered strictly as an amateur several bloody events, including car explosions and assassinations. This taught me two things: first, how news photographers got in the way when the priority was to save people's lives, and how they shoved their cameras into injured people's faces without any respect. Two, how many photos in combat situations were staged and how the end result, after publishing, twisted the facts to reflect the biased journalist's agenda.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh yes, Exodies has a point.  Those demolished buildings meant something to their owners, and it meant something to demolish them. But when the viewer gets nothing out of that picture, we can conclude that the war photographer should move on to more stimulating subjects, perhaps something with a bit of pizzaz.  Likewise, cliché photos are an unfortunate aspect of similar tragedies happening over and over again.  No doubt viewers' eyes would encounter less cliché if wars were conducted in a more visually creative fashion, or if they were simply not photographed at all.

You are assuming all photos tell the truth. Only a small proportion do. You are also assuming all photos have message. Most don't.

You are also assuming all photos are obtained in an ethical manner.

One of the most disgusting examples was the behaviour of photographers - all of them- in the video of Syrian refugees running for the Macedonian border that was part of the incident where a woman reporter attacked a victim that was in her way.

[Giulio Zanni]

If you look at the images that every year are selected by World Press Photo under very severe rules, they are very emotional and touchy with very little cliche'. Of course, like in any other thing, there are plenty of bad images and bad photographers, but I find any kind of generalization lacking substance

[zlatkob]

You are assuming all photos tell the truth. Only a small proportion do. You are also assuming all photos have message. Most don't.

You are also assuming all photos are obtained in an ethical manner.

One of the most disgusting examples was the behaviour of photographers - all of them- in the video of Syrian refugees running for the Macedonian border that was part of the incident where a woman reporter attacked a victim that was in her way.

 

Actually I'm not assuming any of those things.  I was addressing your problems with photos that tell us nothing and with photos that are cliché, which were the points you drew from Exodies' post, although he didn't make them.

 

​I really don't want to be drawn into a discussion where people claim I said or assumed things that I didn't.  Those conversations always start with "I didn't say what you said I said," and that gets really tiresome.

 

But no, all photos certainly don't tell the truth, as if that even needs to be said.  Why would anyone assume that?  And no, they don't all have a message.  Why would anyone assume that?  And no, all photos are not obtained in an ethical manner.  Why would anyone assume that?  Goodness, all of these nutty assumptions that no one made, and you attribute them to me.

 

Recall that my post started as a sarcastic reply to a rather remarkable complaint:  "What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable."

 

The point about photos that (you say) tell us nothing is that while they may tell you nothing, they may nevertheless tell something to someone else.  That they are not meaningful or informative to one person does not mean they are not meaningful or informative to someone else.  While not all photos "tell the truth", it is a fact that photos have some evidentiary value all over the world:  in courts, police stations, passport offices, insurance offices, medical practices, family albums, school pictures, wedding pictures, etc., etc., etc.  While not all photos "tell the truth", they are in fact used and accepted as a way of witnessing.  But as with any other way of witnessing, there are criteria and standards for credibility — which is a potentially endless discussion that I won't get into.

 

It is also a fact that war inevitably involves propaganda, and that often involves misuse of photographs.  But the misuse of some photographs in some circumstances doesn't diminish the power of some photographs to inform in other circumstances.  It is absurd to dismiss all of war photography based on the worst examples or worst misuses of war photography.  

 

When in doubt about the power of war photography, recall that photographs are often the among most powerful evidence against false claims that something did not happen or that something is a fiction.  Also recall that people all over the world rely on photographs as having some evidentiary value, even while knowing full well that not every photo tells the truth, and even when photos are "ugly and predictable".  And occasionally some of those viewers are in a position to influence events, such as to direct aid or medical care where it is needed.  

 

When in doubt about the informative power of photography generally, recall all of the times and places where photography is banned or photographers are prohibited because photos would provide evidence of something that someone doesn't want to be revealed.  Also recall all of the times when criminals are convicted based on photographs.  Also recall all of the times when people have attempted to avoid having their misdeeds photographed.  Alternatively, recall all of the times when a photo was used as the basis for a memorial, a history lesson, a postage stamp, etc.  

 

As for the problem of esthetics, this is where war photographers are damned either way.  Someone is always rejecting their photos as either too ugly or too pretty (as in too artistically seen).  War photographers know that they can't win between those two points of view.  But those two points of view arise from the real problem:  that the subject matter is often sad, horrible, or offensive.  One could write much more about which esthetic treatment is appropriate and which is not, but that's another bottomless pit.

 

I definitely won't defend all of war photography as noble and good.  The percentage of noble and artistic war photographers may be low, perhaps comparable to many other professions.  I'm just saying there are good reasons to do this type of photography, for those who are so inclined.

 

Anyway, I find it intriguing when people who are somehow interested in photography or photo gear reveal a distinctly anti-photography point of view on a photography forum.

[jaapv]

That is true, and my first sentence was: "of course there is war photography that ....etc" I have been following World Press Photo since 1963 and have all the catalogues, but even then, only part of  submissions is  really good, even after the strict selection beforehand. It is the same as all photography I guess - 90% is dross, the rest is great.

 

If you look at the images that every year are selected by World Press Photo under very severe rules, they are very emotional and touchy with very little cliche'. Of course, like in any other thing, there are plenty of bad images and bad photographers, but I find any kind of generalization lacking substance

[Steve Ricoh]

Just reading about Andre Friedmann (Robert Capa) and viewing his iconic picture 'Death of a Loyalist'.

