Jump to content

In praise of Leica and Hasselblad


asimrazakhan

Recommended Posts

<p><em>Sorry but there is simply no way that we invest as much thought on taking a photograph with a dslr, as we do making decisions about focus, aperture and shutter speed with a manual camera.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Here we go again.</p>

<p>Many users of digital equipment employ ALL of these decision and 'invest much thought' This claim above is patently false. Many people pursue this 'thoughtful' type orf photography but merely wish to have the results be in a digital format for whatever reasons. If someone prefers to use certain equipment more power to them but there is no need to inaccurately slam other people's choices. If anyone wonders why <strong>some</strong> Lieca or enthusiasts of other similar tools are thought of as elitist or snobs, the statement above is the poster child for that view. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Everybody takes pictures for their own reasons I guess, but for me the end result is the ONLY thing that maters. I will patiently study every gizmo that comes my way to explore how it will allow me to express myself differently. Its like learning to play a musical instrument. You learn the theory, then you practice performing the task until you don't have to think about it anymore. Every camera is like that. I like equipment that gets out of my way and lets me respond to my subject. I use manual functions when they give me the best results and I use DSLR's with auto functions when they are up to the task at hand. I still use my Hasselblad sometimes and I still draw with charcoal on paper sometimes. I have seen some nice post cards, but my end results are more precious to me bay far. There is significant content in some images that has nothing to do with the precision of the machine. It has to do with the emotional depth of the photographer.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><br />Asim Raza Khan , Jan 24, 2009; 11:37 a.m. <br />[snip] <br />> This brings me to the thought that photography in its raw <br />> form is best enjoyed with a manual camera. Using an auto <br />> camera (and especially a digital camera), one tends to start <br />> firing away like a machine gun with little thought put into <br />> the process as well as the end result. Consequently, this <br />> machine gun approach takes away from the joy of using the <br />> camera and the 'struggle' and challenge in taking the <br />> photograph. <br /><br />I think you've over-emphasizing the process and ignoring the end result. What's wrong with taking multiple shots? I've seen plenty of top-calibre professional photographers take lots of shots while working a scene. Do painters try to limit their use of paint to avoid wasting strokes? You may enjoy the process as an exercise but suggesting that it is the best way to enjoy photography doesn't make any sense to me. <br /><br />> This 'struggle' is a must in order to enjoy the hobby and <br />> art of photography. If cameras could do everything for the <br />> photographer and guarantee a perfect shot everytime while <br />> also making your breakfast and cleaning your house then we <br />> wouldn't really have to take photos at all. A couple of <br />> analogies; Why do people climb Everest? I'd say it's because <br />> individuals needs a struggle in order to acquire a sense of <br />> achievement. <br /><br />You're basically drawing a line across technological progress and anyone above that line is not struggling enough to reach a sense of achivement. But that line is arbitrarily chosen by you. Instead of spending $1500 on a new system, why not build your own pinhole camera? Why not make your own light-sensitive emulsion? How can you feel any sense of achievement when you've had to spend $1500 in camera gear? <br /><br />> Why do people with endless amounts of money remain <br />> unsatisfied? I'd say its because they have no 'struggles' in <br />> their lives. And I actually dare to add on this photo <br />> website in a digital era that the reason we often find <br />> people turned off from digital photography is that their is <br />> a lack of 'struggle' in taking photos, and photography <br />> begins to feel bland and no longer challenging. <br /><br />It goes back to your earlier assertion about the end result not being the only consideration. Perhaps, but if it were the major consideration, I'd be surprised if merely switching to the digital process resutled in photographers' images suddenly achieving their goals. Perhaps these photographers need to raise their expectations a little higher? <br /><br />Thinking that switching to older technology is a solution makes you just as gear-focused as thinking that switching to newer technology is a solution. Machine-gun shooting won't make you a better photographer, but neither will single-frame shooting, either. A tool is a tool. It's up to you how to use it. You might try to limit your tool set but you're missing the point if you think it is your tools that are the problem. <br /><br />larsbc</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John wrote: <em>"Everybody takes pictures for their own reasons I guess, but for me the end result is the ONLY thing that matters. . . . It's like learning to play a musical instrument."</em></p>

<p>But isn't the act of <em>playing </em> of the instrument as meaningful as the final result? If all that mattered in making music were the "end result" [the perfect performance, I assume], one could presumably focus only on being able to sample/reproduce the sound from great musicians and then play the "end result" back over a great recording system. But where's the enjoyment in that? (Unless you're a recording-room guy, I mean.) Instead, millions of "non-great" musicians play instruments <em>because they like to play</em> , not because they expect to produce great music when they play.</p>

