charlesphoto99 Posted October 5, 2007 Share #21 Posted October 5, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, to the photographer's defense, who knows how the piece was dealt with by the LFI editorial board. She may have been given half a day to make something out of nothing and/or the editors decided to go with the most m.o.r. shots. IMO LFI isn't really the most cutting edge photography. Far from it often. Also the low sat, high pass filter look is quite in vogue these days. maybe not among LUF readers but definitely in the world of high fashion where she's coming from. I have to say that I do find I'm having to desaturate my M8 images more than I thought I would - possibly she went too far. Yeah, it's a shame LFI can't do better pieces, but it's usually par for the course when it's about new equipment. Look at the new test shots for the Nikon D3 - nothing there that makes me want to run out and buy the camera on the merits of the actual photography (and I will probably get one at some point). Same could be said of the initial M8 campaign. Camera companies have to play to the lowest common denominator when selling new gear. I know LFI is independent (?) but without Leica and it's base (older and more monied generally) they wouldn't exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Hi charlesphoto99, Take a look here New LFI magazine .. new summarits. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
M6J Posted October 5, 2007 Share #22 Posted October 5, 2007 I had never seen work of Katharina Behling before. I just checked her website and I am sorry to say that I didn't find anything that I would look at twice. I understand of course that she is a famous photographer -so I hear-. Maybe my knowledge about art is really poor... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 5, 2007 Share #23 Posted October 5, 2007 Well... there is art and there is reportage. Her article in LFI clearly falls into the latter category. A few photographers manage to do reportage at a sufficiently high visual level to call it art, but not many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share #24 Posted October 5, 2007 Well... there is art and there is reportage. Her article in LFI clearly falls into the latter category. A few photographers manage to do reportage at a sufficiently high visual level to call it art, but not many. Nothing wrong with reportage Carsten ..... but she and/ or LFI must have realy worked hard to get that artificial/ flat/ digital/plastic look to the images. Knowing first hand how a M8 file can look, i can only conclude she wanted that look on purpose, for whatever "artistic" reason ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 5, 2007 Share #25 Posted October 5, 2007 Well, that place looks very 70s, almost East-Germany from before '89, so I could imagine why she wanted that look. Still, I didn't have such a strong feeling about her images as many here. I didn't like them much, but respect her (and LFI's) wish to make them this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted October 5, 2007 Share #26 Posted October 5, 2007 I violently agree with those who have dissed these photos. These look a lot like old faded anscochromes to me (showing my age as I bet that most folks on the forum don't remember anscochrome!). I bought my first M8 on November 6th of last year and a second body in March of 07. If there is one single standout feature of the M8 (and the DMR prior to that) it is the outstanding color rendition of the files. I have shot almost 10,000 images with the combined systems (and still have the DMR thank God so I have the ability to shoot tele and macro at the same level of quality as normal vision M8 shots). In all of those shots I have never seen color like that in the LFI issue mentioned. When I look at her portfolio I seem to see similar color issues although not as extreme as the images in LFI. So I am not sure as to why these photos look as they do but I suspect it is a deliberate effect she is seeking and not looking for color accuracy from the raw converter she uses. I have no other explanation but I don't believe for a moment it has anything to do with the Summarit lenses. Although they are simpler spherical designs that would only like affect the distortions compared to lenses with aspheres. I am sure that the coatings used on the various lens elements are the same as those on the aspheres. Just MHO Woody Spedden I have been in the very high-end commercial printing field for 22 years and have handled print/transparency/file reproduction for all sorts of well-known photographers--Jay Maisel, Elliott Erwitt, Bruce Davidson, and on and on. I have only seen LFI on-line, and I can at least get a sense of what people are commenting on. While it may have been LFI and the photographer's intent, the color is very green. Lots of what we in the trade call "unwanted color"--too much cyan in the yellows, too much magenta in some of the highlights. To most people, it would look way out of balance. But who knows? I haven seen people spend exorbitant sums on Photoshop work, and in the old days, Scitex corrections, to achieve much more peculiar results. Bottom line, wihout seeing the original art, composed proofs, and press ok sheet, none of us know for sure. But again, it does look odd, and makes one ask--since LFI is a marketing piece above all else, are these reproductions the best way for Leica to promote the color capabilities of its products? Not in my opinion, for what little it is worth. Finally, I bought my M8 9 months ago. As much as I love it in certain respects, I haven't found that it reproduces color faithfully or consistently. Color balance is often all over the place, even shot to shot under the exact same conditions. But, I will say that 99% of the time I can get the image back where it should be ideally via Adobe Bridge/CS2. One of these days I'd like to take 2-3 typical shots right out of the camera and in their DNG format, and post them side by side with the end result. I am really hoping that the next firmware update may help with some of the inconsistencies I see between the viewfinder and the DNG image. But the initial files right out of the camera is still vastly superior to what I used to get from my Canon 1Ds--fuzzy, almost no contrast, dull, flat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 5, 2007 Share #27 Posted October 5, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is not only a problem of color. It is the subect, the framing, composition... all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted October 5, 2007 Share #28 Posted October 5, 2007 hi,the LFI is printed with "Kristallraster/Diamond Screening" technologicy. buj Crystal raster/diamond screening is not new, but very sophisticated. Instead of arranging 4 color dots in rows at 15% increments for each color, it assigns them in a random pattern, usually at either 275 dots per inch (approximately) or 550 dots per inch (5 micron dot size). So, it creates smoother gradations, and pretty phenomenal detail without moires. It also allows you to carry tons of ink. But I imagine the printer has a lot of experience with it and what you're seeing is what was intended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 6, 2007 Share #29 Posted October 6, 2007 I haven't seen the printed version but the web version shows color to me that simply seems to be a stylistic choice - for better or worse. I doubt that it has anything at all to do with the nature of the lenses. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted October 6, 2007 Share #30 Posted October 6, 2007 We are in the trade. Regardless of the artistic value of the pictures (something that each reader must evaluate), the print quality is mediocre at best. If they are using the printer mentioned above, well, something is very wrong indeed. That printer is capable of almost photographic quality. The design is very outdated, not fresh either. For a magazine of that cost, it is not good (again, from a technical press point of view). Probably the conversion to CMYK is not well executed. The paper does not help either. If you want to see a good photo magazine, probably the best in the trade, take a look at Lens Works. That IS a WELL PRINTED magazine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 6, 2007 Share #31 Posted October 6, 2007 Hi Gus, I looked at the examples of LensWork on their website. From what I saw it seems that it is 95% in B&W? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted October 6, 2007 Share #32 Posted October 6, 2007 Lens Work in print looks fantastic. It is 100% B&W (the print edition) and has some color in the CD extended materials. Doing a color magazine like Lens Work would be super expensive, but feasible. For the price LFI charges, they should do better in my opinion. I find the images too flat, lacking punch and the layout is a bit old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 6, 2007 Share #33 Posted October 6, 2007 Do you find just those images too flat, or all images in LFI? It is possible the photographer wanted them that way, and I think that is the much more likely scenario. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted October 7, 2007 Share #34 Posted October 7, 2007 Do you find just those images too flat, or all images in LFI? It is possible the photographer wanted them that way, and I think that is the much more likely scenario. Carsten, I just find almost every image too flat in LFI. Of course the photographer intention might be that in many cases, but even the contrasty B&W ones look flat to me. I know photogs usually do not like to work or convert to the devil's color space (CMYK), but since Leica is related to quality and luxury, I find that the settings they are using are just not adequate. Just my opinion, but compare to either B&W magazine or LensWork... they are way superior. Even Victor is much better (Hasselblad). I also noted several images oversharpened, with halos.... I guess that was not the photog intention... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted October 7, 2007 Share #35 Posted October 7, 2007 i don't like the print quality but i really like the work-sorry to be contrarian but I see it as obviously an "artistic" reportage and alot less unusual than one would assume from the above comments....b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtownby Posted October 7, 2007 Share #36 Posted October 7, 2007 The photos essay is available on-line (I saw it yesterday through a link provided in an e-mail from LFI). What I noticed about the set was the (probably intentional) avoidance of dramatic lighting. Looks like the photos were taken in the middle of the day. http://galleries.lfi-online.com/displayimage.php?album=811&pos=0 Having just come back from Berlin and having looked at a lot of contemporary German photography in preparation for the trip, I think this is really a stylistic decision by the photographer and editor. I rather like the essay as it really sets a mood for this family-run (shall I say run-down) amusement park -- without the glitzy night lights and shadows that one usually associates with this oft-visited subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted October 7, 2007 Share #37 Posted October 7, 2007 Well, I like them. The place is very retro and the theme distinctly Eastern Block, so the photo's fit the mood in my view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 7, 2007 Share #38 Posted October 7, 2007 I haven't seen the printed version but the web version shows color to me that simply seems to be a stylistic choice - for better or worse. I doubt that it has anything at all to do with the nature of the lenses. Cheers, Sean That's the point... we expected to have some "preview" of how well can do these Summarits.... and found a undoubtly questionable print style... on images that per se are nothing exceptional... a delusion... as for lenses, not worthing more than the cold "quality proofs" in Leica Site; better to wait for Sean ( I finally will succeed in registering after 2 or 3 unsuccesful trials...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 7, 2007 Share #39 Posted October 7, 2007 I am waiting for the MTF graphs of the new Summarits... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted October 7, 2007 Share #40 Posted October 7, 2007 It is not only a problem of color. It is the subect, the framing, composition... all. Agree. The photos are not good enough to be published. I just received my first issue of LFI and apart this section I love it. How would you rank the previous issues of LFI? Is it a worthwhile subscription? Are these bad photos outliers or LFI publishes with random quality? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.