martin_shakeshaft Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 There is a new photo agency who's members only use Leica M cameras! Check out http://www.groupm35.com/ There is some nice work there but I think the statement about quality and Leica is a bit pretentious (even if it is true) LOL. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monochrome11 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 some nice work... even if some of the images are ruined by compression... and comments like this are laughable... "Our members are all Leica photographers, which is the most obvious explanation for the superior quality of our printed work (over that of any other 35mm camera)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Pretentious indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I agree that the images could could do with some better post processing work. maybe that is deliberate. Clean, sharp, well presented images may detract from the Leica mystique as this site interprets it. Not a gripping site and not a good advert for Leica qualities. There are some Leica photographers whose work I love so I know the camera/optics are not to blame. I have seen some stunning work even from 1930s Leica lenses from both contempary photographers and old 'legends'. This website just makes me want to pick up my new Doisneau book. (Glow like you would not believe!) A photo agency should have access to both skilled B&W printers and people with good web presentation skills. Looks like this lot have neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Doisneau is one of my favourites for sure. Amazing image quality most of the time from his battered old Rolleiflex. Yes, maybe even glow ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_sallis Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Pretentious, moi? "Our members are all Leica photographers, which is the most obvious explanation for the superior quality of our printed work" At $1100 for a 16x20 b&w print the work had better be superior! Unfortunately for me, the shadow on a wall of someone holding a hoop doesn't really justify $1100 (yes, one thousand one hundred dollars per print) even if it does distort into a heart shape... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_lahay Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 <I>"Our members are all Leica photographers, which is the most obvious explanation for the superior quality of our printed work"</I><BR><BR>They haven't heard of medium and large format? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 What a bunch of sourpusses you are! I have had only a quick look at the site (will return when I have more time), but I saw some very striking portfolios. I especially liked the Khurdish tanning industry set, but there were plenty of others. Thanks for the link, Martin. I've noticed that good pictures usually make striking thumbnails. If you scan round the exhibition panoramic, you'll spot many pictures that are striking even though they are so small on your screen. As for quality, the above also implies that they have good printers. Furthermore, you'll notice that ALL the pictures in the exhibition are printed 16 x 12. It takes a quality 35mm negative to support enlargement to this size. I've noticed from posts here that many contributors to this forum never print theirs bigger than 10 x 8. Whether these guys would have done worse with gear other than Leica, I won't guess - but if they're happy with Leica and they're doing excellent work, good luck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm going to make sure the next house I buy was built by tradesmen using Bosch power tools. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 It's all about marketing. These people have chosen the approach to the Leica mystique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin.e Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I guess its safe to say that they may be idiots for having such a narrow viewpoint! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Adulation of equipment does not imply excellent photography. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 <<Adulation of equipment does not imply excellent photography.>> Of course. Would anyone disagree? But why does that make you unable to accept the pictures at face value? Why is everyone here hung up on the question of whether Leica is superior? Let it go, it's a juvenile distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I am not hung up on 'Leica quality' (whatever that is). As most people here know by now, I am pretty catholic in what photographers I enjoy and few of them are 'Leica photographers' (whatever that means). I just think the featured website is not presenting the work of their photographers very well. I doubt that group35M lack a good printer (for $1100 a pop I assume their printer must be top notch) but there is no evidence on the site of this. The photographers work is good but it is not enjoyable trying that hard to 'imagine' the quality of the pics. (Doisneau used a Rolleiflex as well as Leica eh? Interesting. Never knew that. A lot of my favourite 'old masters' seemed to have used Rolleiflex as well. Thanks for that info.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndc Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I agree with Trevor -- I did not really find myself "arrested" by that website at all. And the portfolios didn't do anything for me either. Not to mention the "snob factor" was an immediate put-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Trevor, you did say earlier that it looked like this group didn't have access to good printers, so presumably you are retracting that criticism? The quality of web images on this site could indeed be better, but it is as good as those on the Magnum site, and I suppose it may be limited deliberately to prevent plagiarism. Hell, why am I defending people I've never even heard of before? I liked the site for its images. The group would be well advised to drop that pretentious introduction about Leicas. But to contrast what they do with Robert Doisneau (a master of set-up photography) is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Any agency needs a USP. But theirs isn't altogether convincing. Jim Marshall uses a Leica, but he doesn't claim that having one is a badge of credibility. And regardless of printing, some of the work on there is pretty poor.<p> Jim Marshall took good music photos because he didn't mind pushing to the front of a crowd, or standing on the stage. The music reportage on there mostly seems to feature the audience's elbows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Yes indded Jonathan I said "it looks like" or there is no evidence of good printers if the website is all we have to go on. However since my first post someone pointed out that they sell prints for $1100 dollars each. That says to me that they MUST have good printers. (They REALLY must have have for those prices.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm not sure I could ever imagine a print being worth $1100, unless it was twenty feet long or something like that. Certainly, none of the images on that site struck me as out of the ordinary so as to justify such a price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Putting aside completely the issue of whether the camera used should or shouldn't be an issue, assuming it's important to the buyer that the shots were made with Leica M cameras, how are they planning on proving it? I'm pretty sure I read on the LUG that Tina Manley used an R camera as well, and I even seem to recall lately her using a Canon dSLR with the Leica R adaptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Me again Jonathan... just caught your comment about Doisneau being "a master of set-up photography". That is interesting. I am fairly new to his work so did not know this. However, I have never really held this against photographers (setting up shots) if the result is a great photograph. Photographs often tell a story just as much as a work of fiction witten by an author. No-one points the finger at authors of fiction and accuse them of 'making it all up' or lying. Anyway this way off topic. Sorry everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Why on earth should it be important to the buyer that the photog used a Leica? Look, these guys just have a credo that makes them tick. It's a bit cranky, but each to their own. Everyone who visits this forum must once have half believed in it too. I do wonder if the high price for prints isn't just to deter idle inquirers. I can't believe that print sales are the main outlet for people like this are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 it's marketing people! :) these guys dont care if other photographers or wannabe's pick apart their wording and strategy...we are not their target buyers. these prints will end up in manhattan lofts where the rich will use them as bragging and or conversation pieces at cocktail parties. hey, if it sells prints...why not. brad, your whole spiel is how you can make great images with an old sony whatcha ma callit...works for you, bollocks for other. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw_finney Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Trevor does better with a Lomo than I do with a Leica, I think that sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Huw, that's completely irrelevant. 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