<p>It seems to me there's a corollary there with enjoying the <em>taking </em> of the photo - including (gasp!) enjoying the camera being used - as opposed to, say, assembling ingredients of others' great photos in Photoshop to create one's own great photos. As Larry says just above this post, it's an arbitrary line, but each photographer does have a line, and different photographers have different levels of interest in various stages of the process (whether for them it's manually focusing and setting the aperture/shutter, doing darkroom work, post-processing on a computer, or shooting and turning the results over to someone else for pp). Very few photographers really live out the statement that "all they care about is the quality of the final photo": most want to at least frame the scene and push the shutter rather than take someone else's photo and riff on that on their computer.<br /> <br /> As is often said, "The journey can be as enjoyable as the destination." For many, many photographers, enjoyment of <em>the using of the tools</em> - and not merely the resulting image from the tools used - is a big part of the joy of photography. As you say, to each their own; I'm just pointing out that "the final image" isn't all that matters to an awful lot of photographers, including millions who choose not to shoot Leica or Hasselblad.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"But that line is arbitrarily chosen by you"</p>

<p>Even if Asim is being arbitrary, he has stated his preference as to what he enjoys and that is well and good. I will even suggest that he save even more to follow his preference in an even more enhanced way. We engage in photography because we love doing it. We do it the way we like and it doesn't matter if it is arbitrary or not. When some put down others, needlessly, for their preferences despite their talents and dedication then it is about posturing and not related to enjoyment of photography. If Asim considers the other ideas then thats fine but, I am very happy to see him pursue what he wants and his way is as potentially good as any other.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't see why there are people who are just anti-manual photography types.</p>

<p>Asim has explained his reasons for preferring a manual camera. It's the difficulty and skill of using one that makes his photography enjoyable.</p>

<p>Is that so difficult to understand?</p>

<p>To use another analogy, runners train very hard to win the Boston Marathon. And when they win, they are happy to win because they know it was the product of their own hard work.</p>

<p>If I gave the winner a Sedgeway and an invisibility cloak so that he wouldn't be disqualified, and he won the marathon because of the Sedgeway and he didn't have to break a sweat, do you think he would feel a sense of triumph?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I see I have accidentally touched a nerve in John H. Sorry John!<br>

I actually shoot more digital that manual film now. I have kept up with technology and I do respect the art of photography as shown to me by my grandfather, and its regardless of the method. My point which has been submerged by some personal sensitivities, is that taking an image by firing off a dozen shots at 6fps, then spending 3 hours in photoshop to make the chosen image gorgeous, is not artful composition in my opinion, its artful electronic graphic design.<br>

I don't set out to push a position, I just express my opinion.<br>

I have a friend who shoots sports with an old Rollei TLR. That he gets any sports images is amazing, but he does. His successful shots come from placing himself in the right place and making quick and correct judgements about exposure using his eye and brain. He gets funny looks when he rushes onto the rugby field to bring his 80mm lens into the movement. He then rushes back to not get bowled over...but you know he got the shot because of the big grin. What pleasure he gets from the final print too.<br>

I am also interested to see the push in the fashion industry to consider watermarking images that have been digitally enhanced or airbrushed. You can hear the screams right now! I am also interested to see that some agencies are now beginning to ask for photographers to supply images in RAW. A friend who works at one of our magazines remembers getting 2x2 or 4x5 colour slides from photographers. I typical fashion show would result in maybe 50 images to consider. Now he has to go though hundreds to make his selection.<br>

RAW only will catch on when more bandwidth in the internet becomes available. We will get back to composition and the right moment eventually. The advantage to me of digital is not the post processing in-camera and in computer, but the ability to take another shot straight away if the first one was bad. That's the convenience as far as I'm concerned. Its as equal an advantage in candid photography, as it is in fashion or studio. In these instances, what digital has done is replace the polaroid back on a Blad or Sinar, and the darkroom. The speed of print creation is almost the same....its just the technology that has changed.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>I don't see why there are people who are just anti-manual photography types... ...</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

No one here has expressed such views.</p>

<p><em>Asim has explained his reasons for preferring a manual camera. It's the difficulty and skill of using one that makes his photography enjoyable. Is that so difficult to understand?</em></p>

<p>No one here has shown that they have any difficulty understanding that.</p>

<p>Stephan... Thank you for your follow up.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I really wish, sometimes, that I had a close friend, confidant, mentor, or what have you, who was a top commercial or maybe wedding pro, and who was good at what he (or she) did and made a good living at it. I'd like a person like that to comment on a post like this and give some honest opinions on the type of camera or format that he (or she) thought was the "best". I'd bet dollars to donuts it's a fully automated digital system of some sort and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if their photos, in all cases, were outstanding and something any of us would be proud of!</p>

