Typical Leica photos, typical Leica look

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by jeremy_tok, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Jim Laurel at the even more flame-prone Leica Users Group has posted a portfolio of Chinese pictures worth a look. He describes the trip and the equipment here.
    (Volker Hett's link generation tool is very useful.)
    [​IMG]
     
  2. OOOOOH! I want a toke!

    Nice photo, cool pipe.
     
  3. Click on the toke!
     
  4. Thanks Jeremy - nice link & photographs & yes - like Al - I want a toke as well.

    Al - maybe the guy is wearing an Al Kaplan t-shirt under the ... ?
     
  5. Nah...his shirt probably says
    Marlboro
    Come to where the flavour is
    Say, what lens did you think made that pic? I think I can recognize that lens' fingerprint from a mile away...
     
  6. Great! thanks for the link. The photo was propably taken with the Noctilux.
     
  7. I don't know what "typical leica photos, typical leica look" means.
    Technically they are a whole bunch than what usually gets posted here. But it's good digital post processing that drives that more than anything. They could just have easily returned a similar look shot from a nikon.
    In the end, they're nice travel pix of what most westerners would consider to be exotic looking people. I suspect Al sucking on one of his cigs would look similarly "exotic" to a Hmong villager on vacation shooting in Florida.
     
  8. Looks like a Noctilux photo to me as well. Lenses aside I think the photos themselves are pretty darn good. But outside of the swirly OOF area in the photo here I can't say I see anything particularly "Leica" about them. Now "rangefinder"...perhaps yes.

    -Dave-
     
  9. r s

    r s

    Great. Thanks for the link.
     
  10. >Brad - , jun 19, 2005; 09:51 p.m.

    >I don't know what "typical leica photos, typical leica look" means.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
     
  11. Eat your heart out Brad! We're shipping another 5 gross of the T-shirts to the Hmong villagers this week. And I don't "suck" on my home-rolls, I toke on them. They refuse to purchase T-shirts from suckers.
     
  12. Very interesting to compare and contrast his color and B&W portraits. The effects are quite different and each has its own allure. Color feels like here and now or rather there and now, kind of an I-am-there-actually-viewing-this. B&W feels somehow timeless and placeless, actual but in a parallel reality way.

    Has anyone read or written about the psycological differences between color and B&W perceptions in the brain? If so, it'd make an interesting
    posting. (No, I wasn't toking before writing this.)
     
  13. Please pass the maple syrup.
     
  14. <I don't know what "typical leica photos, typical leica look" means.>

    I think "the look" is a sharp, precisely focused image taken in difficult lighting with a lens that is neither extremely wide nor extremely long. Many of us don't find that look hard to recognize. Sure, some Leica pictures could be taken with other equipment, but focusing a wide-to-normal lens in difficult lighting is the special province of the Leica rangefinders. But, c'mon Brad, you knew that.

    <Technically they are a whole bunch than what usually gets posted here. But it's good digital post processing that drives that more than anything.>

    Perhaps...but how could you make that assertion with such certainty unless you've seen the non-digital original?
     
  15. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    looks like a Noctilux to me. some hate it some love it...
     
  16. but focusing a wide-to-normal lens in difficult lighting is the special province of the Leica rangefinders. But, c'mon Brad, you knew that.
    My sony digicam can auto-focus in the dark if need be - no special province attributions required.
    Perhaps...but how could you make that assertion with such certainty unless you've seen the non-digital original?
    Because I know, through experience, that sweating the details in post will drive the overall look, probably more than any other factor, with the exception of the quality of light during exposure. This is confirmed by those posting photos here with little or no photoshop skill showing pix with color casts, poor contrast, no real blacks or whites, etc. It is similarly confirmed by seeing work of photogs that I know who sweat the details in postprocessing consistently deliver good pix. There is a positive correlation.
    Also, the guy briefly mentions his digital processing - ending up with a quadtone image in the end.
     
  17. <Please pass the maple syrup.>


    Ah yup, but only in Vermont.
     
  18. <Because I know, through experience, that sweating the details in post will drive the overall look, probably more than any other factor, with the exception of the quality of light during exposure.>

    Your experience is different from mine.

    In years of darkroom printing, I found that the biggest factors were the technical and compositional quality of the negative in the first place. With a great deal of work, it is possible to rescue a defective negative of an important subject, but life is too short to do this on a regular basis.

    My experience at digital printing is very limited, but I have found that, as in the wet darkroom, scans of great negatives seem to fall effortlessly on the paper, while scans of problem negatives yield inferior prints. Someday I hope to have the digital darkroom skills to rescue these negatives in post-processing...but photography is my hobby and I'd rather be out shooting than sitting in front of a computer screen.

    I guess our experiences and approaches are just different, and I'm not saying you're wrong. At least not about this, anyway. About your Sony digicam producing Leica-like images, well, that's another story. It may be able to focus in absolute darkness, but not with the Noctilux's limited depth of field. Nor, I imagine, can it shoot with a shutter delay on the order of 10 milliseconds.

    I admire good digital work and I recognize that my own prints would turn out better if my digital darkroom skills weren't pathetic. But, scrolling through the images posted in the Photo.net Critique Forum, I find it pretty easy to pick out the occasional Leica image. When a talented photographer, which you clearly are, with a refined aesthetic sense, which you apparently have, claims he cannot see a distinctive Leica look, I have to be a little skeptical and wonder whether he has an axe to grind.
     
  19. Just to clarify one point before the naysayers jump on it: I can identify the Leica images in the Critique Forum not because of their technical quality, which isn't discernible at screen resolution, but because of a distinctive "Leica aesthetic," so to speak, which Leica equipment fosters in its users.
     
  20. From reading your above post you brought in the notion of "rescuing" failed exposures.
    Why? Was that the subject? Digital printing is not about that, though, as with darkroom
    printing, it can certainly be done to some limited extent.

    Digital printing is no different than analog printing in that a proper exposure with great
    light makes life easy - I never said otherwise, though you seem to suggest I did. Why?

    Also, I never claimed my "Sony digicam producing Leica-like images." Why do you suggest
    I did?

    Also, you posed the notion of focusing in low light - which I responded to directly and
    succinctly. You, then in your last post, said yeah, but what about limited depth of field,
    and shutter delay. I've made no claims about that. Why do you bring that up? The claim
    was about low light focusing.

    As far as having an axe to grind, certainly not. I admire people who can consistently
    deliver great pix no matter what the camera or capture method is. Though from my
    questions I posed above, I do wonder about your axe.

    I still do not know what this leica aesthetic is. I haven't seen one here, or in any of the
    photography journals/books I've read. I haven't looked at a NG in a long time, but can you
    pick the camera used in their pix for each issue?
     
  21. This photo, as many of the others posted by Mr. laurel, have an almost 3D effect, which IMO is what is frequently referred to as the "Leica look". The Noctilux? Probably, though other Leica lenses often exhibit the same effect when their sweet spot is found. If Sony is getting anything close to this, it is because of the Zeiss designed lenses.
     
  22. Brad, I'm not sure we're communicating on the same wavelength, but I'll make a good-faith attempt to answer the questions you raised.

    <From reading your above post you brought in the notion of "rescuing" failed exposures. Why?...>

    I brought in the nation of rescuing failed exposures because that is the only reason would I bother spending any significant amount of time staring at a computer screen. I'm trying to master digital darkroom techniques to make life easier and printing faster. If I have to sweat the details in post-processing just to make straight prints from good negatives, I may go back to wet printing.

    <Digital printing is no different than analog printing in that a proper exposure with great light makes life easy - I never said otherwise, though you seem to suggest I did. Why?>

    I believe you said that good post-processing was the main factor, other than good light, in getting a good final result. Taking these words at face value, I got the impression you thought post-processing was more important than getting the exposure right in the first place. Thus, I did in fact think you "said otherwise."

    <Also, I never claimed my "Sony digicam producing Leica-like images." Why do you suggest I did? Also, you posed the notion of focusing in low light - which I responded to directly and succinctly. You, then in your last post, said yeah, but what about limited depth of field, and shutter delay. I've made no claims about that. Why do you bring that up? The claim was about low light focusing.>

    The premise of this thread is that there is something distinctive about Leica images. Your remark about your Sony digicam is relevant only in that context. It's ability to focus in low light is altogether irrelevant to this discussion, unless it can focus in low light AND yield a Leica-like image. I brought up depth of field and shutter delay because these are the factors that might make the Sony's results un-Leica-like.

    <As far as having an axe to grind, certainly not. I admire people who can consistently deliver great pix no matter what the camera or capture method is. Though from my questions I posed above, I do wonder about your axe.>

    My axe is this: I come to the Leica Forum to enjoy discussing "Leica photography," and I can't for the life of me understand why someone would spend his time coming to this forum to dispute the notion that there even is such thing in a distinctive sense.

    <I still do not know what this leica aesthetic is. I haven't seen one here, or in any of the photography journals/books I've read. I haven't looked at a NG in a long time, but can you pick the camera used in their pix for each issue?>

    I wouldn't bother trying. In recent years the dominant aesthetic in NG has changed. In my opinion, too many (though not all) NG photos are taken close-up with wide-angle lenses. When printed in a magazine of NG's physical dimensions, the result looks very unnatural to me, i.e., not like what the scene might have looked like if I had been there to see it myself. Though others may differ with me on this point, this is not the Leica look that I find pleasing elsewhere.

    I hope I've answered your questions. With that in mind, let me pose a new one: Do you acknowledge the possibility that those of us who claim to see a "Leica look" might actually be seeing something you're missing...or do you think we're all deluding ourselves?
     
  23. My axe is this: I come to the Leica Forum to enjoy discussing "Leica photography,"
    I can see why. All the great photographs in the world are identified first and foremost by the look the lens produced, not the photographer or the subject or anything else. Same goes for any other art form. It's what kind of paints Picasso used that are the issue, right?
    So where is your Leica-like Leica Look Leica photography, Jonathan? Or where is any photography from you we can check out? Or are you like so many other lost souls here, stuck in the vortex of a vacuum of equipment fetishism?
     
  24. Come on, trying to convert those who are themselves here to convert must certainly be the most unrewarding work there is.
     
  25. Let's just call this the Nerd forum. ;)
     
  26. Could it all be a pipe dream ?
     
  27. <Or are you like so many other lost souls here, stuck in the vortex of a vacuum of equipment fetishism?>

    Ray: Brad and I were having an interesting exchange without insulting each other or anyone else. Why not try to contribute in the same spirit?

    As for my own photographs, I have no compelling desire to publish them on the web. Photography is just a hobby for me; like most amateurs, I make prints for the personal enjoyment of family and friends. As I said, I come here for discussion -- not to seek a pat on the back for my snapshots.

    Since the point of the discussion is whether there is such a thing as a "Leica look," and not my personal ability, or inability, to achieve it, I'm not sure how my personal work would be relevant anyway.

    Now, if you had asked me to point to particular examples of the "Leica look" that are already available on the web, famous examples perhaps, that would have been a fair and relevant question...but I can see which way this thread is headed, and so maybe I'll just take Jeremy's wise advice.
     
  28. among the hmong
    00CcBl-24245284.jpg
     
  29. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    a wide open Noctilux shot is kinda distinctive. as distinctive as a lens-baby shot. that's the only look i can pin point. otherwise...well, who cares?
     
