A Good Picture

[badpets]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kent10D, if you believe that M8 (including M lens) can do no more than the same job as your other digital camera, why do you buy M8 in the first place?

 

In your comparison of the cat photos, I actually do see your point - I'm able to tell that the cat in the two pictures is the same cat. If that means you believe Photography to catch truth/reality, then I agree M8 will make no difference from any digital camera.

 

 

Bill, Luigi ...

 

To be perfectly honest, I knew I was in trouble the moment I posted the M8 version. Even taking into account the dramatic difference in lighting and the fact that it is a fairly tight crop, it does have the depth that I've come to expect, and many people value, in M8 files.

 

So my point kind of got lost there. The original point was that, although the picture of "Tibbles" is important to me, it almost certainly isn't to anyone else. But I ended up demonstrating that the M8 takes a pretty nice cat pic.

 

Ah well ...

[badpets]

Bill, why do you think a tool has no contribution to photography? By "tool", do you including Lecia Lenses? What makes good photography to you?

 

 

Kent, I am one of those that thinks images made with Leica lenses look different from those made with most other lenses. In this statement, I don't include images made with Zeiss lenses, because I don't know their look.

 

But, to me, subjects/objects taken with Leica glass look "rounder" and more dimensional. There was a posting before the M8 became available of the same pix taken with a Canon (I believe) and a Leica DMR. If I'm not mistaken, the lurkers here were able to tell the difference. I believe Guy created the pix, of a clock on a mantel.

 

In the two pictures of the cat, above, whose name has been changed to protect the innocent, the second one has more depth in my viewing.

 

So, I think there is a difference related to Leica glass.

 

Above, I said I liked the M8 because it worked the best for me of all Leica tools so far. Again, the M8 is just a tool. HOWEVER, the Leica glass is a totally different matter. To me images look different. If I didn't think this, I wouldn't be paying these prices!

 

I remember reading a quote from the guy who printed Cartier-Bresson's images that he could always tell images taken by Leica's.

 

Bring it on.

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Hi Badpets,

 

You have two large questions rolling around here.

 

1) What makes a good picture?

 

I won't touch that one.

 

2) Does the camera one uses affect the pictures he or she makes?

 

There I would say: yes, the camera certainly can influence the picture but its only one part of a larger puzzle. Have you seen this already? The article is called "Yes, It Matters"...

 

Luminous landscape

 

The M8 absolutely does matter to my work and does influence what I make. The R-D1 works nearly as well for my purposes, though not *as* well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Kent10D]

Kent10D, if you believe that M8 (including M lens) can do no more than the same job as your other digital camera, why do you buy M8 in the first place?

 

In your comparison of the cat photos, I actually do see your point - I'm able to tell that the cat in the two pictures is the same cat. If that means you believe Photography to catch truth/reality, then I agree M8 will make no difference from any digital camera.

 

The thing is that there are technical differences, but I don't believe that "technical superiority," whatever that may be, is a necessity for creating great pictures.

 

As for the M8, I love it. I love the look. That's why I have it. But whether it does "more" in terms of giving me better images is another matter. It's still entirely up to me whether I succeed in making good images: in other words, it's my fault when I fail -- which is most of the time -- not the camera's. I have a DSLR in addition to the M8 for practical reasons, not artistic ones.

 

Perhaps in your original question you were referring to technical quality as a basis for creating great images, but as you can tell from the response, most people (including me) thought you meant the image -- the "good picture" -- itself. To me that's more about choice of subject, timing, lighting, composition ... all of which are independent of the camera used.

 

When you say "photography to catch truth/reality," I assume you mean photography as a documentary tool. Yes, any decent camera can do it. But any decent camera can be used to create art too. In fact, it's probably easier to create artsy-looking images with a crappy camera that does a few unexpected tricks of its own. In my opinion using a capable camera like the M8 or, for example, the Nikon D700 to create "art," or even great documentary images, is exceedingly difficult because it demands maximum creative input from the photographer. The camera merely mediates the photographer's intent, and the results are clearly reflected in the output.

 

In most cases the best tools are the simplest and most straightforward ... which often makes them the hardest to use, requiring the greatest amount of control from the operator. I do think the M8 falls into that category. So in that sense you might be right in your assertion that the M8 is good for making great pictures. But I can assure you that a photographer who can make good pictures with the M8 will also be able to make good pictures with just about any decent camera, which is the point that I think many of the respondents to your original question were trying to make.

 

Sorry for the long-winded reply.

Hope it made some sense.

[badpets]

Hi Sean, thanks again for your help again. Shame on me that I have not yet subscribed to your reviews; I am really interested to know what you write about how to photograph strangers...

 

I agree with you that I shouldn't have combined two questions in one because it has falsely given people the impression that I believe M8 (camera with better quality) is required to make better photography. I should have simply asked "What's the best way to take M8 system to the full usage and create beautiful photos?"