<p>I do not have to earn dollar one from my photography. I got a good day job. I am a Leica M6 and Hasselblad V series user; lots of other film equipment prior to that, never a serious digital user, and I would do absolutely nothing differently than the way I do it now. I shoot B&W film only and do all my own processing. It's easy as he** and I'll trade it every day for sitting in front of a computer all night long doing digital postprocessing. I love shooting all manual cameras, using only the most basic of film and processes. I do feel that keeping the equipment and the "craft" part of photography as simple as possible, and limited to the essentials truly results in better photographs...for me.</p>

<p>I don't knock anyone who prefers the digital, or automated way of making pictures. If that's what works for them, more power to ya! I'm sure that for any high volume commercial or wedding pro, who has tons of "workflow" considerations, it's a no-brainer. But I don't make my living with my photographs. I used to think that you had to be a "pro" to be a serious photographer. What is a 'serious' photographer anyway? I am an amatuer all that way - I love what I do, I love the freedom I have to use the cameras and processes that make me the happiest, without the worry of what my client might think of it, and I love the fact that I can feel free to derive every last DROP of pleasure from releasing the shutter on my Leica, or my Hasselblad and I can think about my art (whatever "art" is to me) without being concerned about anything, or anyone, else.</p>

<p>If you're lucky enough to be an amateur shooter who doesn't rely on making every image count to pay the rent, and you have the latest D700 or 5Dmk2 with all the bells and whistles and it makes you happy and lets you make the pictures that fulfill and satisfy you, good on you and best to you! If you're a "purist" and you want to make pictures the way the greats did it, with the most basic, most manual equipment out there, good on you and best to you! To me, that's the reason to invest in Leica M, or Hasselblad V.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This thread has me thinking...maybe we should start a new thread and call it something like "Film vs Digital", so that once and for all we can determine which format is best. Folks can weigh in with their opinions, pro or con, for each style, and as a group we can finally decide which is superior. Who's with me?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wai-Leong Lee wrote: <br /><br />> I don't see why there are people who are just anti-manual photography types. <br /><br />Has anyone in this thread adopted that position? <br /><br />> Asim has explained his reasons for preferring a manual camera. It's the difficulty and <br />> skill of using one that makes his photography enjoyable. <br />> <br />> Is that so difficult to understand? <br /><br />Not at all. I only responded because, imo, he was also suggesting that this gear struggle was a necessity for other photographers to enjoy their hobby, too. <br /><br />> To use another analogy, runners train very hard to win the Boston Marathon. And when <br />> they win, they are happy to win because they know it was the product of their own hard work. <br /><br />So should they train and compete wearing flip-flop sandals to enhance their struggle? <br /><br />> If I gave the winner a Sedgeway and an invisibility cloak so that he wouldn't be <br />> disqualified, and he won the marathon because of the Sedgeway and he didn't have to <br />> break a sweat, do you think he would feel a sense of triumph? <br /><br />No. But are you suggesting that buying high end camera gear is all that is required to reach one's photographic goals? That the equipment itself dictates the end result? <br /><br /><br />Peter A wrote: <br />> Why dont peeps post pics to back up their opines - pics are more interesting thanall <br />> dis word@Ge. <br /><br />How would a photo backup someone's assertion that they enjoy the struggle of using a manual camera? You don't see the process in the result. <br /><br />larsbc</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After reading (almost) all of the above, Ansel Adams came to mind:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only "struggle" IMHO should be the struggle with your artist's vision to create the image you envision - with whatever camera you desire - and independent of the medium.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... one tends to start firing away like a machine gun with little thought put into the process as well as the end result</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not true, arrogant and insulting.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here we go again.<br>

Many users of digital equipment employ ALL of these decision and 'invest much thought' This claim above is patently false. Many people pursue this 'thoughtful' type orf photography but merely wish to have the results be in a digital format for whatever reasons. If someone prefers to use certain equipment more power to them but there is no need to inaccurately slam other people's choices. If anyone wonders why <strong>some</strong> Lieca or enthusiasts of other similar tools are thought of as elitist or snobs, the statement above is the poster child for that view.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you John, couldn't have put it better myself.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All I know is that when I use my Leica, I am a craftsman, an artist. Composing, framing, my struggle is like that of a Van Gogh, a Da Vinci, to produce the finest work possible, like that of a true artisan. For I agree that this struggle itself is the beauty that the creative process seeks to discover. Only with a Leica can this beauty unfold itself.<br>

