Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jaapv

Am I really THAT prejudiced?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That I'm too lazy to change my avatar from the style most of used to have a couple of years ago? But a fair point; I should update.

How about this?

 

Hmm, a photo of someone's art? Is it yours?

How about Namibia or something in Africa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already miss your green M camera, Jaap

------------------

Frans

 

Maybe we'll meet in Den Haag or Hessenpark. The green M8 will be there

 

Hmm, a photo of someone's art? Is it yours? How about Namibia or something in Africa?

 

Well spotted. It is a training head for dental students. In Europe they are sleek plastic affairs. This one is a home-made thing for training dental auxilaries in Central Africa.

Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I sane or just blinded by a red dot?

Rhetorical question, right?

The photographer himself and his technical abilities are by a large margin the weakest link in the image chain.

And the light, don't forget the light!!!

 

Weird thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of variable quality images on both threads. Neither have anything over the other which is hardly surprising considering the file sizes. I think the two threads show nothing more than the importance of the photographer in the process.

 

I have not compared M8 and Nikon DSLR files so cannot comment, but off the thread shows, there just seem to be too many overly contrasty images with too much sharpening, no tonality etc. Full sized files, or more importantly prints, might be quite different of course....

Edited by batmobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...But what I think makes the difference is that an average Leica owner will be a better photographer than an average Nikon owner...

 

Actually, most of what I've seen bears out the exact opposite. An 'average' Nikon owner is interested in the picture. An 'average' Leica owner is interested in the camera.

 

With apologies to all those I offend, I think there are maybe 5% of images posted in this forum that I find compelling and engaging. The rest fail to hold my interest on any level.

 

Fortunately the 5% more than makes up for the remainder, but I think it would be dangerous to assume that someone who has bought a Leica is automatically more serious or more capable just because they've spent more on their equipment, or because they choose to use a camera with less automation. All that tells me is they value their camera as an object and enjoy the process of using it. Myself included.

 

There are a lot of camera owners in the world. Only a very small number of them are good photographers. And of those few, a very, very small number use Leicas.

Edited by ndjambrose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average Leica user better photographer than an average Nikon one? What's that stupidity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, most of what I've seen bears out the exact opposite. An 'average' Nikon owner is interested in the picture. An 'average' Leica owner is interested in the camera.

 

With apologies to all those I offend, I think there are maybe 5% of images posted in this forum that I find compelling and engaging. The rest fail to hold my interest on any level.

 

Fortunately the 5% more than makes up for the remainder, but I think it would be dangerous to assume that someone who has bought a Leica is automatically more serious or more capable just because they've spent more on their equipment, or because they choose to use a camera with less automation. All that tells me is they value their camera as an object and enjoy the process of using it. Myself included.

 

There are a lot of camera owners in the world. Only a very small number of them are good photographers. And of those few, a very, very small number use Leicas.

 

Neil, Right on, but I'd lower the bid to 1%. For instance, people seem to think that if they're in the street when they snap the shutter the result is "street photography" even if what they've got is an stunningly boring shot of someone sauntering down the street. There's a particularly egregious example of that in a discussion thread on Luminous Landscape at the moment. Here's a link to one of the one percenters on this forum: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/73949-dreaded-comparison-thread-g1-m8-2-a-29.html#post812321. Actually, although he's prejudiced, Jaap has a couple shots somewhere on here that would fall into the one percent zone too. Seems to me that a good photographer grabs the tool that's going to fit the job he's setting out to do. Might be a Leica. Might be a Nikon. Might even be a Canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real thanks for the compliment, Russel.

Now, this thread had slipped into: "It is not the camera, dummy, it is the photographer." I couldn't agree more, but that is not what I set out to establish. Different brands have different sensors which render differently. Instead of buying the film with whatever camera, we are forced nowadays to buy a complete package with the "look" built in. So it can best be compared to a "what film do you prefer" thread. Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Real thanks for the compliment, Russel. Now, this thread had slipped into: "It is not the camera, dummy, it is the photographer." I couldn't agree more, but that is not what I set out to establish. Different brands have different sensors which render differently. Instead of buying the film with whatever camera, we are forced nowadays to buy a complete package with the "look" built in. So it can best be compared to a "what film do you prefer" thread.

 

Okay, fair enough, Jaap. I can't disagree with that. But I don't think you can make the kind of comparison you're suggesting by looking at pictures on the web. I think you need to compare fair-sized prints made by people who understand how to print on order to do that. I also think that the differences are subtle enough that someone with a bit of Photoshop experience virtually can eliminate them in postprocessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think that the differences are subtle enough that someone with a bit of Photoshop experience virtually can eliminate them in postprocessing.

Yes- to a certain extent, and I'm learning daily;) and that is certainly a step forward from film - but everything comes at a price. Colour rendering - at the expense of certain colours that go out of gamut - macrocontrast at the expense of dynamic range. Some things cannot be changed. There is no way to restore microcontrast that has been destroyed by an AA filter - or moire that has been caused by lack thereof. Sharpness - well, that to me is the most difficult part. What PS calls sharpness is of course exaggerated contrast - and it shows. Maybe all very subtle and a lot of it may be hidden by the printing process, but is it not much better to make at least a few of these choices in advance by selecting a certain sensor - which neccesarily has a certain brand of camera attached to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest noah_addis

Yes.

 

The photographs are all that matter, and frankly I found little interest in any of the photos posted in the OP's links. I'm not sure if one group was technically better than the other or not. This is a technical discussion forum so there is certainly no problem with discussing the technical and qualitative differences between cameras and lenses. But sometimes it seems getting too hung up in technical stuff gets in the way of actually making photographs.