 

But funny, after creating this thread, I actually began to develop strong interest to know more about the relationship between camera (some call tool) and photography generally.

 

Thank you for the link, I'm gonna take a look now.

 

 

 

Hi Badpets,

 

You have two large questions rolling around here.

 

1) What makes a good picture?

 

I won't touch that one.

 

2) Does the camera one uses affect the pictures he or she makes?

 

There I would say: yes, the camera certainly can influence the picture but its only one part of a larger puzzle. Have you seen this already? The article is called "Yes, It Matters"...

 

Luminous landscape

 

The M8 absolutely does matter to my work and does influence what I make. The R-D1 works nearly as well for my purposes, though not *as* well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[badpets]

Now I see. I apologize for not putting a clearer question. I agree with most of what you said below.

 

 

The thing is that there are technical differences, but I don't believe that "technical superiority," whatever that may be, is a necessity for creating great pictures.

 

As for the M8, I love it. I love the look. That's why I have it. But whether it does "more" in terms of giving me better images is another matter. It's still entirely up to me whether I succeed in making good images: in other words, it's my fault when I fail -- which is most of the time -- not the camera's. I have a DSLR in addition to the M8 for practical reasons, not artistic ones.

 

Perhaps in your original question you were referring to technical quality as a basis for creating great images, but as you can tell from the response, most people (including me) thought you meant the image -- the "good picture" -- itself. To me that's more about choice of subject, timing, lighting, composition ... all of which are independent of the camera used.

 

When you say "photography to catch truth/reality," I assume you mean photography as a documentary tool. Yes, any decent camera can do it. But any decent camera can be used to create art too. In fact, it's probably easier to create artsy-looking images with a crappy camera that does a few unexpected tricks of its own. In my opinion using a capable camera like the M8 or, for example, the Nikon D700 to create "art," or even great documentary images, is exceedingly difficult because it demands maximum creative input from the photographer. The camera merely mediates the photographer's intent, and the results are clearly reflected in the output.

 

In most cases the best tools are the simplest and most straightforward ... which often makes them the hardest to use, requiring the greatest amount of control from the operator. I do think the M8 falls into that category. So in that sense you might be right in your assertion that the M8 is good for making great pictures. But I can assure you that a photographer who can make good pictures with the M8 will also be able to make good pictures with just about any decent camera, which is the point that I think many of the respondents to your original question were trying to make.

 

Sorry for the long-winded reply.

Hope it made some sense.

[badpets]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think this part is most interesting. I agree with the capable-camera part but disagree a little with crappy-camera part. But it's difficult for me to put in words right away. Let me arrange my thoughts and get to you later on it cuz I really think you brought up something really interesting.

 

In fact, it's probably easier to create artsy-looking images with a crappy camera that does a few unexpected tricks of its own. In my opinion using a capable camera like the M8 or, for example, the Nikon D700 to create "art," or even great documentary images, is exceedingly difficult because it demands maximum creative input from the photographer. The camera merely mediates the photographer's intent, and the results are clearly reflected in the output.

[badpets]

Sean, that has just become the best article I read this year. I'm actually touched right now because I thought I was the only person in this forum to feel that camera matters in photography.

 

Keep up your great work, I'm definitely gonna subscribe to your review.

 

Hi Badpets,

 

There I would say: yes, the camera certainly can influence the picture but its only one part of a larger puzzle. Have you seen this already? The article is called "Yes, It Matters"...

 

Luminous landscape

[sean_reid]

Sean, that has just become the best article I read this year.

 

Cool, thanks.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

What is a "good picture" by your definition, particularly utilizing the latest technology of Leica M8?

badpets are you capable of taking this so called "good picture with a M8 ...if so show us an example?

[stunsworth]

After thinking about it for a while I don't see much difference between linking a 'good' picture to a particular camera and the person who looks at your photographs and says "Oh, they're nice, you must have a good camera.". It's a bit like enjoying a great meal at a restaurant and then complimenting the chef on his choice of pans.

[pgk]

It's a bit like enjoying a great meal at a restaurant and then complimenting the chef on his choice of pans.

 

Steve

 

The problem is that the chef HAS got to use pans and so has a choice of which to use. To some chefs I suspect that the pans used make a difference (I assume different pans have different cooking qualities), to others they probably don't. But given that there is a choice of pans, some do have to be chosen.

 

Photographers, in my experience, tend to fall into two categories. Some are not bothered what equipment they use (the minority in my experience) and others vary in their adherence to brand and specifics to degrees ranging from interested to obsessed!

 

The OP has excited interested because it addresses a central if uncomfortable relationship. Perhaps another interesting question might be: "How much do great photographs owe to the choice of equipment used to create them?"!

[stunsworth]

Indeed he has to use a pan of some sort, but the point I was trying to make was that it would be an insult to attribute the quality of a meal to the pans used, rather than to the skill of the chef himself. Like all metephor it begins to break down if the comparison is taken to extremes.