  30. Cool photos. Thanks for the link.
     
  31. I come to the Leica Forum to enjoy discussing "Leica photography," and I can't for the life of me understand why someone would spend his time coming to this forum to dispute the notion...
    Because in my world, rather than go along with the flow, I ask lots of questions about assertions that don't make sense - whether it's WMDs or images that "have the typical leica look." Fortunately, asking questions is still OK, though you are certainly free to take everything at face value.
    In the end, though, we live in different worlds - I enjoy discussing photography more than almost anything else. You, apparently, enjoy talking about "leica photography." Nothing wrong with that if that makes you happy. But please leave room for others who might question some of the assertions that usually go along with that.
     
  32. Jonathan:

    I too sometimes find it hard to imagine that photographers who purportedly possess an exceptional eye cannot see identifiable differences (some subtle, some more pronounced) in images taken with different lenses. Moreover, when so many great images have been taken over the years with 50mm and 35mm Leica lenses, it is easy to discern a certain aesthetic that has been identified with Leicas.

    I agree with your comments and commend your patience and restraint...
     
  33. Stuart K,

    Nice image. Looks like it was taken with a Nikon prime lens.
     
  34. Thanks Andy. You're correct about the lens - A 50/1.8 manual focus. Very good lens for 30
    quid.
     
  35. nhgththebokehleavessomethingtobedesiredmhjtzr
     
  36. The man with the pipe is a true Leica pic BUT I don't think this could have been taken with a digital camera as the BG would have been a lot sharper. You profs at digital photogrpahy can correct me but my Canon could never have taken this shot.
     
  37. "but focusing a wide-to-normal lens in difficult lighting is the special province of the Leica rangefinders. But, c'mon Brad, you knew that."

    Actually, my Hexar AF will do that -- and do it much more quickly and accurately than most people can accomplish with a Leica M. But no one around here will want to believe that.
     
  38. nhgththebokehleavessomethingtobedesiredmhjtzr
    ;-)
     
  39. What you call "typical Leica look" does NOT exist. What DOES exist is a certain 35mm photographying style, which is a mix of taking mostly B&W photo, using wide to standard lenses avoiding long focals, searching for interesting subjects (ethnography, street photo, humour...) and trying to tell a story while composing the pictures very well following the 2/3 & 1/3 lines crossing themselves on the "strong point" and using available light without any artificial light source. In other words, documentary photography based upon the model the early masters have imposed, with Henri Cartier-Bresson among all of them. You can take "Typical Leica photos" with any photographying tool, from the matchbox with a pinhole in it, to the 12MP $$$$ DSLR, passing by a Russian rangefinder camera, as far as you have "the vision". End of story. The photo you display here matches all the rules I mention above - so it's a very good photo. But if it had been taken with a Japanese auto-everything SLR, would have it been worse ???
    00CcR4-24249884.jpg
     
  40. <Actually, my Hexar AF will do that -- and do it much more quickly and accurately than most people can accomplish with a Leica M. But no one around here will want to believe that.>


    I and many other Hexar users believe it! Still, Stuart's pipe smoker
    portrait and others are very good regardless of equipment used.
     
  41. "What DOES exist is a certain 35mm photographying style, which is a mix of taking mostly B&W photo, using wide to standard lenses avoiding long focals, searching for interesting subjects (ethnography, street photo, humour...) and trying to tell a story while composing the pictures very well following the 2/3 & 1/3 lines crossing themselves on the "strong point" and using available light without any artificial light source."

    Yes... and over the years in which that 35mm black & white, available light, street style was developing, which 35mm camera, sporting a 35mm or 50mm lens, was being used most of the time?

    You are correct that shots like these can sometimes be taken with other cameras (although I would suggest that under certain conditions Leica lenses may give an identifiable look), but which camera is historically most closely associated with the style? If you want to call this style something else, then call it whatever you like. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that a Leica style does not exist. You described it...
     
  42. Right. Here is a small list, though, of photographers well known as "Leica style" ones, but who didn't preferably use a Leica but another brand... Willy Ronis (Foca) Robert Doisneau (Rolleiflex, Nikon) Chenz (Nikon) Jacques-Henri Lartigue (Pentax) Denis Brihat (Nikon) Jean-Claude Gautrand (Minolta) Jean-Yves Bregand (Rolleiflex) Bruno Barbey (Nikon) Robert Capa (Contax, Nikon) Georges Tourdjman (Nikon) Roland Michaud (Nikon) Frank Horvat (Nikon)... Such a list is nonsense, as such a debate is. Today that Leica is about to die, the brand would say that every good photo taken during the last seventy years was taken with a Leica. That's just false. Put a Leica in the hands of somebody unable to take a good picture - you won't get a good picture, even if the most beautiful situation under the most beautiful light suddenly rises. On the contrary an experimented photographer - or just a good photographer - will take advantage of a suddenly appeared interesting scene. I have a Leica myself, and love it - no false debate here ! But what would you say about the following picture at first sight ? Certainly not : "Wow, it was shot with a Nikon FM2 and a 2/35mm Nikkor". Although it actually was... No, you might say (at least do I hope so) : "what a good picture" ! :)=
    00CcSp-24250384.JPG
     
  43. Nicolas, I too basically agree with you.

    Leica-like photographs can be taken with almost any camera. However, since the Leica is historically associated with this style of photography, and the ergonomics of the Leica rangefinders are optimized for this type of photography, it seems fair to call it Leica-style photography.

    I can understand that some people might choose not to use the term. What I have trouble accepting is that some artistically sensitive people can deny that they see the style at all.
     
  44. Call it whatever pleases you because, as you say, such debate is "nonsense"...
     
  45. Nicolas, I think you, Dennis and I are in agreement...and I do think the photo you just posted really captures the style we're talking about. If it looks this good on the web, I can only imagine how it would appear as a silver gelatin print on fiber paper.
     
  46. It's a 30x40cm fiber print I just shot with my digicam in my kitchen to illustrate what I tried to say. Of course the fiber enlargement is better - the woodblocks are far less burned than here.

    Well we are all agree - and I don't deny that something that is CALLED the "Leica-Style" exists.

    And if someone suddenly gave me a new MP with a 35 'Cron, I wouldn't trade it for a DSLR !!!

    BTW a friend let me use his M2 with a 2/35 Canada 'Cron in 1989 - "a trial on sale". Didn't buy it - too expensive for my student's budget then. Now they're still too expensive for my salary... fortunately I got a beautiful RD-ST 1954 IIIf with a collapsible Summicron from a friend of my father in law ten years ago - for free. Then thanks to the auction site I grabbed two other lenses as well as a VIOOH finder for a bargain. That LTM is a delightful camera.
     
  47. Nicolas:

    What is it about the Leica that you like it so much? And why would you choose a 35mm Summicron over some other brand?
     
  48. The premise of this thread is that there is something distinctive about Leica images.
    ... and that you can spot 'em a mile away. But now it's not that but a historical style of photographing, that in fact, after you thought about it, doesn't even need to be done with a Leica..
    OK, if you say so.
     
  49. scrolling through the images posted in the Photo.net Critique Forum, I find it pretty easy to pick out the occasional Leica image.
    My axe is this: I come to the Leica Forum to enjoy discussing "Leica photography," and I can't for the life of me understand why someone would spend his time coming to this forum to dispute the notion that there even is such thing in a distinctive sense.
    Leica-like photographs can be taken with almost any camera...

    Boy, I sure am confused. Or, maybe, you just dug yourself a really big hole.
     
  50. Jonathon, you're all over the place with you non-coherent arguments. You seem to be equating proper exposure with a leica to getting the leica look. Proper exposure certainly drives hassle-free printing - whether digital or darkroom processing. Spending time "sweating the details" in digital post-processing (or a darkroom) will drive the "look" more than what camera was used. And really, it's not much time at all.
    If you think using a leica camera makes for getting "the leica look" I can point to a handful of recent threads where leica cameras were used, but the end results were not very good.
    Do these photos, taken with a leica, have the leica look?
    Feel free to weigh in with some of your own leica-look photos if you think it would help make your argument.
     
  51. no glow, no go.
     
  52. Ray, Brad, I'll try one more time...and then I really will take Jeremy's advice.

    Historically, the Leica made possible a style of photography that has a distinctive look. Other cameras can be used to achieve the same look, but the Leica rangefinders are very good tools, perhaps the best tools, for achieving that look consistently. Not all photos taken with a Leica achieve this look. But, in capable hands, Leicas yield a better "hit rate" than other cameras, at least for this style of photography. So, some people around here call it "Leica style" or the "Leica look."

    This is my view of things. Many contributors to this thread and other threads apparently share this view. If you have a different view of things, that's fine with me.

    It's been many years since I was so rigid as to believe that I was always right about everything, and that anyone who saw things differently had "dug himself into a hole" or presented arguments that are "non-coherent." Nowadays, I tend to assume that the people I speak with may have a valid point, and instead of playing "gotcha," I try to maintain enough intellectual flexibility to see what they're getting at.

    Good luck, guys. I hope that you derive as much pleasure from your photography as we Leica enthusiasts do from ours.
     
  53. Brad, figuring I'd give you the benifit of the doubt I just clicked on your name, thinking that I'd look at your portfolios and see just what you were talking about. It was a most enlightening experience. And you're absolutely correct! We shouldn't be using that old fashioned film stuff in our primitive Leicas. There's no need! We also could create portfolios like that with no film.
     
  54. i would be willing to kick in $50 to buy Brad a Barnack (am i biased toward IIIf or what.) come on, with a few more donations and a good ebay auction we could get this lad on board. what say you all? huzzah!
     
  55. I just clicked on your name, thinking that I'd look at your portfolios and see just what you were talking about.
    Huh? I never claimed my photos have "the leica look." What the heck are you talking about?
    Over the last 3 years you've seen enough of my photos here Al - hundreds. Surely you know how to click on threads - is it that tough to figure out? Here's a hint: click on anything preceded by W/NW. Nice try...
    But really Al, please calm down - that artery on your forehead is starting to pulsate again. Last time you tried jumping on me, just a little over a month ago, where you then followed with a nasty email, you ended up in the hospital an hour or two later. Maybe there's really something to that karma stuff.
     
  56. Claudia, and I'm similarly willing to kick in $50 so you can take an evening adult education
    photography class at your local high school.
     
  57. after that nasty karma thing...hell i will kick in $100 dollars to get Brad off his hubris horse. damn. what a nasty man.
     
  58. damn. what a nasty man.
    You're talking about Al, right? The guy that a month ago, out of the blue, jumps in on a DIGITAL thread and wishes violence upon me and then a few minutes later punctuates it by sending me a nasty email. I agree.
     
  59. uh, Brad... Claudia, and I'm similarly willing to kick in $50 so you can take an evening adult education photography class at your local high school.
    granted, my degrees are not in engineering as yours seem to be but they may be a bit more relevant than yours in terms of 'art.' and i have studied and been certified (as i am sure you care about) somewhat higher than the "local high school." don't let your show go to your head...it will hurt your photography.
     
  60. Your last post is great, and too funny, Claudia, especially coming after your assertions of
    hubris. Jeez, why are you bringing up degrees? I'm talking about making photographs.
     