 

Here are two images--one with M8 and one with D700 + Zeiss. Not posting this to prove one camera is better than the other because I use and like both and you can't really judge quality from a low-res web file.

 

I just wanted to see, out of curiosity, if anyone can tell which is which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No of course we cannot, Noah;). It is not even an identical subject. But the first is punchier, and it is probably the PP, but I like it best. So I guess that one is the Zeiss:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes- to a certain extent, and I'm learning daily;) and that is certainly a step forward from film - but everything comes at a price. Colour rendering - at the expense of certain colours that go out of gamut - macrocontrast at the expense of dynamic range. Some things cannot be changed. There is no way to restore microcontrast that has been destroyed by an AA filter - or moire that has been caused by lack thereof. Sharpness - well, that to me is the most difficult part. What PS calls sharpness is of course exaggerated contrast - and it shows. Maybe all very subtle and a lot of it may be hidden by the printing process, but is it not much better to make at least a few of these choices in advance by selecting a certain sensor - which neccesarily has a certain brand of camera attached to it?

 

I can't disagree that the differences are there, though, as you've pointed out it's a question of personal preference. I guess our main disagreement is the question of how important these differences are in the kind of cameras we're talking about. If we were talking about 8 x 10 view cameras with which we plan to make landscapes to be printed wall-size I'd agree that some of these subtle differences matter. They'd probably also matter if we were talking about medium format equipment we're going to use to make advertising shots for a client who demands a certain specific look. But what we're talking about are the equivalents of 35mm cameras, which I see primarily as street cameras, even though I do a fair amount of architectural stuff in dying towns and with abandoned farms with them. But, bottom line, you're right. It's really important to like the results you know you're going to get with your equipment. your personal confidence in a tool truly is the most important consideration in choosing one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An average Leica user better photographer than an average Nikon one? What's that stupidity?

If you snip a statement out of context a I agree it looks stupid. The entire argument was slightly more subtle so maybe it is worth addressing that. Or not - whatever takes your fancy.

 

To me it makes sense. It is analogous to the statement that people that actually like and understand cars will tend to be better than average drivers. Or people that like tools and engineering will be a bit better at hammering nails. People that like dogs will on average tend to care for them better.

 

It has nothing to do with the equipment (or its price/quality), it has to do with the (average) level of involvement & dedication.

 

People that buy Leicas on average are more interested in photography and thus on average will tend to be better photographers. This does obviously not mean that a bad photographer suddenly becomes a better one by buying/using a Leica. Conversely a good photographer who enjoys using a Nikon will not get better when switching to a Leica that he/she might not like to use.

 

The stament was about the respective cross sections of the photograpic population & not referring to individuals.

 

If the above it not true it implies that the majority of Leicas are bought as a fashion statement, which I would find surprising.

 

EDIT:

I just wanted to see, out of curiosity, if anyone can tell which is which.

No.1 (with the washing) is Zeiss, no.2. the M8. Reasons: no.1 has more contrast which points to Zeiss + it is focussed better, No.2 the buildings and cranes are out of focus which is unlikely with a DSLR and perfectly possible with an M8.

Edited by SJP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it makes sense. It is analogous to the statement that people that actually like and understand cars will tend to be better than average drivers. Or people that like tools and engineering will be a bit better at hammering nails.

 

But cameras are not cars and photographs are not nails. Liking cameras or hammers has nothing whatsoever to do with producing art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But cameras are not cars and photographs are not nails. Liking cameras or hammers has nothing whatsoever to do with producing art.

Which means that you can make art with a Holga and indeed some people do. Maybe you can explain where the criterion "art" suddenly came from? Art is one of the many aspects that may or may not be revelant for defining "better". If you aspire to make works of art it is relevant, if you want to have corner to corner sharpness e.g. for architecture then art is less of a concern, although not irrelevant.

 

The "better" I am referring to is "having more control and understanding", "more involvement" which is at least benificial for getting the result you aspire to produce, regardless of the specific aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... People that buy Leicas on average are more interested in photography and thus on average will tend to be better photographers. This does obviously not mean that a bad photographer suddenly becomes a better one by buying/using a Leica. Conversely a good photographer who enjoys using a Nikon will not get better when switching to a Leica that he/she might not like to use.

 

The stament was about the respective cross sections of the photograpic population & not referring to individuals.

 

If the above it not true it implies that the majority of Leicas are bought as a fashion statement, which I would find surprising.

 

Well, if you're talking about cross sections of the population then I suspect there are more good photographers using Nikons than there are Leicas, if only due to volume.

 

And didn't Leica have a recent marketing campaign based entirely around the concept of Leica camera as a fashion accessory? I suspect that premise may be a lot closer to the truth than you might think.

 

In my experience a really good photographer (I've met a few) doesn't really care what they use to make pictures with. For many of them the camera remains completely transparent to the process. As long as it has a shutter release and some form of lens they don't really care that much about anything else.

 

Owning a Leica may say something about someone's admiration for the camera but says nothing about their eye. A photographer is only as good as the thing they point it at.

Edited by ndjambrose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....To me it makes sense. It is analogous to the statement that people that actually like and understand cars will tend to be better than average drivers...

Replace 'like and understand cars' by 'like and understand Rolls Royce cars' and you'll see what i mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Replace 'like and understand cars' by 'like and understand Rolls Royce cars' and you'll see what i mean.

 

Not quite Those are likely to be driven far better than the average Hyundai - by professional private drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy