FYI: A Leica photographer

Here's a link to some nice photos by a Leica photographer.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=524555

Those are some wonderful photos, but how do you know he used a Leica, there's nothing in text that says so. Do you know him personally, or did you just mean that his photography is in the Leica style, whatever that means.

GREAT STUFF! 180 degrees from what I've relegated my Leicas to. Time for a personal reassessment.

 

Thank you for sharing. Who is this guy?

 

As to how to tell if they were taken with a Leica - each photo indicates the camera and model used.

Hmmm. I clicked on "details" but it doesn't say anything about the equipment. Maybe I'd have to click on the thumbnail and enlarge it? That doesn't work well on my dial-up connection. I'll try it when I can use someone's high-speed DSL.

Great stuff! Wonderful shots. I see them with dial-up. Camera details

given M Leicas and Hasselbld SWC. Best combination in the world!

 

Jerry

Richie,

 

Thank you. They are smokin'. Wish I could do stuff like that with my Leicas.

Leica M4 (black paint) listed on the details of some of the shots.

 

Nice gallery.

Looks pretty cheesy to me.

I can't believe what passes for "nice photos" around here.

Is he a first year photography student?

<i>

I can't believe what passes for "nice photos" around here</i><p>

 

A good friend of mine runs a premium winery. I used to help him at wine events, pouring wine at his table. I asked him what I should say when I was asked by other wineries to try theirs and didn't think the wine was very good.<p>

 

He said "Tell them it's nice."

Douglas,

 

That last shot in your gallery was a nice self portrait.

It's not like the guy posted the link himself looking for validation, so I'd think the common decency would dictate if you're going to pan the guy's work at least offer some specific criticism. Then again on this forum common decency seems to be an alien concept.

The internet is just oodling with people who are so full of themselves that they have to give contemptuous comments on other people's views and work.

I didn't see anything that could be called "contemptuous." However, if the goal is to have everything be praised, there are forums for that.

"I can't believe what passes for "nice photos" around here."

 

"Is he a first year photography student?"

 

I think the photos are nice, even if they do not contain inflatible appendages.

 

And he must be at least a second year student, because he has learned it is more productive to actually post images in his gallery than to make snide comments.

Those are not "contemptuous" comments. They may be blunt, but not contemptuous. Try photocritique.net. For the last couple years, it's mostly been feel-good comments.

The point is not what adjective is used to categeorize those comments. Jeff I have to say I'm suprised that you would defend (if that's what you're doing) anyone claiming to be a photographer and opining on a photography forum, who is unable and/or unwilling to back up a blanket condemnation of someone's work with specifics.

How many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

 

50.

 

One to screw in the light bulb and 49 to say "I could have done that!"

Alright, Ben, here are some specifics: the photos are nicely exposed and properly focussed, which probably impresses some folks are here but not me. Good exposure and focus are necessary but not sufficient conditions for good photography. The compositions are very conventional, looking as though they were done according to that old "rule of thirds," which is to say, looking like most other peoples' photos. The subjects are attractive -- e.g., the landscapes, the woman -- but quite common or typical. In short, these are technically competent photos but there is nothing <i>of interest</i>, at least to me. If I am going to hang a photo on my wall, for instance, it will have appropriate exposure and focus and all of that, and there will be something about the photo that makes me think "Man, that's interesting, I've not seen something like <i>that</i> before...And there is nothing in this group of photos that elicits that reaction.