He used a Leica didn't he (?) I'm not sure what model, but obviously whatever it predates the M3. Clearly, must have been built like a tank, but I don't think there are many computer-cameras today that could stand the abuse that Capa put his through. Today's war correspondents probably have a box of top range Nikons or Canons, they simply open another box if one goes faulty.

[Guest]

Well I've had a brief brush with this work, and known and worked with others who were more involved in the TriX and Ektachrome days, ( Kodachrome 64 was for the National Geographic crowd ).

None of it's pretty, but the photographers I knew who did this work most of the time were not "cowboys" or sensationalists just looking for the gore and misery, quite the opposite. Most of them were, and I'm sure still are, quiet introspective people who put their lives out there on the line, and in quite a few instances lose it as happened this year with David Gilkey, ( look up his work, there's much much more there than the portrayal of the violence of war itself ).

Don't forget that without the "war photographer's" work the Vietnam war could have mostly been a closed book, something that the politicians and military learned to their cost then applied those lessons to subsequent wars and have muzzled journalists quite effectively by "imbedding" them into the machine......

 

But anyway, gear....Sure Leicas, film M Leicas, were used back in the day. Now I don't know, but the cameras of choice I found were the Nikons and the Canons. The Nikons in my experience were built like brick shithouses from the Ftn's to the magnificent F4. Nothing came close to their reliability, that's what I used.

[jto555]

This link gives a great insight into conflict photography:

 

https://fstoppers.com/bts/fascinating-video-reveals-manufactured-nature-some-photojournalism-139573

 

As for war photographers been a priya. Have a look at this article:

 

http://time.com/3841060/iconic-vietnam-war-photos/

 

Some of the pictures changed the Vietnam war by changing Americans perception of the war. I think you should recognise shots number 14 and 19. Sometimes the story does need to be told! Have a look at the work by British photographer Don McCullin. There are photographers who photography war, and there are photographers who photograph the atrocity that is war.

[ECohen]

How cynical many on this forum are!!
                                 ......and Mathew Brady moved bodies for effect.

 

How many of us would have the guts to document war as so many brave  photographers have done....too many have even lost there lives just to show us, war in all its ugliness.
 

Most of it is real most of it is ugly and most of it should be shot with  a fully automatic camera so the photographer can run and hide and live. So that we may feel and see the pain and turmoil that so much of our world is in.
 

My hat is off the war photographer without seeing the horror can we ever expect to learn, grow and be better humans?

[250swb]

 

 

What would it need, to revive the Robbert Capa early times again, now in the digital era. Is it possible and how? or is it still happening?

 

You should read the LFI magazine to understand the reality of where Leica's are used. Recording war, riot, poverty, etc., it doesn't need a Canon and it comes back time and time again, a Leica is a less intrusive camera to use.

 

 

Steve

[douglas fry]

Having taken my time to read this thread, I was going to post that a subscription to LFI would be useful (Steve just beat me to it) , it shows incredible M photography from around the world in all and every genre from war (great story on the French Foreign Legion in the Congo), London Street Photography to children living on the rubbish mountains in Rio. If anything could convince you that the M can shoot anything then this magazine will.

 

I've subscribed for years and started another subscription with 'M' magazine both great, high production values and in depth photojournalism.

 

I have never shot war, but I'm not sure an auto SLR over an M is better, personally I prefer manual focus lenses, set the estimated distance, stick the camera over the parapet and shoot. Autofocus will capture beautifully the brick 3 feet away, because you pointed it down slightly.

[Giulio Zanni]

Having taken my time to read this thread, I was going to post that a subscription to LFI would be useful (Steve just beat me to it) , it shows incredible M photography from around the world in all and every genre from war (great story on the French Foreign Legion in the Congo), London Street Photography to children living on the rubbish mountains in Rio. If anything could convince you that the M can shoot anything then this magazine will.

 

I've subscribed for years and started another subscription with 'M' magazine both great, high production values and in depth photojournalism.

 

I have never shot war, but I'm not sure an auto SLR over an M is better, personally I prefer manual focus lenses, set the estimated distance, stick the camera over the parapet and shoot. Autofocus will capture beautifully the brick 3 feet away, because you pointed it down slightly.

 

 

So why war photographers are not using digital Ms? Because they don't and Leica doesn't target them because is more profitable to target wealthy amateurs. I love photography and I like my Leicas but I don't have any attachment to a specific brand, I just choose the better tool for the job and I strife to get the shot, not to protect my camera. As for LFI you shouldn't forget that is a marketing tool, as much as the Nikon and Canon magazines are. 

[Mikeleica]

I have covered strictly as an amateur several bloody events, including car explosions and assassinations.

 

 

Whoa, why would an amateur want to cover that unless they were pretending or fantasizing about being a real photographer?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a911s]

What's the point of war photographs other than to make a reputation for the photographer? The pictures are ugly and predictable.

 

One of the silliest posts I've ever read. If you met James Nachtwey and talked with him, you would know. He is the real deal - he cares about other people more than himself.

 

So why war photographers are not using digital Ms? Because they don't and Leica doesn't target them because is more profitable to target wealthy amateurs. 

 

 

Exactly. Most have moved away from Leicas for their professional work. I still use my M9 for personal work, and the rare job that is wide angle and normal only with an emphasis on a small size travel kit. 

[Exodies]

One man's silliness is another man's opinion thank you very much.