  61. Brad's relentless in his pursuit of photographs...... while other
    people are sniffing their Leicas and checking the fungshway of
    their Summarits...

    but to each their own, it's all good, right?
     
  62. my point was...ta da..i would be willing to help finance the acquistion by you of an actual Leica Camera, preferably a pre M model, because they are the coolish looking. you are obsessed with the Leica Forum but apparrently do not use a Leica. my photographs with cameras "ancient and modern" are available to all who click on my name. i do not know what your particular problem vis a vis Leica is...and furthermore..i do not care. if this is your sandbox you need to toughen up when people respond that your are obnoxious. they have a point...get a Leica or look like a looney lurker. simple.
     
  63. Toughen up, huh? Honestly Claudia, you've got a lock on loony...

    Funny how it is. I'm having a pretty rational dialog with Jonathon (as does Ray) trying to
    understand about "the leica look," and then you and Al start getting the shakes and feel the
    need to jump in out of nowhere, act out in a juvenile sort of way, and ultimately insult. It
    seems "the leica look" and what it is, is best left to the secret domain of the Gnostics.

    Since you brought them up out of nowhere, tell us all about your "art" degrees, please. We're
    dying to know about them almost as much as you want to talk about them.
     
  64. brad...get a leica and you will have something to say on the Leica Forum...simple? Or, take it over to whatever forum you want but you are a kinda strange presence here. can you look up obnoxious in your dictionary? can you sense when you have shown up at a party you were not invited to that people do not hang on your every word and pronounce you wise? that is why i am offering to start a fund so you can have a Leica and be a happy part of this communtity.
     
  65. Careful Brad, Z used to spend a lot of time mud-wrestling with Claudia and
    he's now (I'm reliably informed) sharing a cell at Gitmo with grant. You could
    be more unlucky and end up sharing a bunk with Jay........
     
  66. Just look at the following picture - shot with a Nikon F2 in 1979. I like it as much as the one which introduced that thread. Film photography is an endangered specy - it does not need all I read above... BTW Dennis there is nothing "special" I like regarding what you asked. It's just very good stuff. But I can take good pictures with any very good camera - at least do I have the weakness to think so. Don't you, too ? Sure you do. Also don't forget all that if the Zeiss Ikon factory hadn't been totally destroyed by the Allied bombing over Dresden on February, 8th 1945, today you probably would devote a cult to another camera brand... the Contax. Just before the WWII the Contax II already offered advanced features Leitz could implement on its M3 twenty years after only - the sleek design, the unified viewfinder with its large rectangular rangefinder patch, the bayonet lens mount, the reliable selftimer. All of this with the longest rangefinder base ever made on a 35mm camera - still for today.
    00Ccop-24258984.jpg
     
  67. Claudia %, if I may toss in my tuppence, there are some people who, as my dear late father once said, are like lightening bugs; they can't set the world on fire, but they dearly love to show their behinds. These people like to drop by the Leica forum and pontificate about how Leicas are overpriced, the mystique attached to them is so much balderdash, how they can take "Leica like" pictures without a Leica (or even without a camera), etc. I find they usually fall into the same class of people who think that if they turn their "outie" into an "innie" they will stop being boys and magically become girls. I suggest you do as I do and ignore them. (Remember when visiting the Magic Forest dear, "Don't feed The Trolls".) BTW, if your offer is still good, my M3 needs a new WA lens and a CLA ;-) I suppose we shouldn't be too harsh on them, as we let Al post here and he uses a Bessa (ugh!).
     
  68. Stanley Kubrick once worked for "The Look" magazine...yes? Man that guy could shoot...moving or stills
     
  69. Nicolas:

    Not trying to be argumentative with you, I just asked a simple question, "What is it about Leica that makes you like it so much?"
    You said that you "love" your Leica and that you would take a new Leica and 35mmm Cron over a DSLR... Why? Is it the way the camera handles? Is it the lenses? You obviously know how to take pictures. Why would you prefer a Leica over anything else?
     
  70. Dennis, you're welcome. I don't feel very comfortable at writing something I can't consider to be fully obvious but as you wish, I'll try then.
    I love my Leica IIIf RD-ST because :
    - it's small and almost pocketable once the Summicron is collapsed
    - it's quite light but heavy enough to remain steady on slow speeds
    - it feels comfortable in my large hands (the Vulcanite provides a good grip)
    - it's quiet although far noisier than my Contax II and my Rollei 35 S (it's not an M of course)
    - it has interchangeable lenses and the screw mount is problemless as a feature (I have three lenses)
    - the lenses are of an outstanding quality (even regarding the age of the camera) with both sharpness and softness as Schott-made glasses must be
    - it's solid (thanks to the one-piece "flat tube" body design)
    - it fully works without battery
    - it has a coupled rangefinder (a bit faint but thanks to the orange patch I fitted on the RF window things are better) with a dioptric adjustment. BTW wasn't the external 50mm brightlines finder I was lucky to grab, using the built-in viewfinder only would be a pain !
    I have other mechanical cameras and for example a Contax II I just completely overhauled.
    I love my Contax II because :
    - it's a bit larger than the IIIf (very close to a Leica M in size)
    - it's a bit heavier than the IIIf thus more steady on slow speeds
    - it feels very comfortable in my large hands (the genuine leather covering provides a very nice grip feeling)
    - it has interchangeable lenses with a bayonet mounting
    - the Carl Zeiss lenses are of an outstanding quality (both mechanically and optically) with both sharpness and softness as Schott-made glasses must be, even given their age
    - it's very solid - the rangefinder can't get misaligned thanks to its one piece prism construction
    - the shutter is more quiet than on the IIIf
    - it fully works without battery
    - the removable back makes the camera far easier to load in the field than the IIIf
    - it has a take-up spool that matches the modern films leaders shape so no cut off is needed
    - it has a unique and very decent viewfinder/coupled rangefinder eyepiece with a very long RF base thus a very accurate RF with a very bright RF patch.
    I also have a Nikon F2 I love as well as the other two because :
    - it's large and bulky thus very steady even with long focal lenses
    - it's solid as a rock
    - it feels comfortable in my large hands
    - it has many interchangeable lenses
    - the MF Nikkor lenses are of an outstanding quality (both mechanically and optically)
    - the shutter can fully work without any battery installed from 1/2000 second until 8 seconds
    - the center-weighted lightmeter is a hell of an efficient one and consumes about a pair of LR44 batteries every three years
    - it never failed thanks to its unique titanium foil mechanical shutter
    - it has a pentaprism viewfinder magnification you won't see on any other SLR camera, period, with a 100% frame covering which is great for macrophoto
    - it's finally not very noisy for an SLR thanks to the shutter design.
    I also have a Rollei 35 S I love as well as the other three because :
    - it's small and fully pocketable once the Sonnar is collapsed
    - it's light but not too much thus remains steady for slow speeds
    - it feels comfortable in my large hands (the leatherette provides a good grip)
    - the Zeiss Sonnar lens is of an outstanding quality (even regarding the size of the camera) and fully comparable with SLR or RF cameras lenses
    - it's solid (thanks to the all metal body and Heinz Waaske's great design)
    - the CdS lightmeter works very well in most situations as far as you know how to use it (in other words, as far as you're experienced enough to find something close to the 18% grey chart in the field)
    - it can fully work without any battery installed
    - it's very quiet and very unobtrusive
    - it has no rangefinder but a very useful DOF scale (never shot out of focus with it) and a very bright and very accurate framelines viewfinder.
    What else can I say ? That each camera fits the needs of the user, as far as this one is capable of taking good photographs. There is no universal camera (just try to take macrophoto pictures with a Leica M...).
    Ah yes, I have at least a Leica, so that I qualify for posting and reading here...
    :)=
    00CcuS-24266484.jpg
     
  71. What's a "Japanese auto-everything plasticky toy"?
     
  72. Ha ! That's the tricky question...

    ;-))
     
  73. Nicolas:

    Your Leica IIIF-RD is indeed a handsome rig. IMO, the Leitz 50mm brightline finder is one of the best Leica products of all time. I still use mine occasionally on my M6.

    I share your affection for solidly-built, mechanical film cameras...

    FWIW, it doesn't matter to me what equipment a photographer used to capture a good shot. But when I see a good black and white street photograph my natural curiosity makes me wonder how the image was captured... what film, what camera, what lens. If a classic-style, black and white street photograph appears to have been taken with a 35mm or 50mm lens then Leica comes to mind simply because so many good street photographers used Leicas. If the image is particularly sharp or the out of focus areas have a pleasingly smooth look then Leica definitely comes to mind. I'll spare you a listing of famous photographers who used Leicas because you are most probabaly already aware of them... but there are a sufficient number of them that Leica has become associated with a certain style of black and white street photography, regardless whether other photographers of this genre used other types of cameras.

    While this is a subject of much debate I think some lenses produce certain signature looks, sometimes subtle and sometimes difficult to describe in all but the most boring of technical of terms. I have boxes of negatives taken with different brands of cameras and lenses. Not always, but many times, I can pick out the Leica negatives when making large prints. For example, there is something quite different in the look of an image produced with a Leica 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH compared to a Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron.

    What offends some of us, and what is the cause of much acrimony here, is the suggestion by some that what we honestly desribe as differences in looks produced by different lenses is simply a Leica-generated delusion. Worse, yet, is the added suggestion that by pointing out differences in looks produced by some Leica lenses constitutes a gear fetish.

    I agree with you that it doesn't matter what camera or lens is used to make good photographs. But one should not have wear a protective vest simply to point out discernable characteristics of Leica lenses as is often the case here. And what is ironic, you will learn if you stick around here, is that some of the folks who dispute these notions have never even used a Leica camera and seemingly would be happy if the name Leica was purged from the photographic lexicon.

    BTW, I very much like your photograph of the hand and the lumber...

    Regards,

    Dennis
     
  74. What's ironic is how one always puts others down with respect to intellectual integrity but
    ultimately takes the low ground and exaggerates and lies when putting his own points
    forward - no one said anything about being delusional, nobody here hates leicas, nobody
    here said anything about a gear fetish. But that's how some like to sound-bite control
    discussion and debate when it's too difficult carrying on a rational discussion and debate.
    Reminds me of Rumsfeld/Cheney saying (paraphrased) "there's no debate about WMDs in
    Iraq..." End of discussion.
     
