Typical Leica photos, typical Leica look

[travis1]

no glow, no go.

[jtdnyc]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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.

[claudia__]

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!

[Brad_]

<I>I just clicked on your name, thinking that I'd look at your portfolios and see just what

you were talking about.</I><P>

 

Huh? I never claimed my photos have "the leica look." What the heck are you talking

about?<P>

 

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...<P>

 

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.

[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.

[claudia__]

after that nasty karma thing...hell i will kick in $100 dollars to get Brad off his hubris horse. damn. what a nasty man.

[Brad_]

<I>damn. what a nasty man.</I><P>

 

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.

[claudia__]

uh, Brad...

<i>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.</i>

<p>

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.</p>

[Brad_]

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.

[ray .]

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?

[claudia__]

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.

[Brad_]

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.

[claudia__]

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.

[boris c han]

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........

[nicolas_douez]

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.<div></div>

[o._i.]

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!).

[travis1]

Stanley Kubrick once worked for "The Look" magazine...yes? Man that guy could shoot...moving or stills

[dennis_couvillion]

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?

[nicolas_douez]

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.<p><p>

 

I love my Leica IIIf RD-ST because :<p>

- it's small and almost pocketable once the Summicron is collapsed<br>

- it's quite light but heavy enough to remain steady on slow speeds<br>

- it feels comfortable in my large hands (the Vulcanite provides a good grip)<br>

- it's quiet although far noisier than my Contax II and my Rollei 35 S (it's not an M of course)<br>

- it has interchangeable lenses and the screw mount is problemless as a feature (I have three lenses)<br>

- 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 <br>

- it's solid (thanks to the one-piece "flat tube" body design)<br>

- it fully works without battery <br>

- 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 !<p>

 

I have other mechanical cameras and for example a <a href=http://nicolas.douez.free.fr/classic_cameras1.htm>Contax II</a> I just completely overhauled.<p><p>

I love my Contax II because :<p><p>

- it's a bit larger than the IIIf (very close to a Leica M in size)<br>

- it's a bit heavier than the IIIf thus more steady on slow speeds<br>

- it feels very comfortable in my large hands (the genuine leather covering provides a very nice grip feeling)<br>

- it has interchangeable lenses with a bayonet mounting<br>

- 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<br>

- it's very solid - the rangefinder can't get misaligned thanks to its one piece prism construction<br>

- the shutter is more quiet than on the IIIf<br>

- it fully works without battery<br>

- the removable back makes the camera far easier to load in the field than the IIIf<br>

- it has a take-up spool that matches the modern films leaders shape so no cut off is needed<br>

- 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.<br><p>

 

I also have a Nikon F2 I love as well as the other two because :<p><p>

- it's large and bulky thus very steady even with long focal lenses<br>

- it's solid as a rock<br>

- it feels comfortable in my large hands<br>

- it has many interchangeable lenses <br>

- the MF Nikkor lenses are of an outstanding quality (both mechanically and optically)<br>

- the shutter can fully work without any battery installed from 1/2000 second until 8 seconds<br>

- the center-weighted lightmeter is a hell of an efficient one and consumes about a pair of LR44 batteries every three years<br>

- it never failed thanks to its unique titanium foil mechanical shutter<br>

- 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<br>

- it's finally not very noisy for an SLR thanks to the shutter design.<p>

 

I also have a Rollei 35 S I love as well as the other three because :<p>

 

- it's small and fully pocketable once the Sonnar is collapsed<br>

- it's light but not too much thus remains steady for slow speeds<br>

- it feels comfortable in my large hands (the leatherette provides a good grip)<br>

- 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 <br>

- it's solid (thanks to the all metal body and Heinz Waaske's great design)<br>

- 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)<br>

- it can fully work without any battery installed<br>

- it's very quiet and very unobtrusive<br>

- 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.<p>

 

 

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...). <p>Ah yes, I have at least a Leica, so that I qualify for posting and reading here...<p>:)=<div></div>

[ray .]

What's a "Japanese auto-everything plasticky toy"?

[nicolas_douez]

Ha ! That's the tricky question...

 

;-))

[dennis_couvillion]

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

[Brad_]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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 ;-)