Photokina/ Leica Experience

[leon chang]

I visited the Photokina last week and held the M8 and it felt........ STOP!

Don't worry, not another useless 15 seconds "user- report" of the M8. I have

another story to tell however....

 

As said I was strawling around the Photokina, gazing at all the latest gadgets

when I stumbled upon an Apple Aperture presentation by one of the Apple

representatives. You know.....the new post processing and cataloging software

from Apple. The guy was litterally saying: "What if you shoot 100,000 images

and you want to take those 100,000 images with you on a trip? How about taking

them on a trip with a plane? With Aperture you can downsize those 100,000

images to Jpegs and start editing while you're at the go! How about having

control of 100,000 images at once? With Apple Aperture you can! "

 

As he stood there talking about all this, I listened and metticiously changed

a roll of film in my Leica. There could not have been a bigger contrast.....

 

As I walked away I realized I could take the same photographs and that it all

was just about........well..........money?! What normal would edit 100,000

images? Who would even shoot them?

 

The conclusion of the Photokina: they will to smash my Leica out of my old

dead numb and cold hands even when I'm dead.

[pico_digoliardi]

100,000 images, indeed. How about one GOOD one that doesn't have to be edited? I am no longer surprised by such questions as, "How do I photoshop-in light like (picture of studio lit subject)" or "I took this picture of a race car... how do I unblur it?" The point is that expectations are that one can sit on his butt and make everything up. And to realize that "photoshop" has become a verb...

[dan_brown4]

Might be a good time to rent Jurassic Part. They resurrect dinosaurs, you known ;^}

[sk_szekiat]

a 100,000 may be a bit far fetched for most of us but shooting huge numbers is certainly

nothing new to the working pro. When i was freelancing and doing event coverage

photography, i used to average 1000 or more shots a day. This was in the days of film, with

38 shots/roll. In fact, when i started shooting digital, this no. took a slight dip as i could del

them along the way. I still do about 200,000 shots/year in total (digital and film) so i can see

how someone might do a few thousand in a shoot.

[john_brewton]

I seem to remember not too many years ago having several different P&S digitals that required NO post-processing! You know, just like our Leicas, really good images straight from the camera. KISS.

[stric]

Leon,

I was grinnig while reading about the film loading. But kojing aside, 100,000 images might sound a bit too much. Honestly, I don't think that an average user needs so much "power" but I can understand if the pros use such a tool. Somehow this digital age begins to irritate me in certain respects. I am not saying that it's bad but I certainly think that the selling point is becoming quantity and many average Joes go for it. Well, I guess, that's what sells stuff these days; evereyone seems to want bigger, faster, better... whatever.

But then again what happened to "quality vs. quantity" or "substance vs. style" approach? It seems that photography is going through a consumerist evolution. Is it good or is it bad? Well the time will tell.

[derek_stanton2]

There is, indeed, a contrast.

 

But, that kind of volume is not unfamiliar to professional/commercial photographers. The demands of working for clients with big budgets and bigger expectations has an effect on how you work and how you perceive the process.

 

Yes, it seems "normal" for a Leica guy to walk around with one camera, and only one extra roll of film in his pocket. And, to "pooh-pooh" the digital SLR guy who checks his LCD after every few shots. But, the best photographers in the world have been working that way for years, since Polaroids. Observe any commercial shoot - fashion, for example. The photographer will expose a hundred rolls of film, frequently checking exposure, composition, focus, etc. with a Pola back. The Pola is also necessary to show the hovering art directors and stylists, for confirmation of progress. These days, it's all done on a Mac laptop. Same thing. The Leica guy would like to believe in "The Decisive Moment." One perfectly timed click of a silent shutter. The Leica guy would have no clients. When money is at stake, you'd better have Insurance. It's one thing to spend a month trying to create a story, and not being too affected if half your exposures are 'off' because you used Sunny 16. The working pro, though, had better have his exposures on, down to the third of a stop. Big difference between Clip Testing every batch of film before it gets processed, and then having the lab Push or Pull it A THIRD of a stop, versus hoping your negative film's latitude will accommodate a guessed exposure.

 

So, yes, 100,000 exposures is realistic. Aperture is probably not designed for the typical Leica user. Even with the M8. But, the Aperture sales point is relevant to a great number of photographers. People who do have to process images at the airport, or in a hotel room. Or, rather, their second assistant has to process them.... So, without even seeing your portfolio, i would have to disagree - you couldn't take the "same photographs." And, "ONE that doesn't have to be edited" - i don't know what world you're thinking about. National Geographic and newspapers may insist upon a minimum of 'editing.' But, every other commercial image you see HAS been "edited." Does that somehow make them less 'valid?' Can't you allow for different processes for different purposes?

[seth_honeyman]

On the other hand, I remember George Bernard Shaw (an avid Leica photographer when he wasn't writing plays) quoted as saying "the Leica was like a salmon, which must lay 10,000 eggs in order that one might survive". Back when film ruled, part of the attraction of the Leica was the ability to take many shots for less than the cost of one large format image. Digital just takes us a long way further.

[film rules]

Digital-Schmigital = fast-food photography. Baaaah, Baaah (those are sheep sounds).

