What is the attraction?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

...This was an Engineering school, so not many with an artistic bent. I still think in terms of capturing reality, not creating art...

Thanks for the reply, Tom; illuminating.

I can readily see why reportage / factual coverage of newsworthy events should be treated in such a manner as you describe. Also this approach would work for photographers who worked for (as an example) National Geographic.

If the stress was wholly on 'unedited true-to-the-scene photo-journalism' then mucking about with prints in a darkroom could be said to be not just a waste of time but an unwanted alteration to the veracity of the scene and must be avoided lest the publication be accused of falsifying the reality as witnessed.

I still think that it was a shame that you weren't encouraged to play around and experiment a bit more, though, because Playing Around is great fun!

Hopefully you have made up for the tutor-imposed strictness of their rules over the ensuing years?

Philip.

[Advertisement]

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

[malligator]

On 4/7/2024 at 7:36 AM, CaptainScarlet said:

Hi all, 

I have just inherited an M6 and a 28mm/50mm summicron lens package and I’ve come to the conclusion that pretty and no doubt iconic as the package must be, as a Nikon digital shooter for the last 20 years, I’m looking for VR and AF and a TTL viewfinder and a memory card slot and can’t find any of them!

Don’t get me wrong, I started out with an FE2 and an FM2 and still have them, but seriously what is the attraction for this type of camera, film and everything manual, today?

I guess I’m looking for what you guys find so compelling about your chosen camera and kit and how difficult and worthwhile would it be for a Leica M newbie like me to transition from DSLR? I’m seriously interested in giving this a go, so any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

 

Many thanks for your time

 

Alan Schenk

 

 

For me the attraction is the physical transference of light. The lens focuses the light from the scene onto a piece of film. I shine a light through the film onto paper to create a print. I manipulate the amount of light on parts of the print to achieve the look I want.

I prefer that to a matrix of pixels measuring the light and a processor interpreting the data to create an infinitely malleable digital representation of the scene.

Both are absolute technological wonders of their era. I just prefer the older technology. 

[Martin B]

The M6 non-TTL is my first and remains my favorite Leica M camera. I consider cameras as tools for the job - very subjective which system or model you like best. Where I personally find the Leica M camera system shine is for:

+ Small and compact high quality lenses in M-mount including other brands. 
+ Manual focus which I often prefer over AF 
+ Leica M film cameras: best film insertion system ensures the film is inserted correctly
+ Rangefinder focusing is fast and accurate if no repeating patterns are involved
+ Rangefinder viewfinder allows you to see outside the frame before releasing the shutter. 

Where Leica M does not make a difference to any other camera system is what you will see in the final photo ignoring some very unique lens characteristics maybe (bokeh, vignetting etc). Also Leica M is not my first choice for macro and close-up due to its MFD of > 0.7 meters with the rangefinder. 

[ktmrider2]

I agree about learning photography for reportage, not art.  I learned photography in the journalism department at Indiana University from a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper photographer.  Art was something taught in a different building.  My heroes in photography worked for LIFE, LOOK and maybe NATGEO and have names like David Douglas Duncan, Gene Smith, Alfred Eisenstaedt or Robert Capa.  My first job after college was as a newspaper photographer, imagine that!

[TomB_tx]

11 minutes ago, pippy said:

Hopefully you have made up for the tutor-imposed strictness of their rules over the ensuing years?

Well, I have done a ton of darkroom work over the decades - even had my own setup in my apartment in college in spite of having a campus darkroom available, and I've had darkrooms in every house since then. I most appreciate how printing makes you re-compose about how to make a better or more interesting shot, to improve your capture technique more, and have had to rescue mistakes, etc. I used to do a lot of 16x20 prints for family and friends. (Not sure if they appreciated them - but I enjoyed making them.)

These days my darkroom work is mainly developing film - mainly B&W, and scan to computer files. Since I've worked in computer programming for about 40 years, I don't care for much post processing now - too much like work. I'll probably shut down my consulting business this year, so all may change after that.

[pgk]

On 4/16/2024 at 8:53 AM, Fotoklaus said:

I always think of Ansel Adams and his aim to get the perfect negative witch leads to the (technically) perfect picture. No "guessing". Exactly knowing what to do is the aim.