  75. It's true that I use a Bessa L on my 15mm. It was cheaper than buying another deep rear M mount cap. Actually I bought the rig used on the Auction Site and the price was right, body included. I have a CL and four M bodies in regular use, a Visoflex-IIs, and glass from 21 to 400mm. Three or four years ago I got rid of my Leicaflex SL and R4s along with a bunch of lenses from 24 to 180mm that fit. In the meantime I like the 15 and it's fun taking pictures with a rear cap ;-)
     
  76. Dennis I fully agree with what you said - just the good sense. Leicas are wonderful photographying machines and particularly well suited for street photo. For other purposes (telephoto, macrophoto, etc), some other types of cameras are of better use, and one can't avoid using a SLR at once. If one wants a smaller although excellent camera then the Rollei 35 S can be seen as a pocketable Leica with less features to help it to be smaller - but its lens is as almost good as a Leitz one, no doubt. Regarding bokeh, some of my MF Nikkor lenses have dreamy bokeh - I can't help thinking of my 2.5/105mm AI-S which I've compared side by side with a friend's 2.8/90mm Elmarit-M once - "scientifically" made test on the same Kodachrome roll and no doubt the Nikkor was far better (more details, less contrast, more creamy bokeh, nicer colors with better mastered red tones). Don't forget that if the Contax had had an actual chance to develop normally just after the WWII it might have become "the" rangefinder camera too. But - it's the Leica which did. And using a Leica promptly became just belonging to a narrow club. Photographers who weren't rich enough to afford a Leitz camera and enter the club thought they were rejected by the happy few club members. In a certain way, it's true. I've met many of what we can call "Leica idiots" : I mean people who sincerely think that a Leica is just what one need to take a good photo. Make the following experience : go to an exhibition inaugural evening with a friend. Take a Leica. Ask the friend to take an anonymous camera. The party members will quickly come by you like someone above call "light bugs" and will ask you dozens of stupid questions about the camera and the "good pictures" it delivers. A lady who is a kind of a relative of mine is a well known photo teacher in a well known photo school in Paris. Of course she has a M6 - unless wouldn't she belong to the "club". Each time I meet her I must make efforts not to laugh when I see her using the camera - I even think that the first time she made an attempt to use it, she might have looked through the front VF window instead of looking through the eyepiece. Regarding the photos she takes, well I would say they're of the baddest I've ever seen. But, you know, she has "the" camera. I could post pictures taken with my IIIf here but just intentionally I will close my modest contribution to that thread by posting another picture shot with what is just the contrary of a Leica. A Nikon FE in auto mode, fitted with a 3.5/35~70mm Nikkor-AI zoom. Some stuff I sold some years ago because I didn't like the zoom I found disturbing while composing and I traded the electronic FE for a mechanical F2. Best wishes, Nicolas
    00Ccze-24269984.jpg
     
  77. I think the Kodak Ektra had a longer rangefinder base length than the Contax, and I believe it also offered interchangeable magazines. Kodak Ektar lenses were state of the art for their time. It was a big camera though, and expensive. Recovering economies in Germany and Japan soon flooded the market with "inexpensive" Canons, Nikons, and Leicas and the Ektra was doomed.

    Thinking about it that way Kodak pulled out of the pro 35mm camera busines, as well as lenses and shutters for view cameras, and photography didn't end. Why all the fuss about sensitized papers?
     
  78. But increasingly, Leica users can't express any pride of ownership without a storm of admonition on this forum. Increasingly, admitting to using a Leica is paramount to admitting you collect used women's underwear. Granted, the reason for this is that the most image-driven photographers have gone digital while wannabees with more money than ability are soiling the reputation of the remaining few accomplished Leica users by posting pictures completely devoid of taste and craftsmanship.
     
  79. Alright already.
     
  80. Nicolas:

    The 105mm f2.5 Nikkor lens was one of the best lenses I ever owned... very sharp and pleasing images. While I no longer use any lens longer than 50mm I understand that the Leica 90mm f2.8 Elmarit-M is no slouch. One of the funniest remarks I read about it was that you should not use this lens to take pictures of your girlfriend because it's so sharp that it reveals every blemish and imperfection in great detail. :>)
     
  81. Dennis, an even bigger fear is that your wife might find all those pictures of your girlfriend.
     
  82. Al, LOL! That would be a very bad thing which could end up causing the Leica being sold to pay alimony. ;>)
     
  83. Whoa, and there is also Jeremy admitting he might be ending up with collecting women underwear to shoot them with his Leica just to check if they have the typical Leitz look ;-))
     
  84. Nicolas, we strive not to be too judgmental here on the Leica Forum... ;>)
     
  85. Leicas are wonderful machines, and I've had an M for 25 years.
    It's getting more and more difficult though for me to justify a
    4,000$ investment in an M7 and 3 lenses. There's virtually
    nothing my D70 can't do that the Leica does, other than make a
    silver print. That includes shooting with manual focus using
    hyperfocal distance. The very tiny shutter lag has been
    eliminated with the D70S, which would take maybe a couple
    hundred bucks to trade up to. OK, the viewfinder of the M still
    rules, but I can tell you the D70's is a hell of a lot better than that
    of a screwmount. I can make prints, even black and white ones,
    from my Epson 2200 while eating dinner, and the result is
    difficult to assess as lesser than what I can produce in the
    darkroom. And I'm not even shooting in raw mode yet or using
    imageprint for the printer. I've got a zoom lens on the cam which
    gives me the Leica's 28, 35, 50, and everything in between at the
    twist of a wrist. And I can choose whether I want color or black
    and white on every shot I make, no film required. To top it all off,
    the D70 handles as well or better on the road weightwise and
    ergonomic-wise than the M, even though it's physically larger. I
    can get more shooting out of the D70. If I want, up to 3 frames
    per second. Nikons have always been tanks durability-wise,
    DSLR's are no exception....
     
  86. DLSR's are great until their batteries fail, and I suppose the same point could be made for the new M7. I think we all realize that the body is just a medium for holding the lens and transporting film, and the lens, along with the user's talent (or lack of) is primarily what gives a photo it's uniqueness. It's interesting that the majority of Leica owners here seem to be rangefinder users, even though Leica is, to my knowledge, the only company that has designed their new SLR bodies to accept a digital back, thereby allowing the best of both worlds. Al, glad you're protecting your M bodies with a Bessa cap, and I see nothing wrong with collecting women's underwear as long as you have a woman to put 'em on. I've shot several nudes with my Leicaflex, though whether or not it was the fact that they were being photographed by a Leica that convinced them to disrobe is debatable .
     
  87. DLSR's are great until their batteries fail,...
    And film cameras are great until you run out of film.... BTW, my dSLR battery lasts more than 1K exposures, about the equivalent of 27 rolls of film.
     
  88. Brad, I hope your DSLR batteries last forever. The point you seem to be missing is that most of us here aren't using SLR's, either film or digital. We enjoy being primitive throwbacks to another time. We love driving you batty with our stubborness. Some of us are so primitive that we even know how to use all the movements of a commercial view camera. With Jay long gone and no sign of Frank today you're about all we have left to make fun of. Please don't desert us. We love you dearly.
     
  89. The point you seem to be missing is that most of us here aren't using SLR's, either film or digital.
    The point you seem to be missing is I was merely responding to an above comment. Now get back to those self portraits...
     
  90. "my dSLR battery lasts more than 1K exposures" That all depends on the temperature , climate and type of environment you use it in, doesn't it? I had a manual wind Rolex that worked when LCD watches stopped displaying because of the cold, around -30F. Some of us would rather have something purely mechanical, as when you're in a part of the world where there are no spare batteries available or when there is no wall to plug your charger into. My 1952 M3DS is still working and still smooth as new after more than half a century of use. I hope to pass it on to my childrena dngrandchildren. How long will a DSLR "live"? Even if you keep one for 25 years, will you be able to get parts and service for it? A comment re: film would have been better compared to the cost of a memory card. In 25 years will the current crop of memory cards be replaced by something better?
     
  91. Sorry, that should have been 1958 M3. It's my IIIf that's the '52.
     
  92. OIP: You missed the point and analogy completely - and then went into obfuscation mode
    bringing in new yeah-but items.

    You said DSLR's are great until the batteries fail. Excellent point. With respect to film
    cameras, I'm saying they are similarly great until you run out of film. In the end, both
    cameras cease to take pictures. How much film do you usually carry around with you?

    Then, in an attempt to bolster your argument, you brought up value (which is very
    subjective), the joys of owning a mechanical camera, etc, which while interesting, does not
    support your original point about dSLRs and battery life. Please stay on-topic if your
    going to argue a point.

    I can bring up a lot of off-topic yeah-buts as well such as: yeah but can you switch
    between ISO 100 and ISO 3200 at will mid-roll to accomdate different subject material?
    Which isn't germane, either.
     
  93. You, Brad, are without doubt THE ABSOLUTE BEST at bringing up off topic stuff on the Leica forum ~ everything but Leicas.
     
  94. Any examples here, Al. Or are your lips just a flappin like they usually do?
     
  95. And about your off-topic non-leica stuff, Al. It can fill pages, starting with your musings on
    digital. And music... Please, get a grip on yourself.
     
  96. Brad, I've got nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, my life is an open book for all to see. You prefer to be secretive and lurk in the shadows, The Mystery Man. But still, a source of much mirth for many of us. Thanks.
     
  97. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "How long will a DSLR "live"? Even if you keep one for 25 years, will you be able to get parts and service for it? A comment re: film would have been better compared to the cost of a memory card. In 25 years will the current crop of memory cards be replaced by something better?"

    and you think you'll be able to even use a film camera in 25 yrs?
     
  98. some people are into nostalgia and looking back. no sweat offa
    my behind.
     
  99. What the heck are you talking about, Al?

    Jeez man, at least stay on the topic you picked -
    which was your above claim of bringing up non-lecia stuff. You're getting desperate. It's not
    about your life. Really.
     
  100. Al, you still usin' oil lamps to light your house? ;)
     
  101. I am learning what a Leica photo looks like from my very good friend, and hero....well, mostly hero.....Maestro Alan Kaplan. And I invite you all back tomorrow to read what I have learned....and how I learned and how one learns and how artists learn from each other and grow from things unseen and unexpected in each others work......the psyche gleans....and gleans.......you open presents all the time from that wonderful gleaner......well, I working on this....I won't go there now.....
    BUT for now.....a lot of you, especially Brad tonight, seem to be missing the point that we girls find those cute pictures of Al just out of this world sexy! There's something extremely irresistable about the way he poses himself, that erotic glint in his eye, the sensual way the smoke fills the air and leaves a film of smoke from his home rolled cigarettes over the photo...yes, yes, yes, and I said yes. (hope that's not too eroctic for the forum)
    I made up some 24" x 36" prints of some of those self portraits of Al's and hung them in my place, and then my friends started wanting some. Now it seems that Louisianna and southern Arkansas are filling up with Al's mysterious work!We're going to ask him to visit so we can have a series of parties and he can autograph the photos while we maul him.
     
  102. heh. too much...
     
  103. way the smoke fills the air and leaves a film of smoke from his home rolled cigarettes over the photo...yes, yes, yes, and I said yes.
    Uh, ok - I hope that was good for you too. Probably not so odd there's a full moon out tonight.
     
  104. Brad, you're even off on the heaven's. But I know you're a sweetheart anyway......and someday...somewhere...and somehow.....you'll find your own fan club....and it will change your whole life......
     
  105. al, you makin' out with belle in the light of the oil lamps?
     
  106. full moon's tomorrow, but I'm thinkin' we're close enough for luv
    purposes.
     
  107. Well, I won't address that directly, but, Ray, we girls from Louisiana always have a Hurricane lamp nearby! If you know what I mean, jellybean.....
     
  108. Now, boys....you know "close enough" isn't there, don't you? Not for us Southern girls.
     
  109. "al, you makin' out with belle in the light of the oil lamps?"<P>

    And you know the evening is really special when he brings the Barry White 8-track tape
    cartridges out of storage...
     
  110. (Gee, Peter, I've always thought that. Look. The names are all in place. The text is written like dialogue. You just need a whole bunch of people to catch on at one time.)
     
  111. Who's Barry White! Hey, Al and I are Jacques Brel all the way!
     
  112. I thought you took all your 8-tracks back last time you were here!
     
  113. belle, were you jus' makin' a pass at me? I mean, jellybean and
    all... I'm flattered, but I'm taken.

    try some etta james if you really wanna get Al goin'
     
  114. ...uh, I meant ta say, if you wanna charge his battery
     
  115. Darling, I thought we had a "don't ask,don't tell" policy.
     
  116. Oh, Ray...that's just my pet name for just about everybody around the block....don't worry.....I'm a one man woman........stand by my man, sort of thing, you understand....and <I>you shoulda understood I was taken too! : ) (But I'm a lady, and I'll pretend I didn't see that.)
     
  117. Hhhmmmm, let's see. Talking in the Night? No..... What Adults do now? Noooooo....... But don't you think it would be wild?.....just to start a competely creative thread.......about photos, and work....and film...and funny things in the darkroom..........We might have something here!
     
  118. ....and Ray, you know I like your photographs....I've written about them to you...in case you forgot....but it's just different with Alan.....somehow...that crazy adorable genius of a photographer.....
     
  119. aw, shucks..
     
  120. ....and Peter's too.....I just discovered your photos...whoa.......do you and Ray know each other's photos?
     
  121. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    </i>So anyways, what do you think of my new D2x?<br><br>
    <center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3475104-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>
    <center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3475105-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>
     
  122. yeah, petey's kind of a newbie and made great strides real quick.
    talented, original. brad's realgood too. some people like him
    best.
     
  123. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    somebody way up there said somethin about more dof with digicams? well, here's f4.
     
  124. def not leica like, sorry;) but what'd ya pay for that puppy? how
    many megapuxles?
     
  125. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    it was $4900 ish USD, meg a what? i don't know, forgot. i'll go check Ray.
     
  126. "So anyways, what do you think of my new D2x?" Dude, you'll be up sh** creek when your battery dies...
     
  127. my dslr has a pop out electric shaver and microwaves fish. bet
    al's bessa can't do that...
     
  128. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    but okay bokey right, on the chair?

    they are closed in ps as 10.somethingor other, then when i open them in ps, they are 69.9 meg. i like that number, 69....
     
  129. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Belle like the number 69?
     
  130. where'd al and belle go? they tongue'n it?
     
  131. And Eric, what about service in 25 years. How you going to pass that cam on to your
    grandchildren if you can't get it serviced?
     
  132. 69.9? geez, that's twice a 35mm scan. gotta have leica beat.
     
  133. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Dude, you'll be up sh** creek when your battery dies..."

    i think i read on the Nikon forum that someone has gotten 1800 shots on a single charge...that's 18 cards at 2 meg each...that's...more than i will ever be away from home...
     
  134. Can you pop an 8-track in it? Or is it that new-fangled digital storage?
     
  135. I use a D1H and a D1X for wedding photography. I always have a spare battery in my pocket, because usually, during the ceremony, will be just about the time my battery runs out.......yes, I take tons of pre-wedding photos....I'd say just about the time of "I will" or "I do"...I can count on the battery going....so I change it.

    But even in the woods, alone, away from civilization and a plug for the charger, I have a few batteries on hand anyway. It's a pain to have to drive into town and sit in a restaurant while the battery charges (or run the motor for an hour).
     
  136. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Brad, cameras are tools. Do you think my grand kids will want my drill press and cresent wrenches too?
     
  137. belle, will you please have a talk with al about that batteries won't
    bite you, while you're bitin' his lip and chargin' his battery?
     
  138. Brad, be a real mensch and put up some photos on your page for Uncle Alan. C'mon.
     
  139. aw go take your rubbish to the canon forum you
     
  140. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Ah, the creamy out of focus areas...f3.5

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  141. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I'd like a canon dslr mounted on a noct....oh i love the noctilux swirl
     
  142. Will do, Ray. I've already started him on a reading/inquiry/research program, so he will be quite up to date on everything....as for as information goes....perferences are another thing. I can't see information changing his preferences. I just tell him he should be very referenced in his replies......

    But at the same time......I'm sure, very sure, Alan could do what he wanted to do with a digital. In fact I'm thinking about putting one in his hands this summer....but again.....it's not the point at all.

    And I might add,that the other day I readied some photographs of my own for hanging. All of them but one were digital. All of them were printed on a large inkjet printer (24"). I must say, that when I causually reached for the non-digital photo.....it was taken with a Holga, the 120 negative was scanned on a regular HP three-in-one, and then printed on the inkject...........that it nearly knocked my socks off......it was so real....so differnt from the other photos. I loved it.

    When I think about these things, I think of the silve gelatin, etc.etc.......and think that it is real too....the very particles are real.....and somewhere you can't help but know that....and feel it! And it feels really really good.
     
  143. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "and think that it is real too....the very particles are real.....and somewhere you can't help but know that....and feel it! And it feels really really good."

    start reading Quantum Physics and then rent "what The Bleep Do We Know".
     
  144. "But even in the woods, alone, away from civilization..."

    Yeah, but, but, but...but what if you should find yourself in Kosovo or Iraq or something -
    you gonna be looking for a place to charge your girlie batteries with bullets and crap flying
    around? No way dudette, get a leica, plan for the worst - that's what I say. And don't get me
    started on Antarctica. You'll be up sh** creek and it will be way frozen.
     
  145. I do read Quantum Physics. What is "what The Bleep Do We Know" about....I guess the title says it all...huh?.
     
  146. Brad, I've asked Alan not to speak to me in "boy's talk". It's a little rough. NOw I'm going to ask you not to. Alan kindly acquiesced. This is not a "boy's room", but a world room. Please and thank you very much.
     
  147. PS...I don't want to generally censor your speech...just that which you direct to me personally......if you don't mind. I have a feeling I'll still feel the punch, so don't worry.
     
  148. But sorry, back to your point. I don't know what I'd do anywhere....but I will look it up and see what the guys and dolls are doing in Iraq and Antartica....one of my favorite places to think I go one day.
     
  149. Kool.

    "
    "WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is part documentary, part story, and part elaborate visual effects and animations. The protagonist, Amanda, played by Marlee Matlin, finds herself in an Alice in Wonderland experience when her daily, uninspired life literally begins to unravel, revealing the uncertain world of the quantum field hidden behind what we consider to be our normal, waking reality. The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion, which divides the film into a series of acts. Through the course of the film, the distinction between science and religion becomes increasingly blurred, since we realize that, in essence, both science and religion describe the same phenomena."
     
  150. (...chattering upon exiting the movie, holding her summer shawl up in the warm breeze of a hot Phoenix night, the usual in which you feel you are constantly walking past an open hot pizza oven. She breathes in the night, and says to "X"...) I don't know what got into me. Really. Censorship is not my big thing. I'll count to ten next time. In three languages. It's more fun that way.
    X and B hail a cab. Exuent
     
  151. Frankly I don't know but what I can say is that I don't see something very interesting in that photo. I assume you wanted to show something funny by showing the arm of the other kid we don't see the body of behind that girl. In addition the black tee shirt of the woman in the foreground makes a big black spot which is disturbing - too many things to be seen in too much a disorder here.

    I don't want to be rude Ray - but being able to shoot 3 frames per second thanks to a modern camera doesn't automatically bring out good photographs.

    BTW I must say to Jeremy that I'm very sorry to see what happened to that thread he launched and which might have been very interesting - just because although his title might be a little bit provocative, it pointed a good question out.

    On my own side I tried to post obvious and thought-after arguments regarding the "Typical Leica photos and look", probably in vain. Too bad.
     
  152. jeez....almost hate bringing up something related to the original pic, after that..........whatever it was last night that went on.......

    anyhow, for those of you who obviously don't know the value of Quadtone (not to mention split toning, or both together).......exept maybe Peter, who is the only one that specifically mentioned it........probably 75% of the "look" in the original pic can be directly attributed to using those tools. The blacks get deeper and more detailed, and the higher values just pop out at ya. Try it sometime, it's pretty awesome.
     
  153. Brad, you are comparing apples to oranges. My point is that without a power source a DSLR is useless. You can't even see your subject without the right batteries, which are proprietary with some of the new cameras, making them and their dedicated chargers more expensive. A completely manual camera like the M3 or even a FED 3 (or Zorki or Kiev) does not need a power source.
    "How much film do you usually carry around with you?"
    Way too much. If you don't believe me, ask my wife. I frequently use her and the kids as pack mules. Changing ISO on your digital? Big whoop. I carry a second body with a different type of film and lens within easy reach. Same thing, plus it gives me a backup. For the price of a new DSLR, I can carry several used bodies and lenses, and I usually do. When I visited Al in April I had about 6 bodies and over a dozen lenses with me. And lots of film. I shot about 30 rolls of 36 exposure on vacation and about half a dozen 120.
    "Then, in an attempt to bolster your argument, you brought up value (which is very subjective)"
    Wrong again, obtuse one. I said nothing about cost or value. All my Leicas were bought used. I'm a cheap old so-and-so. The point I intended to make is about product longevity, which you either missed completely or ignored because you know your plastic digitoy won't be around in 50 or 25 years. The point is that purely mechanical cameras work under all conditions and will probably be working long after we're dead and gone. Example: Last month we had a power failure. All our cordless phones died because there was no power source for them. What did work? The antique rotary dial cord-in-the-wall phone. We were the only house on the block with a working phone. Get it? I'm not putting down digital, as you seem to be putting down Leica and film in general. Digital has its' place, and there are some advantages to it, but it hasn't yet and probably never will replace film completely. Film become obsolete? I seriously doubt it. Take 8X10 and 4X5 view cameras for instance. They are still being produced, you can still get film for them, and digital doesn't come anywhere near the results you get with one of those babies.
     
  154. The photo posted is indeed enhanced by the quadtoning. But going back and looking at ALL the photos in the folio, not just the pipe-smoking man, I can understand the original commentary regarding the so-called Leica look... or Leica style. The compositions and tones are more traditional... in effect, no affectatious, gratuitous chopping off of body parts, no hyper-contrast or bizarre metallic skin tones. The shallow depth of field and pleasing out of focus areas are also typical of an available light, Leica style... far different from the extensive depth of field one might expect from a typical digital offerings taken with a zoom lens. And, as Peter pointed out, fast, prime Leica lenses can make digital shots pop. The quadtoning here is beautiful and really makes these images sing... but the quadtoning simply enhances what was already there. While anyone willing to waste the time can argue all day (or all night) that these shots could have been taken with any camera (and maybe they could have been taken with some other camera) I can understand Jeremy's original remarks regarding the so-called Leica look or Leica style. After all, the photographer points out that they were taken with M6 cameras and prime Leica lenses, equipment that he obviously knows how to handle. While the quadtoning is the icing on the cake I would attribute the look of these photos more to the Leica lenses and the aesthetic tastes of the photographer.
     
  155. Owl Ink...

    If you're like me, it's not digital photography that I have a problem with... it's the Taliban digitizers on the Leica Forum. The Keepers of Digital Truth. ;>)
     
  156. "The point is that purely mechanical cameras work under all conditions"

    Absolutely, you've nailed that whiner Brad once and for all. It's why all the
    pros in places like Afghanistan, Jolo and Aceh will use nothing but Leicas and
    Nikon FM2s.....
     
