earleygallery Posted October 12, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, you ARE rude. And your comment should be in contention for the nastiest post awards. Smilie notwithstanding (too easy, that one.) OK, but what of the OP's question, do you have an opinion? You agree that Leica optics are only good for B&W? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here Why most Leica-ers like to shoot B&W?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hammam Posted October 12, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 12, 2009 OK, but what of the OP's question, do you have an opinion? You agree that Leica optics are only good for B&W? My opinion is that the first part of the OP's question is perfectly valid, and interesting. Yes, a great majority of Leica M shooters shoot b&w. As others have commented, they were probably infuenced by the works of the great PJs, like HCB or Salgado, who shot almost exclusively b&w, and came to the Leica M system for the same kind of photography. As for the second part, I'm sure it was intended as a little joke, because even a newbie knows a film camera can't be good only in b&w. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingmac Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share #23 Posted October 13, 2009 Dont make this topic too hot, guys. I dont want to be out of topic. I really understand what earleygallery have told in this discussion. I really understand that he didnt mean to do that. We are all Leica lovers so I think let's have fun taking pictures whether they are B&W or color.Those pictures will come from our lovely cameras anyway. Cheers. Thanks for all comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 13, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 13, 2009 It's the problem with internet correspondence, some will take words quite literally and you don't benefit from the tone in which they are meant (although smiley's are meant to help!). The thread did get me thinking more about the question/topic however. I think also that Leica photographers are generally purists, that's why sometimes the more 'arty' photographs posted here don't always get a good response (see thread in the M9 forum where someone dared to post intentionally out of focus images!), and B&W is definately a very pure form of photography. I'm trying to decide at the moment whether to shoot B&W or colour film on my trip to Malta - I think I'll take both and decide on the weather and potential subject matter when I'm there. If I was shooting digital I wouldn't have to think about it - point of my post in the Bar - and I do think that's a significant shift in the way a photographer works with digital, whether they realise it or not (likewise the film photographer who can shoot colour and convert to B&W in PP) and I do sometimes take that route myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karreaux Posted October 13, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 13, 2009 I dont know if (or why) Leica owners work more in B&W, but i do know why I shoot in B&W; The raison i take my Leica with me is because it feels real and pure. No electronics, just all the mechanics that I can control or adjust the way I want. For me, B&W film make the process complete. No more options, just an image as pure as possible, looking for lines, patterns, moments, etc.. After taking pictures, with B&W film i can process it myself. So again, I am in control of everything. I can print them just like I want them to be. So I decide 100% the outcome of my final pictures/prints, and thats why I personaly shoot in B&W. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted October 14, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 14, 2009 Here's an observation... Mediocre images have more visual impact in black and white than in colour. A bad photo is a bad photo, but a colour bad photo really looks like (sh)it, whereas a monochrome image "gets away with it". Mediocre photographers (who know they are, as opposed to the poor deluded fools who think they are great) will therefore choose to work in monochrome. Discuss... Regards, Bill Bill -- I half-agree. I have long felt that in many cases B&W is a lazy shorthand intended to signify depth, artistic quality, serious photographic endeavour (continue to fill in with whatever meets one's own prejudices) and I do still believe that. But the first bit of what you say I disagree with -- to my eyes B&W in fact *reveals* dull, mediocre humdrum pictures for precisely what they are.... But my main and increasing problem with B&W (and this from someone who loves theB&W 'greats') is that it looks so anachronistic that unless it somehow matches the period of the photograph I find it gets between me and the picture. I think I mentioned recently that a comment on Robert Johnson's Online Photographer website brought me up short -- because it echoed so much what I think about B&W. He said that he feels that film produces such an anachronistic look when compared to digital that very soon film itself will enter that category of aesthetic effects that can and should be used only sparingly and then with deliberate intention... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted October 14, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's the problem with internet correspondence, some will take words quite literally and you don't benefit from the tone in which they are meant (although smiley's are meant to help!). ... The problem with the Internet correspondence is that some will use words to insult others, behind the protection of absence of physical presence, anonymity and virtuality. Then, somebody calls their rudenes or nastiness to their attention, and all of a sudden they're all: «Oh, I'm sorry, it was all in good humour, I didn't mean to insult...» and what not. I am sorry, but I see it too often on forums like this one, and it never ceases to p... me off. I have stopped participating in some forums for this precise reason. If you know so well that «people will take words quite literally wthout benefiting from the tone in which they were meant», why don't you just refrain from just using those words? «Stupid» means «stupid», even with a smiley. As for calling a newbie «stupid», it is beyond comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 14, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 14, 2009 I daresay you have made your point. More than once. James has apologised, the OP has accepted the apology. Nobody seems to be het up about it except you. Time to move on, eh? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted October 14, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 14, 2009 I daresay you have made your point. More than once. James has apologised, the OP has accepted the apology. Nobody seems to be het up about it except you. Time to move on, eh? Regards, Bill I don't see any apology. What I see is quite the opposite: an insistence that the words were right, and that the Internet is sole reponsible for the «misinterpretation.» Please, don't shoot the messenger. But you're right, time to move on. Case closed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rulnacco Posted October 14, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 14, 2009 Well, personally, the reason I shoot mostly black & white with my M3 is that digital, with a quality DSLR, utterly kills 35mm colour film, especially for available-light shooting (I do lots of boxing, gigs, clubs, etc.). Yes, films give you particular looks, but most colour films can be simulated to a greater or lesser degree of success digitally, including grain if you like. Short of drum scanning Astia or something similar, you're going to get far more information from a digital capture than from a piece of 35mm colour film, and it can be manipulated and enhanced much more easily. I've not been able to precisely simulate the feel of my favourite BW films & prints digitally, though, especially during the printing part of things (black & white on colour paper = aaargh!; I suppose if I had a dedicated monochrome high-end printer, I might feel a bit less repulsed). Plus I really do enjoy the process of developing and printing my own black & white work. So if I'm out prowling with the Leica, there's a 90% chance I'm shooting HP5+ or Delta 3200. If I want to produce colour work, I'm going to haul out my DSLR...or my medium-format gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted October 14, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 14, 2009 When I am indoors, which is often, I shoot B&W. Maybe, it was what I was taught about lighting. But, with mixed lighting...incandescent/flourerscent/sunlight...B&W just works better for me. Outdoors color works for me. The 135mm tele-elmarit has incredibly beautiful color rendition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
underground Posted October 14, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 14, 2009 I really wonder about it cos I have seen many B&W photos from Leica users, then it makes me have a question in my mind "Is Leica good only for B&W photography?" Im a newbie so sorry if this question is too stupid. This thread has been pretty well torn up, but for me B/W photography if fun no matter what camera I'm using because it is a way of seeing things differently than color to produce a Fine Photograph or print. I have never thought that one camera is better than another for B/W photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 15, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 15, 2009 I kinda stopped reading at the "Leica-ERS" part. What is this thread about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted October 15, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 15, 2009 Color is just one of many variables in a photograph (content, design, etc are major parts). If it does not add to the image, we don't use it. Maybe Leica owners, if they truly shoot more B&W than color (not sure where you get that) understand the use and mis-use of color more than others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted October 15, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 15, 2009 For me B&W is like a special effect. I like it sometimes but I prefer colour, because the reality is in colour . . . Etienne Michiels Exactly. HCB, Capa, etc probably would have used color film if it was available when they started. Their only option at the time was B&W film. By the time color was used seriously, B&W was already an established medium with a history, so it was hard for some to change. Plus, early color was associated with amatuers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 16, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 16, 2009 You might want to read what HCB actually said on the matter. Colour film was indeed available for most of his career and Capa's for that matter, but they chose B&W for a reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted October 16, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 16, 2009 You might want to read what HCB actually said on the matter. Colour film was indeed available for most of his career and Capa's for that matter, but they chose B&W for a reason. Ok, I stand corrected... it was just a guess... what was the reason>? 1861: The first known permanent color photograph is taken by James Clerk Maxwell 1877: Louis Ducos du Hauron experiments with subtractive color (see below) 1891: Lippmann process 1896: Joly color screen process 1907 (patented 1904): Autochrome 1908: Dufaycolor (color transparencies) 1908: Finlay Colour process (additive process using an RGB filter) 1909–1915: Prokudin-Gorskii's color documentary photography in Russia 1912: Paget process 1920 (patented 1905): Tri-Color carbon prints (by Louis Ducos du Hauron since 1862 and Charles Cros since 1867), it lasts to 1960 by Autotype 1935: Kodachrome (16mm motion picture film) 1936: Kodachrome (35mm still film) 1936: Agfacolor (transparency film) 1940: Ektachrome (slide film) 1942: Kodacolor (color negative process for still photography and later motion pictures) 1946: Dye transfer prints (imbibition process) 1960s: Cibachrome, now officially known as Ilfochrome. 1965: Polacolor by Polaroid (dye diffusion transfer process)[ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted October 16, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 16, 2009 I just bought my first Lecia (M3 and a 35 1.4 summilux) after 25 years of shooting. I got 2 D3 and 5D2 and plenty of Nikkor AIS glass from 8mm-800mm. Why do I shoot nothing but B+W with my lecia? For me starting with B+W film is the first step of analog image chain. Im loving souping my own negs again and having contact sheets and yes even making prints. I tested my Camera with several film and even ran a couple rolls of chrome. And they look fine. But the testing is over. Im picking up 4 cases cases of B+W film one 25 ISO 100 ISO 400 ISO and some T-max 3200 if they still make it. Being able to see in B+W pre-visualization wise is part of the fun. Mixing chemical, rolling the film on the reels. Hanging the negs in my bathroom. I cant wait to show my kids the whole process from start to finish. As far as the quality of the negs of the lecia M3 compared to the new digital camera, Im not complaining one bit.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digigrss Posted October 17, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 17, 2009 Coz, Leica Lens are really good at doing B&W. To me, I found it is just easier to make wonderful B&W with Leica lens than my other system so I more often do B&W with Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 17, 2009 Share #40 Posted October 17, 2009 Coz, Leica Lens are really good at doing B&W. To me, I found it is just easier to make wonderful B&W with Leica lens than my other system so I more often do B&W with Leica. This is just unreal. There is no logic behind this at all. How can the lenses be better at B&W then for example, Nikkor lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.