Typical Leica photos, typical Leica look

[belledeux diana]

`<div></div>

[belledeux diana]

<I>(...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> 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.

<P>

X and B hail a cab. Exuent

[ray .]

<div></div>

[nicolas_douez]

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.

[thomas_sullivan]

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.

[o._i.]

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.

[dennis_couvillion]

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.

[dennis_couvillion]

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. ;>)

[boris c han]

"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.....

[o._i.]

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 ;-)

[o._i.]

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.

[boris c han]

"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.

[o._i.]

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?)

[dennis_couvillion]

"...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.

[o._i.]

Boris, no I just chose to ignore the irony and exploit your original comment. Backatcha. ;-)

[fran__ois_p._weill]

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?

[al_kaplan1]

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.

[o._i.]

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 ;-)

[nicolas_douez]

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<div></div>

[o._i.]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

...and where did you get an Al Kaplan coffee mug? I want one too!

[o._i.]

You gave it to me when I visited you in April, remember? (I should have had you autograph it.)

[dennis_couvillion]

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... ;>)

[al_kaplan1]

My mistake! My mind was fixating on that mock-up of a mug with my face on it that somebody photoshopped together.