  157. Dennis, the only problems I have with digital photography are the astronomical prices of the equipment I lust after. Try as I might, I can't convince the better half I really need them more than the kids need college funds. And yes, most of them are Leica ;-)
     
  158. Boris, I'm glad you see the point I wanted to make. Any camera that doesn't work is useless, even the latest hi tech one, even if it's a Leica or Nikon. Any tool that is battery dependent is bound to fail eventually, probably from electrical related problems. In that case even an old FED or Zorki is better than nothing, or something that won't work. It is good to know different cameras and how to use them, just as it is good to know more than one language. Or how to field strip and use an AK74 as well as an M16.
     
  159. "Boris, I'm glad you see the point I wanted to make"

    Irony clearly is dead.

    Love, peace, and Leicas. Boris C Han, the Ayatollah of Digital.
     
  160. Peter A, some nice points. I mentioned before that the "Leica look" seems to be primarily applied to Leica rangefinders and not so much the SLRs, even though such notables as Ernst Haas have used Leica SLRs. Anybody care to speculate on the differences and/or similaraties between photos taken with Leica M and R cameras? Do you think that using a rangefinder significantly alters of affects the way we see pictures? (Al, I know you got rid of your R bodies and stayed with the Ms. Care to comment what made you take that path?)
     
  161. "...but to tar and feather anything or anyone who posts a digital shot is not very productive."

    Peter, (respectfully) I have not seen that. And, as far as I can tell, the merits of digital technology, the epipheny of a digital convert or digital battery life had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

    Much of these discussions is simply about semantics. While certainly Mr. Laurel's shots could have been taken with another camera, his shots were taken with Leicas and they are of a traditional style that is more closely associated with Leica. To me, it is rather harmless (but still accurate) to categorize the shots as Leica shots.

    There are people who purport to espouse a certain purity in their appraoch... that it is the picture that is paramount, not the equipment or methodolgy. I might suggest that some of those folks simply allow their pictures do their talking here rather than harping on harmless musings of Leicaphiles... but some don't post photos on the Leica Forum. I'm sure their photos would be appreciated by many; but, their pictures may not be appreciated by everyone. However, as you say critiquing pictures is legitimate dialogue.
     
  162. Boris, no I just chose to ignore the irony and exploit your original comment. Backatcha. ;-)
     
  163. As I read almost daily the messages on this forum, I think, by the time I was absent, things have a bit deteriorated.

    Everyone is entitled to have (and hold) is opinion, but if we accept a discussion, it should be assumed we are each trying to develop a reasonable argumentation to support his opinion and try to understand the point of views exposed by others.

    I still use and highly praise Leica lenses. I'm convinced if I still had a working M in my bag, I won't trade it for whatever other 35mm rangefinder camera, let alone the digital world as it is today (I?m not under the constraints of delays). Why? Just because what is today offered (or soon to be offered) on the market by any other manufacturer would not be better enough to justify the trade off of an M body. But, unfortunately, my M5 broke during a picture session in year 2000... It was serviceable... but the repair cost was equivalent to the price to pay for another mint second hand M5. After trying it for a week for free (courtesy of my camera dealer) I ended up instead with a Hexar RF (the reason why I consider the alleged incompatibility problem a b....sh...t). It is a different body when compared to an M on many points, but not to the point its handling can be considered difficult by ant M addict (let alone inferior). It has some better points (even when compared to a M6 or a M7) and some weaker points... If I had to take pictures of classic music concerts or theatrical plays, its noise (though not very loud when compared to the one of an SLR) would have been an unbearable inconveniency. It is not able to focus properly a Noctilux or 75mm Summilux, well I have none of these fabulous lenses. All in all, depending of the kind of situation you are confronted to in you "photographer?s life" it can suits you as well and even better than an M or all the contrary... It suited me well for the kind of work I usually perform with a 35mm rangefinder camera, so I adopted it and I still don?t regret my choice. In this kind of work, it is not inferior to an M and even it is often superior on some practical aspects (loading, higher flash synch speed, for example... It is well built and well finished, perhaps less well finished than an M3 as new, but not substantially inferior to the current Leica bodies. All in all, with its virtues and vices compared to the ones of a current M7, it can be considered in a fair way as equivalent... Another point is the price to pay, at that time around 1200 Euros, new with a full two year guarantee versus the one to pay for a new M7 (around 3000 Euros at that time) or the similar 1200 Euros for an apparently mint M5 second hand with no guarantee at all...

    Well, sorry chaps, but I went for the Hexar RF and even if I had the budget for the M7 I wouldn't have paid such a difference for a body which - on the contrary to Leica glass - has few to command it for the kind of photography I generally perform, considering the actual edges of an M7 above a Hexar RF are confined on very specific points which can be arguably determinant for some photogs'work but not mine. I would have certainly enlarged the number of Leica lenses I own though...

    Most of the people on the board here own an old M and no new camera body. This is a fact. I understand and respect their decision to keep it, it would have been mine should my M5 has not failed, because I see no reason to replace a good working M body. But please admit the main reason why Leica is nowadays on the verge of collapsing is the lack of a new rangefinder body which can justify by its features its price. Please admit why (if it properly works, but I will bet on that) the new Zeiss Ikon is seen by many people as a more promising camera body, not because it is intrinsically better than a M body, but because it is more fairly priced and affordable than an M for a more or less similar technical offer.

    Most arguments to defend the M (as it is sold now) are really pointless...

    I am also a kind of "old timer" in photography, I knew (and for that reason shone) the electronic shutters in the late 70?s and early 80?s... they were then prone to fail without warning. But this is a fact of the past and ANY mechanical gear may fail one day and is no more repairable in the field.

    The battery dependence argument is rubbish when it goes to disposable batteries at least. Just consider the average charge of a set of disposable lithium batteries feeding a Hexar RF will last for say 100 36 frame roll... Pile 100 35mm film boxes and take the dimensions, then calculate the volume... and then compare this volume to the size of two of even three sets of disposable lithium batteries. Now imagine you are in the field in the middle of nowhere... From the film stock you have to bring with you and the spare batteries you will need, what will be the most bulky to transport? I won't say the same about rechargeable batteries as everyone in my generation has experienced at least once the disagreement of having one of those old rechargeable flash batteries becoming dead in the midst of a picture taking session. They are much too expensive to have more than one spare sets at best (for most people at least) and it is so easy to forget to recharge them in time or be caught by their relatively limited life duration. But let?s again face the facts, a modern battery dependent camera using disposable batteries has no more chance to fail to be useable in the field than a mechanical one has to fail for lack of film in the midst of nowhere, provided the user brings with him (or her) the adequate provision. And it is easier to carry spare batteries than spare film for the same number of frames to take.

    May I add that between the four cameras I currently use only the Hexar RF is not a mechanical one (Hexar RF, Mamiya 645 1000 S, my son?s Rolleiflex F 2.8 and Nikon F2 system... So I cannot be accused to be a fashion victim).

    The "Leica look" does exist and not only as described by the subject and the composition. But it is reserved only to certain lenses: some old ones which have a specific "glow" due to certain residual aberrations and a few lenses having no equivalent maximum aperture, because of the extended and unusual OOF range isolating the main subject. But, provided you use these lenses the body which carries them doesn't interfere in the process. And, any 50mm with f/1 maximum aperture and used so will have the exactly the same behaviour as far as the OOF areas are concerned as a direct application of fundamental laws of optics.

    There are enough reason to praise Leica for its lenses not to confuse what belongs to the rangefinder concept and what belongs to Leica proper and try to justify the ever broadening gap between the remarkable and constant progress of Leica in the domain of lens design and their failure to provide a comparable body evolution, not to point out the absence of proper and equivalent development in the field of rangefinder camera bodies and to resort to false arguments to defend both this behaviour and the corresponding stupid price policy of the grand lady from Solms.

    If Leica is bound to disappear, this will be a very sad day, because we will lost the marvellous lenses they still provide us, but I won?t miss the M body limited series or "a la carte" contraptions. Leica management is entirely responsible for the policy which made them on the verge of bankruptcy, just because they forgot Leica rangefinder were made for users, not collectors or snobs, when the company made money. And because it is now clear as crystal with its astronomical price for what it is technically an M body cannot attract enough potential customers... I don't think Zeiss and Cosina would have invested a dime if it was the all silver halide small rangefinder concept which was doomed. Beside the low end Bessas and the mid range (but also mid-priced) future Zeiss Ikon, there is still a place for a high end rangefinder but it must justify the price to pay... May Leica realize it and act accordingly provided it is not too late... They must find new customers for new gear, not seduce the older ones which will admire the things on the paper and finally buy second hand gear (at best).

    Friendly

    Fran�ois P. WEILL

    PS: thanks to Al for its marvellous "ethnographic" shots?
     
  164. Probably 90% of what I shot with the reflex was with the 180/2.8. My elderly Leicaflex SL was starting to give me problems and the Leica R4s never "felt like a Leica" to me, I guess because it was a Minolta behind the lensmount. I had a couple of long time clients where I frequently used the 180 but first one then the other got new public relations directors who already had good working relationships with other photographers. I in turn followed the other P.R. people to their new employers but the nature of the work was different. For the occasional macro job I always preferred working with the Visoflex IIs anyway.

    Factor in the fact that Tri-X and color negative films had become much finer grained over the years and it was possible to substitute a 135 for the 180 and crop. Keep in mind that the vast majority of photos used in trade journals, brochures, and newspapers only get used about 4x5 inches anyway. So I looked at that Halliburton case full of Leica reflex equipment and decided that it was time to let somebody else give it some use. I sold my Hasselblad kit and my view camera outfit for about the same reason. I wasn't using it. The M stuff is still earning it's keep and I enjoy using it.
     
  165. Al and Francois, you have both made some good observations. Thank you. Al, do you think the R lenses had the same look as the M type? Do you agree with Francois that the older lenses are generally better or do the new Leica lenses exhibit the same qualities? (Enjoying my coffee in my genuine Al Kaplan coffee cup ;-)
     
  166. Francois, you should post this in the thread entitled "Leica to survive ?", too. BTW you shouldn't write "friendly" which doesn't mean "amicalement" but "amical". Rather end your write-ups by "cheers, best wishes, yours truly, sincerely, etc". "Friendly" is what we Frenchmen call a "faux ami". Ah, and where are "Al's marvelous ethnographic shots" here ??? Photographiquement votre, Nicolas
    00CdZl-24283984.jpg
     
  167. If we think Leicas are too high priced now, wait until they fold, God forbid. The prices will at least triple. I wish they would come out with low and medium priced cameras and lenses to compliment their high priced ones.
     
  168. All the Leitz glass I had for my SLR's was the original single cam except for a 90/2.8 triple cam I bought used at a good price. I think the glass of that era pretty much mirrored M glass of the day in its "look". The only M lens I use that's less than about 30 years old is the 15 Voigtlander. I'm not sure I'd be happy with modern Leica lenses for my personal work.
     
  169. ...and where did you get an Al Kaplan coffee mug? I want one too!
     