[lucien1]

I had to edit 8500 pics to keep 800 (2 CD of 400), and I was glad I had Aperture to help me.

[aaron_johnston]

I guess it depends on your purpose but who the hell edits in JPEG anyway? This is a stupid selling point for what is ostensibly a pro/enthusiast Photokina crowd. Apple needs to balance their emphasis on volume and ease-of-use with the needs of photographers to work with reliable, non-destructive file formats such as RAW and TIF.

[mike dixon]

He probably meant edit in the same sense that you would edit a shoot on a light table in the past--you compare slides for a certain look and set aside the ones that don't work until you've narrowed it down to the one (or few) that best fit your needs.<P>

 

You know what I'd <i>really</i> like to see? I'd like to see some solid work from the people who act as though shooting slowly with a Leica is "the true way" to get excellent images and who look down on people who shoot differently than they do.<P>

I've done my share of shooting with a Leica, and I was reasonably satisfied with some of the results. But I've never been so pleased with my work that felt I should be criticizing the methods of people who are getting published in major magazine and books and showing in respected galleries and museums. I'd like to see the kinds of results that other are getting with their Leicas that have inspired in them such disdain for other photographers' methods.

[larry_kincaid1]

This is clearly an issue of style of photography. I still remember the comment made by a view camera photographer when the first 35mm cameras came out with 36 exposures on one roll of film. Something like, "I know what kind of photograph I am trying to make. Why would I ever need to take 36 of them at time?" That made a lot of sense to me. Why would Ansel Adams need to take 36 shots of the same mountain, let alone 400 or 4,000? Shooting film 36 a roll very carefully makes a lot of sense to me today. I still haven't gone thru the 400 shots (1 gig) I brought back with me from Europe this summer on my first p&s digital camera, a Lumix TZ1. The only thing I like about it is the 350mm at full zoom, which, of course, my M6 does not provide. $300 was not much to pay for that extra feature compared to Leica prices.

[leon chang]

"I'd like to see some solid work from the people who act as though shooting slowly with a Leica is "the true way" to get excellent images and who look down on people who shoot differently than they do."

 

 

I'm not looking down on people who use the newest stuff to create stunning images. Hell I would be using aperture if I were a professional wedding photographer! I just believe that we are bombed with too many things we (at least I, as a photo enthousiast) don't need. It's overkill and overdone really (imho). I guess I'm from the old school were one exposes a roll of 35 mm film and expects to get at least a few good shots. For that, I really don't need a 850 GB Power Station. I do scan and edit my images but only color corrections. The Leica glass ensures perfectly sharp images even without unsharp mask. They're on my wall; beautifully enlarged.

 

Hey, I guess I just realized I'm the happiest lad in the world! (Photographically speaking)

[mike dixon]

<i>I just believe that we are bombed with too many things we (at least I, as a photo enthousiast) don't need. It's overkill and overdone really (imho).</i><P>

So why were you at Photokina?

[boris c hann]

"I do scan and edit my images but only color corrections. The Leica glass ensures perfectly

sharp images even without unsharp mask. They're on my wall; beautifully enlarged"

 

You must have an amazing scanner (maybe some hitherto unknown Photokina prototype?)

if all that's needed is a bit of color correction to get beautiful prints. I also hate to beak

this to you, but unless you're inputting sharpening at the scanning stage, then your

images, Leica or not, really do need the judicious application of USM (it's got nothing

whatsoever to do with the sharpness, or otherwise, of the lenses you're using).

[leon chang]

"So why were you at Photokina?"

 

Photography is a hobby of mine and I don't reject digital even if I'm not using it.

[leon chang]

" You must have an amazing scanner (maybe some hitherto unknown Photokina prototype?) if all that's needed is a bit of color correction to get beautiful prints. I also hate to beak this to you, but unless you're inputting sharpening at the scanning stage, then your images, Leica or not, really do need the judicious application of USM (it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the sharpness, or otherwise, of the lenses you're using)."

 

 

I use a Coolscan V and the results I get are superb. I don't sharpen since I watch my frames on the wall at viewing distance. I don't use a 20 x magnifier to view what's on my wall. It works for me. Accurate exposure and holding steady the camera can replace hours of fiddling in PS. I don't deny some sharpness of the original file is lost in the scanning/ Photoshop stage however. I'm just not bothered with it since I don't make a living of photography.

[mike dixon]

Jeffrey, you are far too kind (and your standards seem a little lax). I do still shoot film with my M3s on occasion, but I don't have a darkroom where I'm living, so all my printing gets done when I visit the State for Christmas. And after all that printing (and eating, and celebrating, and visiting friends and family), I don't have much energy for scanning . . .

[sprouty]

<I>"The understatement of the day!"

<P>

"...always seemed to me to be iconic of all the best that could be achieved with a Leica."

<P>

"A significant body of amazing work."</I>

<P>

OK Mike, how much did that cost?

[mike dixon]

Pretty cheap, actually. I just slipped a hit of acid in his drink . . .

[leon chang]

Don't poison me but Mike, you have a great portfolio indeed! Congrats!