I'm not so sure about this. AA knew what he was trying to achive and had the technical skills to do so. Its actually all about 'seeing' an image in front of view and translating what you see into what you want to see as a finished image (in AA's case a print). So the 'no guessing' bit is not merely technical (which is merely a means to an end) but about translating something seen into an end result, and having the relevant knowledge to do so. 

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, ktmrider2 said:

I agree about learning photography for reportage, not art.  I learned photography in the journalism department at Indiana University...

I appreciate both approaches to the medium and (IMO) neither one is the more - nor less - valuable discipline; they simply complement each other.

My own background was the opposite of yours. I studied for a Bachelor of Arts (as opposed to a Bachelor of Science) degree and, understandably, as such the emphasis (comprehensive grasp of the technical aspect aside) leaned towards the creative side of things.

Having said that there were, of course, quite a number - possibly even the majority? - of 'Reportage' style assignments handed out over the years and, after graduation, a few of our classmates did, indeed, become photo-journalists as well as others going on to work in the world of film / video production teams including one whose very first job as a news-cameraman for the BBC was covering the catastrophic Piper Alpha oil-rig disaster.

Different types of Photography; it's as valid as it is neccessary.

Philip.

Edited April 18, 2024 by pippy

[Danner]

On 4/16/2024 at 2:53 AM, Fotoklaus said:

Yes, that is correct. and the other myth is to be a good photographer without using a light meter. You will not be able to "guess" the right exposure

without knowing a lot of readings in different situations and remeber them. It is right, that you don´t have to use a light meter every minute of your shooting,

but you have to know when conditions change and do the right settings.

If you are two stops off, the image quality will not be perfect. Not with digital and not with film. It could be "ok" or "good enough".

I always think of Ansel Adams and his aim to get the perfect negative witch leads to the (technically) perfect picture. No "guessing". Exactly knowing what to do is the aim.

And, to be honest: We buy expensive cameras and the best lenses possible to accept grainy drowned shwadows or eroded higlights?

Yes.  Estimating exposure gives us acceptable results because of the wide exposure latitude of modern films.  But, if one guesses wrong, even by a half-stop, then there is some compromise to the final print quality potential, which compromise may, or may not, matter.  However, to produce superlative prints, IMHO, it is absolute essential to decides about what tones are going to be in Zone 2.5 to 3.5 range, and exposing accordingly.  That's when you can produce prints that stand out.

[Strmbrg]

For me, the attraction isn't explainable by mentioning technical details as the view-/rangefinder, a silent shutter, a classic camera, really good lenses (if the are...) or anything such.
I just notice the fact that since I bought my first (and only) Leica-M in January 2024, I have been shooting much more than ever before.
That is the consequence of it. I am kind of a contemplative and thinking person, rather than a hurried, multitasking type, who values features, latest technologies and such. The latter stresses me.
The uncomplex things in life make me creative.

[Anbaric]

27 minutes ago, pippy said:

Having said that there were, of course, quite a number - possibly even the majority? - of 'Reportage' style assignments handed out over the years and, after graduation, a few of our classmates did, indeed, become photo-journalists as well as others going on to work in the world of film / video production teams including one whose very first job as a news-cameraman for the BBC was covering the catastrophic Piper Alpha oil-rig disaster.

Today the annual World Press Photo winners were announced and the level of artistry, despite the strict constraints applied to most categories and the awful circumstances many of these photographers are working under, is astonishing. These are truthful representations of events, but that doesn't mean they can't also be significant creative artworks. The Photo of the Year has the sort of formal beauty of an Edward Weston composition, then you read the caption and understand its terrible significance.

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

This was an Engineering school, so not many with an artistic bent. I still think in terms of capturing reality, not creating art.

Interesting sentence. Would you care to elaborate on why reality is not art and what art is then? Un-reality? There's a plethora of works in fine arts that deal with reality, eg social sculptures, happenings, you name it.