  170. You gave it to me when I visited you in April, remember? (I should have had you autograph it.)
     
  171. Al suffers from Old-Timer's Disease... aka CRS (can't remember sh**). I'll bet he's forgotten about that $2,500 I loaned him a few months ago too... ;>)
     
  172. My mistake! My mind was fixating on that mock-up of a mug with my face on it that somebody photoshopped together.
     
  173. "Brad, you are comparing apples to oranges. My point is that without a power source a DSLR
    is useless. "

    Hardly apples to oranges. Just as without film, a film camera is useless. With a closed and
    atrophied mind you never will see the similarity...

    But, then you say you enlist your wife and kids to carry all your extra film and extra bodies
    for all the different ISO possibilities. OK, so that's what leica photography is about...
     
  174. i really tried to read/follow this thread...

    1) thanks for sharing the link/gallergy, Jeremy.

    2) Leica, Nikon, Canon - who cares? There is no perfect camera for every occation. Just use the tool that helps you capture the image you had envisioned. There is nothing more to say about that really.

    3) I agree with Ray. Dumping $4K+ into Leica gear is getting harder to motivate. No news there. There is a reason why Leica Camera is in financial trouble and Nikon is selling 90K+ D70/s per month...
     
  175. That ode to Leica is hillarious!
     
  176. yeah, but not two L's worth.
     
  177. DSLR's are descendants of Leica rangefinders. 35mm cams
    were a revolutionary photographic development, allowing for
    more convenience, flexibility, and efficient picture gathering
    capability at the expense of supposed image degradation.
    Sound familiar?
     
  178. Brad, your personal attacks are childish, rude and uncalled for, like when a toddler throws a tantrum when he has loses an argument. I was making a joke about the wife and kids which I can see you weren't smart enough to get. Sorry. I'll speak slowly and use small words. Your digitoy will not work without a memory card/chip AND a battery. My M3 WILL work without a battery. Remember that when you go on vacation and forget your charger, or it breaks and you don't have a backup. Even pros who use the Hasselblad H1 have backups. Any cop who has been on the force awhile will carry a backup gun. Or is your DSLR so expensive you can't afford a backup? NO camera is any good without a medium for recording the photos, be it film or a memory card, so yes, you were comparing apples to oranges to obscure the facts. Dishonesty is not a very becoming trait. The less complex any machine is, the more reliable it is. Adding printed circuits, computers, memory chips, auto focus motors and bells and whistles amy give it a "gee whiz!" factor, but doesn't make it more robust or reliable. It's just more stuff to break further down the road. You come here with some kind of chip on you shoulder about film cameras, proclaiming that new technology is superior to old technology. It is not. It's just different, that's all. Different does not always mean better. In the 1970's auto makers started going to all digital dash readouts. They forgot humans are not digital, silicon-based life forms but carbon-based analog ones. the digital dashes failed and they went back to analog readouts. The point is that new isn't always better. You have provided no proof that you have a Leica or ever had one. You cop an attitude that Leica owners are elitist, then prove yourself to be super elitist by bragging that your new toy can do things our beat up old toys can't. Who cares? Nobody here is trying to sell you a M class rengefinder, and you sure haven't convinced me to buy a DSLR. (though if I did it would be a Leica because of the lens, not the techno wizardry.) I contribute for a local magazine where the editor prefers digital. I still shoot film but I have the photos developed and put on CD which I give to her.
     
  179. Brad, your personal attacks are childish, rude and uncalled for, like when a toddler throws a tantrum when he has loses an argument. I was making a joke about the wife and kids which I can see you weren't smart enough to get. Sorry. I'll speak slowly and use small words
    Jeez, talk about personal attacks and a tantrum - just read the remainder of your above post... But then that's what you're about when you can't acknowledge the obvious. Once more: A dSLR without a battery is useless. And a film camera without film is similarly useless. In the end you have a tool that cannot make photographs. Any particular reason you refuse to acknowledge this? Or by not doing so, do you feel empowered to act out with a juvenile personal insult?
    I carry a spare battery (about the volume of a roll of film), which potentially lets me shoot 2000 - 2500 shots, even though I've never shot anywhere close to that in a day - it's a backup. You carry around an equivalent amount of film, two bodies, lens, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Why do you get so angry, or even care, about the way I like to shoot? No need to get nasty.
    You clearly have an axe to grind with exaggerations and lies, and I do feel sorry for you. I won't bother to address the tangents you seem to enjoy going on when you get angry. I'm very sorry I caused you to get so emotional and act the way you do. In any event, peace, and have fun with your photography.
     
  180. I always thought asking another photog what medium he uses is just to break the ice.

    Nice thread.
     
  181. " But then that's what you're about when you can't acknowledge the obvious."
    What, that you are delibedrately trying to cloud the issue by fixating on the battery issue you keep bring up? The point is that manular SLRs don't need an artificial power source. It has nothing to do with an image capture medium, be that film or a card.
    "Once more: A dSLR without a battery is useless. And a film camera without film is similarly useless."
    I'm glad you finally realize that and admit that you can't play with your toy without a battery. When your toy gets bumped or dies from heat, cracked PC board, or just plain becomes obsolete, our M3's will still be working. I'm glad you have the foresight to carry a spare battery, though it will do no good if your camera ever breaks. That is why you carry a back up, to insure that you get the picture. I have a few DSLRs that people gave me to play with after they broke, said if I could fix 'em I could have 'em and use 'em. Haven't had the time to get into them yet. They're already dinosaurs in electronic terms anyway. One thing I don't think you've realized is that the new DSLRs aren't designed to be fixed if they're broken. The camera companies don't want to have to fix old cameras. they want to sell you new ones. It used to be called planned obsolescence, now it's forced obsolescence.
    I'm not being nasty, just treating you the way any petualnt child should be treated. After all, it was you who decided to come on the Leica forum and critisize us for not seeing the light and jumping on board the newest digital fad. It is you who seems to have an axe to grind with Leica users.

    "Why do you get so angry, or even care, about the way I like to shoot? No need to get nasty."
    I don't care, until some self styled know-it-all starts preaching about something he obviously knows next to nothing about. Again I challenge you: Have you ever had or used a Leia, either M or SLR? If not, what are you doing here knocking Leicas???

    "You clearly have an axe to grind with exaggerations and lies,"
    Typical Marxist/Leftist defeated rhetoric. Now you're calling me a liar. Please be good enough to point out specific instances where I lied. You can't because you know I'm not lying.
    "I won't bother to address the tangents you seem to enjoy going on when you get angry." Yes, when you can't mount a logical defense, retreat.
    I'm not angry, though I could rightly be. In some parts of the world if you insult a man's family and call him a liar you'll get your face punched in or shot. I am mature enough to recognize the ingorance and arrogance of youth that has been educated beyond its' capacity and forgive you.

    "I'm very sorry I caused you to get so emotional and act the way you do. In any event, peace, and have fun with your photography."

    LOL! Kid, you haven't seen me emotional. You are just an amusing distraction between work and play, nothing more. I have acted in a rational, civilized manner. I did not go into a digital forum and start pontificating and running everybody else down as you have here.
     
  182. Man, you got me again, Owl. Touche!

    BTW, I clicked on your name. Those three photos there - very classy - and very classic leica!
     
  183. battery = battery<br>
    card = film
     
  184. man...i have to sort of align myself with Brad. i clicked on Owl and was appalled at his cheesy nudie photos. what is he thinking? these things are like amazing. don't get me started.

    but i also want to pick on Brad. i do not think he is malevolent. i just think he has no sense of humor or irony. i am not sure about his age but i think he has been caught up in the kind of depressed pessimism that masquerades as irony. and very quick to be insulted whatever that means.

    but the Owl's stuff is really HughHefneresque owlpucky in my opinion. part of me thinks he is putting us on and it is really something like a conceptual art piece (pardon the pun.) Yech! oh well, what do i know?
     
  185. man...i have to sort of align myself with Brad.
    That's gotta hurt bigtime, huh? I'm 74, BTW.
    oh well, what do i know?
    Is that rhetorical? Or are you seeking an answer?
     
  186. what disaligns me from Brad is that i am willing...nay happey...to admit that i don't know. no self, no problem. believing you know, big problem. that is all the zen i have to spit. too bad grant is banned forever...i am sure he could be more profound. subtext....Brad is trying to fill in for grant. the reviews are not good.
     
  187. nice bs....
     
  188. I have acted in a rational, civilized manner.
    You're fooling yourself. Nonsensical tirades full of personal insults aimed at anyone who says things you don't like are exactly the sort of thing that are turning this forum into a sick parody of what it used to be. In the past, there were a lot of folks who at least had a sense of humor and some perspective about their gear obsessions--it made for a civil and amusing forum. Now, even though I use Leica cameras, I'm reluctant to say much of anything here because I don't want to deal with some belligerent jackass going off because he thinks I haven't been enthusiastic enough about the superiority of a particular camera brand.
     
  189. got camera, no film= F*ed

    got card, no batt= F*ed

    got everything, can't shoot=F*ed

    Nice thread.
     
  190. Adding to what Mike said, one of the forums' Ayatollahs here once remarked how Ray had
    lost his compass with respect to being a leica photographer (paraphrased). Apparently,
    everyone here is supposed to have the same views. Would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
     
  191. but the Owl's stuff is really HughHefneresque owlpucky in my opinion
    I think you're being very unfair to Hugh Hefner. While I don't really care for Playboy-style images (boring and trite for the most part), the work is usually quite skillful. Other than showing skin, they have almost nothing in common with the shots in Owl Ink's portfolio.
     
  192. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "but the Owl's stuff is really..."

    just yuck. can't even read another post of his after seeing those.
     
  193. "...I'm reluctant to say much of anything here because I don't want to deal with some belligerent jackass going off because he thinks I haven't been enthusiastic enough about the superiority of a particular camera brand."

    What's the matter, Mike, you can't take it? You big ninny... <just kidding> ;>)

    When things got rough a few times around here in the past and I complained I was told, mostly derisively, that perhaps this forum simply wasn't suited for me and that I should find a forum for sentive guys. My advice to people now is the same... find another forum if you can't tolerate the abusiveness.

    Personally, I agree with you that the forum used to be a much friendlier and funnier place where people had more respect for each other and, god forbid, there was a sense that people actually liked each other. But nowadays don't come here looking for love.

    There are two sides to every situation, so let me give you a glimpse at the other side. A few months ago I got e-mails from a couple of newbies asking me basic Leica gear-related qustions. Each one said he was reluctant to ask these qustions on the forum out of fear of being ridiculed and/or causing an uproar. An uproar over a lens qustion...! On a Leica-based forum...! (Ask Al Kaplan... I think he's had similar e-mails.)

    The fact is that there has been a growing and intense divide between different camps and in my observation it was started by people with no interest in Leicas or Leica-related matters who come here simply to yank other people's chains.

    You know me, and you know that in the past my participation was all about posting pictures, making jokes, and amusing myself and others. In my opinion, the ugliness started with others who simply come here to antagonize (or, rather, to put the unwashed misinformed masses in their place). Screw'em... What you're seeing now is that some people who come here just to see what trouble they can start are getting it right back at them in spades (and then they whine about it). Call it "Revenge of the Nerds".

    What is causing this place to become boring, though, is actually the predicatability. Someone can make an innocent statement and you can predict who will say "Oh, yea...". And then someone else will predictably chime in with something else... and so on. Boring...!