 

A 'good' camera may be capable of taking a 'technically good' photograph, but that isn't by itself necessarily a 'good photograph'. For that you need a good photographer - or good luck.

 

When we look at photographs we are largly unaware of what camera was used to take them. We see some that we don't like, and we see some that we think are great. Would knowing the camera that was used to take them change that? I'd like to think not.

[badpets]

Have you read Sean Reid's article linked above? I think he showed lots of good example there regard why camera matters. But you can't just use "Oh, they're nice, you must have a good camera." as an example. If I were you, I'll say "Oh, yeah, they are nice, you must have a good sense both in photography and choice of camera.".

 

With your chef and pan example, it doesn't make sense at all. First of all, cooking soup and frying fish requires different pans and pots.

 

After thinking about it for a while I don't see much difference between linking a 'good' picture to a particular camera and the person who looks at your photographs and says "Oh, they're nice, you must have a good camera.". It's a bit like enjoying a great meal at a restaurant and then complimenting the chef on his choice of pans.

[stunsworth]

With your chef and pan example, it doesn't make sense at all. First of all, cooking soup and frying fish requires different pans and pots.

 

As I've already said it's a metaphor not a direct comparison.

 

However, to continue the analogy, I'd bet a pound to a penny that a good chef using poor pots and pans would create a better meal that a poor chef using state of the art equipment.

 

Sure, for some applications a particular type of camera would work better than others. But for the vast majority of the time it's the photographer that makes the difference, not the camera.

[badpets]

I think we don't have any disagreement anymore here.

 

Sure, for some applications a particular type of camera would work better than others. But for the vast majority of the time it's the photographer that makes the difference, not the camera.

[ndjambrose]

As I've already said it's a metaphor not a direct comparison.

 

However, to continue the analogy, I'd bet a pound to a penny that a good chef using poor pots and pans would create a better meal that a poor chef using state of the art equipment.

 

Sure, for some applications a particular type of camera would work better than others. But for the vast majority of the time it's the photographer that makes the difference, not the camera.

 

Agree totally.

 

I'm sure we've all seen examples of dreadful images (vacant, uncreative, technically flawed, often unworthy of a first glance, let alone a second ...) that receive warm adulation simply because they were taken with a certain camera.

 

A good photographer may express a preference for certain equipment, but not at cost of depending on it. I've never met anyone who really knows their stuff who thought that the camera was responsible for the outcome. And where a preference is expressed, it's usually based on a deep working familiarity with a range of equipment, and choosing a specific tool for a given purpose.

 

To hammer Steve's restaurant analogy even further:

 

Would a customer be pleased with an inedible meal simply because it was prepared on an Aga? ("That's a superb cooker. I guess your food must be amazing").

 

Would a chef who produces a fine meal believe that his pans did all the work? ("Wow, these pans are great. No way could I have made that with any other brand of cookware").

[badpets]

Your statement may be correct. But even if it's correct, it doesn't cancel out the possibility of "camera matters". You're like saying that apple is sweet and therefore rest of the fruits are sour. But I really think they can co-exist.

 

Agree totally.

 

I'm sure we've all seen examples of dreadful images (vacant, uncreative, technically flawed, often unworthy of a first glance, let alone a second ...) that receive warm adulation simply because they were taken with a certain camera.

 

A good photographer may express a preference for certain equipment, but not at cost of depending on it. I've never met anyone who really knows their stuff who thought that the camera was responsible for the outcome. And where a preference is expressed, it's usually based on a deep working familiarity with a range of equipment, and choosing a specific tool for a given purpose.

 

To hammer Steve's restaurant analogy even further:

 

Would a customer be pleased with an inedible meal simply because it was prepared on an Aga? ("That's a superb cooker. I guess your food must be amazing").

 

Would a chef who produces a fine meal believe that his pans did all the work? ("Wow, these pans are great. No way could I have made that with any other brand of cookware").

[ndjambrose]

Your statement may be correct. But even if it's correct, it doesn't cancel out the possibility of "camera matters". You're like saying that apple is sweet and therefore rest of the fruits are sour. But I really think they can co-exist.

 

Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort. See this line:

 

I've never met anyone who really knows their stuff who thought that the camera was responsible for the outcome. And where a preference is expressed, it's usually based on a deep working familiarity with a range of equipment, and choosing a specific tool for a given purpose.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[badpets]

Then I think it would be fairer if you put that in consideration when you make your metaphor about chef and the cooker. If the customer knew that chef was most comfortable with that particular cooker, maybe she/he will be happier.

 

Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort. See this line:

 

I've never met anyone who really knows their stuff who thought that the camera was responsible for the outcome. And where a preference is expressed, it's usually based on a deep working familiarity with a range of equipment, and choosing a specific tool for a given purpose.