One could say that using manual, mechanical camera with the fine Leica lenses is actually exisiting on a higher plane than all other mortals. That ever so brief period when I am focusing, composing with my tool (though my Leica is so much more than that), I feel like I am closer to God (whatever one's conception of God may be). </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>People experience <em>psychic entropy</em> in varying degrees and in different ways. This gets in the way of having a <em>flow</em> experience. (Ref: <em>Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi</em>.)</p>

<p>When you are in the "zone," it is a priceless feeling. For some people, the device/machine/tool that is being used, whatever the purpose, provides some heightened sense of enjoyment, even though the device might not add to the quality of the final product. What's going on in the mind of the user is important to the user, even though others might dismiss it as inconsequential.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"All I know is that when I use my Leica, I am a craftsman, an artist. Composing, framing, my struggle is like that of a Van Gogh, a Da Vinci, to produce the finest work possible, like that of a true artisan. For I agree that this struggle itself is the beauty that the creative process seeks to discover. Only with a Leica can this beauty unfold itself. One could say that using manual, mechanical camera with the fine Leica lenses is actually exisiting on a higher plane than all other mortals."</p>

<p>Jim, Leica is not your brand. it is your religion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Asim<br>

Try the Hassy and then sell it to get the Leica, that would be my advice. Enjoy the smooth mechanics of the Hassy and the film jam and the shutter thunder; enjoy the agony of film change, necessitated by the long, winding film path because the lines of the camera must be kept beautiful, and the frustration of back change, savour the disaster of forgetting to cock the shutter before lens change, the missed shots because you forgot to pull out the film guard, enjoy the struggle of the inverted image, the dark viewfinder showing you staring at your own bewildered face because you forgot to cock the shutter. Enjoy all that, sell it and then buy Leica.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nee,<br>

Sounds like a different experience than I have ever had with Hassy's. Too bad for you. For me they have worked flawlessly, and luckily I remember things like removing the dark slide. So Asim, don't take this last set of comments to heart. Leicas AND Hasselblads are or can be a joy to shoot. Maybe the Karma of the photographer comes into play, however.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As a user of Leica M6's, a Rolleiflex 2.8F, a Pentax LX and MX and now a Canon 5DII, I would say each has its benefits. Yes, the Leicas are beautiful, quiet, and an ergonomic wonder, equipped with the best of lenses, but no 35mm film camera, no matter how good its lenses, is going to compare in IQ to either the Rolleiflex or the ff Canon digital.<br>

I recently trekked again in Nepal and took an M6+35 & 90 plus the LX+50 & 21, both incredibly high quality mechanical cameras with decent lenses, and when the LX has the S69 screen, both have equally bright, clear viewfinders. I shot Tri-x, since I'm interested in reportage, not landscape, and now having scanned the images, I would have a hard time attributing particular images to a particular camera, other than by recognising the focal length. Perhaps the only exception to this is knowing that the razor sharp wide angle, wide open at f1.4 can only be the summilux asph. Yes, Leica lenses are generally better than Pentaxes, but it is only really significant wide-open, and even then the 50/1.4 Pentax is no slouch wide open, and beautiful at f4.<br>

What I did appreciate though, was the wearing the LX + 50/1.4 round my neck in heavy rain and not worrying about it, since it is such a well sealed-camera. Leicas can take some rain, but they are not sealed like an LX.<br>

Anoither benefit of the LX is the auto interface if you want it. With the MZ-s and an LX plus the limited lenses, you already have enviably beautiful equipment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"no 35mm film camera, no matter how good its lenses, is going to compare in IQ to either the Rolleiflex or the ff Canon digital."</p>

<p>Robert, that is a pretty sweeping claim, considering all the different types of 35mm camera--SLRs, rangefinders, etc.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 5D and 1DsII in digital. I would not say that they excel over film cameras in terms of image quality, although I enjoy their convenience and speed of processing.</p>

<p>What do I do not have, however, is the Canon 5D II. Are you saying that it is that much different in quality from, say, the 1Ds II?</p>

<p>At least you are not claiming that it is better than MF film. I consider that a preposterous statement, and I do hear it from time to time on various threads.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=507000">Vic .</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Jan 27, 2009; 08:49 p.m.</p>

 

<p>People experience <em>psychic entropy</em> in varying degrees and in different ways. This gets in the way of having a <em>flow</em> experience. (Ref: <em>Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi</em> .)When you are in the "zone," it is a priceless feeling. For some people, the device/machine/tool that is being used, whatever the purpose, provides some heightened sense of enjoyment, even though the device might not add to the quality of the final product. What's going on in the mind of the user is important to the user, even though others might dismiss it as inconsequential.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Pithy and to the point. I would add only that people should care less about trying to explain their preferences and beliefs about such stuff ( it doesnt work) and take care not to mislead others with their prejudice and beliefs - thats naughty.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...