cjfraser Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Frustrated by the poor tonal quality and limited dynamic range of DSLRs, I've recently switched to a Leica MP with 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8 lenses for street photography... and I love the camera. Here's my first posted Leica photo.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian bastin Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Very nice, Chris. What is the 50/1.8 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjfraser Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 (Obviously, I should have typed 50 mm f/1.4, not 1.8.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjfraser Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 Hi Adrian, our posts crossed in cyberspace. It was a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian bastin Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Chris. Be interested in how you get along and hope to see more pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Hi Chris - that's an excellent description of most DSLR work. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 nice to see you posting Chris c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Umﾅ Pete beg to differ, Chris Fraser has been swinging D-SLRs a fair bit longer than most, he aint no mug punter. If he wants to start shooting street with a BP MP what's wrong with that? Bloke I've heard of 'round Melbourne has been known to same. C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Frustrated by the dirty grainy look and messing with smelly chemicals, I've recently switched to a DSLR....and i love my camera to bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjfraser Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 I knew this'd be fun. Pete: Some fine work in your portfolio, really enjoyed it. I still use a D200 for a lot of things. I'm just convinced, from my own experience and others', that a Leica and Tri-X are the better tools for some of the things I'm trying to do. The posted pic isn't intended to be museum-worthy, just amusing because of the words "time to upgrade." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Leica and Tri-X And count all that ugly grain dude. Don't tell,let me guess, the large lumps of ugly grain actually improve the pic.And only a Leica lens can give those lumps of grain that special bokem. Got it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I'm always interested if the anti-dig brigade do their own darkroom work, or farm out the real work of photography. How about it Chris, did you develop your film yourself, and do your own printing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 do their own darkroom work Nah the dudes queue up with a bunch of housewifeﾒs and their screaming kids to get them done for them. Some young dude who's just left school does the work usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 The one unanswered question in the big film/digi debate that concerns me is archiveability of the images. All kinds of theories but only time will tell. On another thread somebody brought up a Bob Dylan photo of mine that I'd shot back in 1964. I still have and make prints from the negatives. For that matter the Leica cameras and glass that I still use today are of the 1970 or older vintage and my enlargers and whatnot even older. All bought and paid for likely before you were born, written off as a business expense, and making money ever since. How much did your DSLR cost you? What's it worth now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Mr. Bridges, you and the other high school kids at the drugstore should realize that the machine you're operating works by scanning the negatives and then spits out digital prints. If you ever get to Miami I'll let you smell the chemicals, get your hands wet, and give the enlarger a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Yeah Al, no modern photo is worth sh#t. I will attempt to take all my photos 40 years ago in future (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Trevor, there are plenty of worthwhile "modern" photos being made, and digital has its uses, no doubt. I just can't understand why people keep coming to the Leica Forum to put down those of us who prefer using traditional materials in our older Leicas. Also, there are still some big advantages to using an incident light meter over through the lens reflective metering. Chris will no doubt find that out also. But no, Chris comes here to the Leica Forum and promptly gets chided for actually buying a Leica and using it for shooting B&W film. Hell, you can still buy 8x10 view cameras and film for them too. At least the 8x10 shooters have enough sense to not come on the Leica Forum to brag about how much more detail they get with that nice smooth grainless tonality, or about the neat things you can do with swings and tilts front and rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Very good! Some will argue like crazy that there is no real difference between that D-thing and film. Let them argue while the rest of us continue to make pictures with film because we find the difference to be profound. Besides the influence of film development methods, I find that scanning traditional enlargements (rather than scanning film) makes the final difference. It must be terribly distracting for certain folks in either camp to feel compelled to rant instead of making pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Mr. Bridges, you and the other high school kids at the drugstore should realize that the machine you're operating works by scanning the negatives and then spits out digital prints. Mr.Klap,you and the other old retired dudes should realize that is where the vast majority of film users go to have their negs proccessed and printed. They would be a lot better of using digital having complete control over their work. The stink of chemicals and the size of grain on different films along with the good old days i leave to you old timers to mutter and murmer about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Woohoo! Time to get a coffee and some 'bikkies' and get comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 C'mon Todd and Al. And Todd, I want nothing less than at least a threatened lawsuit to PN at the end of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 film because we find the difference to be profound Amazing what some dudes think profound. This one thinks a chemical process and being able to tie his shoe laces is profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_f1 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I love reading the fights you guys have on this Leica forum. Maybe you could all relax. Let the Leica people do their thing, let the digital people do their thing. I think most people generally can accept that some people like digital, some people like film, some people use both (like me) and most people, from each of these categories, have better things to do than diss each other over which medium they prefer. But do carry on - it's a lot of fun to read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I personally am one of those "extreme" people who say the photographer is part of the image quality. Everything else is tools. I did not say "just" tools because the tools can be very important. And the choice of the right tool for the right occasion. Or the choice of the right tool to make your shooting fun. So what is the point of doing this debate over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowingsky Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Chris, I love the photo you posted. It reminds me of Robert Franks early work in The Americans. Most of the rest of the thread is a silly tempest-in-a-teapot. I really dig what you've done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now