---

I find this art/vs no art, science vs art, etc. meaningless. Like science, art is about research. Like (basic) science, art is about nothing tangible or usable at first, but requires a lot of thinking and engagement (like engineering). Similar things can be said about litrature. The result of either disciplin is realisation and insight. There are thousands of photos that "just" capture reality but stand the test of time and millions of "art" works that are anything but art. 

I see no distinction between the art and engennering/science side of things, nor would I exclude journalism from art-making. The results are differnet, but the thinking is the same.

[TomB_tx]

There are certainly characteristics of "Art" and "Engineering in both disciplines, so it isn't an either-or division. I consider the Leica M cameras to be "functional art" in themselves: pleasing proportions and design of all parts, and tactile sensations in use, so I can understand people buying them just to have and admire, not to use for creating images. However, I have also heard "artists" say they are just tools to create their images.

My granddaughter is an artist: she can create very realistic portraits and scenic images that capture reality. But she can also create beautiful images that exist only in her imagination, perhaps with people or objects are realistic, but were never in that scene.

My engineering sense wants color photos to look just like the scene I witnessed, with accurate colors and saturation.  More artistic types seem to adjust colors and intensity to make the scene "better" as opposed to realistic. I don't care for distorted perspective that isn't what my eyes see, so my use of wide angle is more to add context to an image, yet I can appreciate the impact artists can create with ultra-wide lenses. At the same time I don't mind lenses like the VC Nokton 35 1.4 that have noticeable barrel distortion - since I rarely notice it as I look at the main subject, not how straight lines are around the edges. I hear others are really bugged by that mild distortion - I guess a difference in artistic sense. The APO Summicron 50 appeals to me for its intent to capture very accurate and realistic images. (Too bad I can't afford one.) Others have called it boring.

So I agree that both disciplines have some blending of artistic sense and realism - but we balance them differently.
 

[hansvons]

4 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

There are certainly characteristics of "Art" and "Engineering in both disciplines, so it isn't an either-or division.

Thanks for taking the time!

[hansvons]

25 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

At the same time I don't mind lenses like the VC Nokton 35 1.4 that have noticeable barrel distortion - since I rarely notice it as I look at the main subject, not how straight lines are around the edges. I hear others are really bugged by that mild distortion - I guess a difference in artistic sense.

Interestingly, you mention the formidable Nokton. I don't use it for my work yet, which is meant to be lasting (I hope so) because it is about clear and simple structures, content, and intent. That's why I need a lens that does precisely this: a precise, no-nonsense rendering. That's the 35mm Summarit for landscapes and other structures. An Apo 35 would do it, too, but I find it too heavy ;). But I love the Nokton for parties, events, and anything that can benefit from some romanticism. I would hate the barrel distortion in anything else, though. My 35mm Summicron ASPH covers both sides of the spectrum: character and sharpness. It works super nicely for portraits and is a true workhorse.

To answer the original question, I use an M camera instead of an SLR because the rangefinder system allows me to focus much better on a 35mm lens. But I must admit, handling my M cameras is highly satisfying, which is a welcome bonus. 

Edited April 18, 2024 by hansvons

[LocalHero1953]

I suspect I have multiple photographic personas, who enjoy photography from different angles.

There's the simple joy in using an ingenious piece of fine machinery, exemplified by a Leica M film camera and its ecosystem of lenses and tools, but extending to digital cameras as well, and large format. Just owning and using them gives me pleasure. Developing a film fits in here as well. The answer to the OP's question lies here.

There's the excitement of the interaction between my brain-eye and a subject, which can be a landscape, an interesting item, but is increasingly people doing different things. The pleasure here is in seeing, engaging and translating both into a final image that bears some real relationship to who/what I saw and how I felt. Digital processing comes in here; if I was anything of a darkroom wet printer (not for 40 years) it would be here as well.

And lastly there's the intellectual pleasure I get from other people's images, and what they tell me about what they were trying to explain or demonstrate. Documentary and other contemporary photography, story telling, politics, arguments and portraits. (Portraits of paid or amateur models engaged for the shot leave me cold - OTOH @David Cantor's, @Louis's and @Sohail's street portraits, for example, do not.)

Edited April 18, 2024 by LocalHero1953