    But, hey... I'm not complaining. ;>)

    P.S. When are coming back to New Orleans? The dwarf asks about you... ;>)
     
  194. "...a forum for sentive guys"

    That shoud read "sensitive guys". (Sorry... I'm very sensitive about my inability to proof-read.)
     
  195. The fact is that there has been a growing and intense divide between different camps and in my observation it was started by people with no interest in Leicas or Leica-related matters who come here simply to yank other people's chains.
    The fact is that there has been a growing and intense divide between different camps and in my observation it was started by people who feel they have a moral obligation and duty to act as the forum cops as to what appropriate discussion is, and even going so far as to define what leica photography should be about.
    This thread is an excellent example. I made the assertion that the "look" of the above leica photograph was more driven by digital post processing rather than the camera used. The discussion with Jonathan was actually going very well, he said so himself. But then, predictably, the forum Ayatollahs felt compelled to weigh in, to quash those thoughts - first Dennis, then Al, claudia - and now there's Owl with his classy photos to join their elite group.
     
  196. Predictable... <yaaaawn>

    BTW, Brad, have you considered racquetball as a way of working off some of that aggression? ;>)
     
  197. The typical Dennis response when he can't address a point.
     
  198. Yes, I get them all the time, and do my best to stay current and answer them to the best of my ability even though a search would most likely come up with the information most newbies are looking for. On the other hand a lot of folks know that I have a shelf or two of old Leica Manuals and other books on Leica going back to the 1930's, as well as a collection of Leitz catalogs, Leica instruction manuals, and promotional literature. This makes me a good source of esoteric information that some people don't feel is of enough general interest to post on the forum without being accused of fetishisms of the most perverse nature. Anyway, I do have a working email address.
     
  199. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I find it amusing Denis can at least recognize the disturbance he's partly responsible for. Although he claims there is a Leica look, I've yet to see it in his photos. It must be frustrating? Everything he's posted could have been shot on something else. Why? Because they're mostly shot at f8 or better ensuring focus. And the same with Grandpa Al, could have been shot on anything. No offence, but I think even a different system would help improve these peoples craft and results. It did for millions of others that migrated away from the rf world. But this is a place where peple enjoy using these cameras. And this enjoyment often causes poeple to kid themselves into beliefs, does it not? I definately believe there is a quality to Leica glass. Especially wide open. Our Carsten Bockermann has some great shots wide open in this page, and they have a distinguishing Leica look, to me. But only the wide open ones where this glass excels. The rest could have been on anything. And i think this so called look is rare to find, or, at least on this forum. I have different camera makes, and especially in 6x6, you can tell different glass. Old school photog's used to choose film with glass, or manufacture, for different reasons and subjects. Sometimes it was a Pentax 67 day on blah blah film, sometimes it was a 'Blad on this film. So, warranted, the glass can make a distinguishing feature. But for rf versues slr? Nah. The first wonderful pic that kicked this thread off definitely has a noctilux look. As distinguishable as a tilt and shift shot. But who cares?
     
  200. Oh I'm certain post-processing can give you any look you want, even simulate the bokeh of a Noctilux. It's not much different from engineers developing "manufactured" marble, printed wood verneers or cultured pearls. You'd never know the difference.
     
  201. "Although he claims there is a Leica look, I've yet to see it in his photos. It must be frustrating?"

    Eric:

    LOL... Why would that be frustrating? I often shoot purposely stopped down and pre-focused.

    But I'll tell you what, come look at the sharpness of some of my 16x20 wet prints shot stopped down on Leica glass and compare them to comparable Nikon, Canon or Olympus lenses. I'll bet the Leica images are usually sharper and have more pop. Oh, sorry... there I go again talking like an elitist Leica-gear snob. LOL... Good try, though... ;>)
     
  202. this is interesting....group and camera talk...great....so let's say Brad is working out some karma...makes sense, right...sounds right, huh? Okay, and he's chosen to do his gig here....it seems.....let's work with him, (as a "group") or well, ....anybody knows what happens at the end of "Clan of The Cave Bears"......

    and Brad is not 74 or whatever he said.....somehow I forgot how...I Googled him and found a photo.....he's about 30-40 I guess, a little "chubby"...dark hair.....and I think from California......
     
  203. Okay, and he's chosen to do his gig here....it seems.....let's work with him,...
    Why so patronizing? I've been posting here for around three years.
     
  204. Belle's comment is an excellent example of what's wrong. No information added to the
    discussion, just a jab to either insult or patronize - probably to get attention.
     
  205. Belle, maybe we could conduct a print sale to raise money to buy Brad a sense of humor. ;>)
     
  206. Brad, have you considered racquetball as a way of working off some of that aggression?
    Yes, Dennis, my 10:23AM post that you're referring to is just dripping with aggression. Consider understanding what "projection" is.
     
  207. The Leica look re focus or non-focus is bull. Who made up this
    rule anyway? Winogrand used hyperfocal focus where virtually
    everything is in focus, and so have lots of other street and pj
    photographers using Leicas. The first time I ever heard of a
    Noctilux was on this forum. So that's the Leica look too. In other
    words, the look of the photograph is 99% the responsibility of the
    photographer, and whatever he wants to make it.
     
  208. I've never heard anything or read anything from the moderators of
    this forum stating that people posting here had to have a
    particular opinion about Leicas, or that they have to own or use
    one, or aspire to own or use one. One time Al had a problem
    with someone posting a topic on Edward Weston here. It's as if
    some people using Leicas think their photography exists in a
    bubble and is separate and isolated from all other photography.
    Good for them, but that narrow minded notion of photography
    isn't protected here. This is a discussion group, an internet
    forum. It isn't a private little Leica club where Leica people meet
    in each other's houses.
     
  209. ...Even so, it's cool when threads like this catch fire and we all
    can hang out together and bond and get at each other's throats.
    Just like the good old days, and even Travis chiming in from the
    outside. Privately, I think Brad and Dennis really love each other;
    they just don't want anyone else to know.
     
  210. Ray, I agree. And how many street shooters do you know who, before they snap the shutter, are thinking, "Okay, I wanna make this look like a Leica shot..."? Do you do that? I don't...

    Some of this stuff is just plain silly. But there are certain styles and looks (sometimes hard to describe or define) that are associated with Leica M cameras and lenses, regardless whether some people subscribe to that, use those terms or not. To me, that's pretty harmless stuff... One thing that has come out of this thread, though, is that people who have used Leica lenses find that under certain conditions, certain Leica lenses may produce certain distinctive looks.

    "Leica look"... "Leica style"... It's all semantics... trying to describe or define what we see.

    The statement that "this shot could have been taken with any camera" has become just as tired (and tiresome) as "it's the photographer not the camera". What difference does it make if somebody thinks a shot has certain distinctive Leica features? Or does every statement about Leica have to be challenged by some as though the poster has threatened the exitence of civilization? Jeeez... this stuff is silly.
     
  211. "I think Brad and Dennis really love each other; they just don't want anyone else to know."

    Ray, I really, really like Brad... but sometimes I think Brad doesn't like me. <sigh> ;>)
     
  212. 2 observations....

    first, Leica is a cult camera, like it or not and so this forum reflects all the baggage that comes with cult followings.

    second, Brad really is into debating versus commenting and so has an eagle eye for what he sees as false "information." but information is not always as interesting or entertaining as the more fictional, folk loric aspects of photography.


    i have to drag myself away from this and go sailing now (~_")
     
  213. "Ray, I agree."

    I was referring to your remarks about focus vs. non-focus...

    Let me add something to my remarks about semantics. Some people look at the actions of a certain sitting U.S. President and say "He's steadfast and resolute." Others look at the same actions and say "He's thick-headedly stubborn."

    Some people look at a picture and say "I see things that I associate with Leica shooting or Leica lenses." Others may say "This could have been taken with any camera."

    It's all a matter of perspective and opinion.
     
  214. For purposes of this discussion, I think it might be worthwhile to distinguish "Leica quality" from "Leica look."

    In my mind (if nowhere else) "Leica quality" has to do with technical aspects, such as resolution and contrast, and most especially performance at wide apertures; while "Leica look" has to do with the aesthetic approach fostered by the strengths and limitations of the rangefinder system.

    It seems to me that someone could accept that Leica has an edge in quality yet deny the existence of a distinctive Leica look; or deny the former and accept the latter; or deny both; or accept both.

    Someone could also acknowledge that the distinguishing characteristics of the Leica rangefinder system lead to differences in Leica working methods, whether there's a difference in the final image or not. (Even if there were no distinctive Leica quality or look, I would continue to use Leica Ms for the same reason that some people choose to drive a stick shift. I've played with a friend's D70 and, for me, its just not as much fun to use as my MP.)

    I think one of the problems with the discussion thus far is that there isn?t even a consensus on what we?re disagreeing about.

    That often leads to lots of yelling.
     
  215. I had that 'ugh 'effner in the back of me cab once. I picked 'im up along wiv a couple of 'is
    associates (if yer know what i mean guv) outside the club on park lane. 'Ad to drive the ol'
    bugger to a posh house in 'ertfordshire for a board meeting (if yer know what i mean guv).
    Took me 3 bleedin' ow-ers, traffic was murder. When we got there, i was hoping e'd invite me
    in for a bit of argy-bargy. Did he buggery. Old sod never even left me a tip.
     
  216. Wow ...

    Tried to stay out of it but this thread took on a life of it's own.

    Not a full moon tonight so perhaps people will chill a bit. A little bit. Still close to a full moon - we'll see ...
     
  217. Sorry for the lateness of the post, been off living life, shooting and selling and lost this thread. Brad is just another Leica wannabe with an axe to grind. It's not so much about deflating Leica's reputation as building his own ego. Looking back on his postings, he has not contributed anything really useful, just hatred of anything Leica.
     
  218. Hmmm...

    Seems Owl must be a little desperate going back to a three month old post, just to get a tiny
    caustic retort in. Why am I not surprised he has no photos...
     
  219. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    that is kinda wierd isn't it?
     
  220. Methinks some regular here found his old password for a sockpuppet account....
     
  221. Brad, like I said, I have a life, and I've been living it. Simply lost the thread. I had some pics up but took them down. You even commented on some of them, remember? Sarcastic, and juvenile, as is to be expected from a wannabe like you, but you did see them. I didn't renew my membership, so no pics. Unlike you I did post pics here. You never have. You only come here to rant and rage against Leica. Typical wannabe.
     
  222. Unlike you I did post pics here. You never have.
    Really?
    Clicking on my name and following the links will show I've probably posted at least a five hundred photos, probably a lot more, over the last few years.
    Go ahead, try it right now and report back (clue: look for the letters W/NW). I suspect you won't, knowing what your motivation is - especially after reopening a 3 month old thread just for the purpose of hurling an insult.
    I don't remember a single photograph of yours, probably not so odd though - just someone with no photos and time to insult...
     
  223. I love dead discussion strings; The REAL question is: Do you have to be the owner of a fully functional Triumph TR-7 before you understand Leica Photographers?
     
  224. thanx 4 the link Jeremy. some great photograghy there. quite a few off-centre shots, i
    wonder how he acheive those, side step or focus-recompose (but not very accurate with
    very wide apertures)
     

Share This Page