Erwin: "Photography does not exist anymore!"

[sven_ochan]

"One of the biggest problems wedding shooters now have is the competition from the

guy/gal down the street who has a 30D and charges 500 bucks for his complete wedding

package."

 

And this is bad why exactly? Sure, it's pretty sad for the old time wedding photographers

who've been churning out schmaltzy snaps in exchange for good money for the last 30

years, but the world changes. If people are happy with the 500 buck guy/gal then it's

difficult to see the problem. If the cheezey old wedding snappers are feeling the pinch

they should look in the mirror and try and work out why the market value of what they do

has crashed. If they have any real talent they shouldn't find it too hard to find an

alternative pitch for what they do. The problem they face is that if they were genuinely

talented they probably wouldn't be wedding photographers in the first place.

 

It's the same with smalltime press photography, in the face of Getty and "citizen

journalism" the market has crashed. The reality is that most professional photographers in

every sector just aren't that good. If you can't offer something notably better or different

than that produced by the weekend warriors with their 20Ds then what gives you the

divine right to a living?

[Brad_]

>>> Why does Leica always get singled out for this sin?

 

Could it be because not many owners of other camera brands keep their cams in glass

display cases, presentation boxes, aquariums, in storage, etc? Just a wild guess...

[jtdnyc]

<The reality is that most professional photographers in every sector just aren't that good.>

 

That's one possibility. The other is that the "guy/girl down the block who has a 30D," while not so good as the traditional pro, is just "good enough," and thus has started a proverbial "race to the bottom" in terms of both price and quality.

 

I'm not sure which of these possible interpretations is true. Can you offer any evidence?

[sven_ochan]

"I'm not sure which of these possible interpretations is true. Can you offer any evidence?"

 

They're not mutually exclusive. Most professional photographers really aren't especially

good while many nominal amateurs are "good enough". The market is polarising. It's never

been harder for the mainstream hack photographer, but, at the same time, genuinely

talented photographers who offer something better/different are doing well. At a time

when many editorial photographers have found themselves unable to make a viable living,

Magnum have had a revival and VII have established themselves. Offer something that

people want and can't get elsewhere and you'll do fine, moan about the competition from

the weekend warriors and you'll go out of business.

[iwmac]

Brad...you have gone from tedious to totally irrelevant. your comments don't connect to anything previously said, UNLESS....there has been some 'editing' on this thread that has been removed before I read your whatevers.

 

Bob Todrick does make some salient points...so many people taking 'professional' photos have no clue why the photos do or don't work, but PhotoShop will help them out, will save their arse in the crunch because they have no idea of how the hell to use a camera.

 

And Trevor...you are bordering on the irellevant also....I doubt if Gene Smith threw his batteries into the ocean, or bay, and even if he did, unless they were broken so that the Mercury was seeping out they would not have been a problem...but of course you do have a point....and the irony is well pointed out.

 

About cameras and Smith, it appears he used anything he could get. Canon, Minolta, Leica...(not sure I heard of him using Nikons though.) But, so what?

[Brad_]

>>> Brad...you have gone from tedious to totally irrelevant. your comments don't

connect to anything previously said,

 

A poster said, "What I find amusing as well as distressing (and pretty sad, as well) is the

number of people who portray themselves as photographers because they know

Photoshop and computer use."

 

To which I replied with a just as valid, "What I find amusing as well as distressing (and

pretty sad, as well) is the number of people who portray themselves as photographers

because they purchased a leica."

 

And what is your relevancy - just more noise from what I can see. Try not to take yourself

so seriously Ian...

[Brad_]

>>> so many people taking 'professional' photos have no clue why the photos do or

don't

work, but PhotoShop will help them out, will save their arse in the crunch because they

have no idea of how the hell to use a camera.

 

Why so angry Ian?

 

Sven makes excellent points. It's funny that so many "traditional" photographers feel so

threatened and worry so much. If they were secure with themselves, ability, and craft,

they'd just

let the

schlock they think is out there die on it's own. Apparently everyone *else* is stupid and

just can't see that on their own...

[summitar]

This is the liveliest thread I have seen in some time on this forum, and it managed to round up all the usual suspects. I don't know what it portends that I was reading these messages at about the same time that the postman delivered a Leica M2 with f2.8 50 mm Elmar to my front door. Is somebody trying to rain on my parade? A few thoughts. Erwin's logic is somewhat strained, at least to me. Amused that he brought up that "some people might believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago". That concept is thankfully not popular in Europe, but is believed by about half the population of the US, especially within the taliban branch of Christianists. The rest of us are hoping for a new era of enlightenment.

 

Trevor rightfully objects to "Middle America". This is an international forum and we Yanks are so Yankeecentric. Slightly better would have been "Middle Earth" which would have brought in Brits and Hobbits. But then, out of nowhere, Trevor asserts that "new technology brought on the cold war." Say what? I would have said that the cold war was brought on by differing economic and political systems that were inherently hostile to one another, and which were both expansive or protective at the same time. Bob Todrick cited a woman irritated at "jerks trying to pick up women at a meatmarket bar". Isn't that what men are expected to do at such places, and why would women go there except to be picked up?" But getting back to Erwin, I think he was trying to make a major point about the differing workflows between digital and film. Why is this important if the final destination is the same, namely a pleasing image. Having invested heavily in film cameras and lenses, I fervently want film to survive. But time is on digital's side. In 1980, I made a costly decision (at that time) to buy a VCR. Reading everything I could, I chose the Beta format because of supposed better image quality, and at the time, Beta had 40 percent of the market. A few years later, based on sad experience, I wisely went with windows rather than macintosh. Marketing tends to beat quality. Now VHS is rapidly falling by the wayside. Even if film provides better imagery (and that advantage, if any, is fading), the many conveniences of digital will triumph. I use digital when convenient, and film cameras because I love the workmanship evident in the metal and glass cameras, compared to the plasticky digitals, and I feel more involved in the effort (focus, exposure, etc.)

[DB_Gallery]

What a bunch of hogwash.

 

This is what makes film users look like luddites or idiots. For a great many talented

shooters, digital has certainly not replaced anything but simply added another tool in the

box. Heck, I shoot tons of digital, just finished sending a 1GB file blown up from a 5D file

for a banner ad.

 

But man o man, do I love to shoot film, and I am happy to say I am still darn good at it.

This whole digital thing is doing the newbie and weekend warrior the world of good....well,

sorta. But it ain't *even* the second coming that the ads on Photo.net would have you

believe.....:-).

[summitar]

I may have read the responses too hastily. It appears that Bob Todrick stated that "new technology brought on the cold war". Apologies to both Bob and Trevor. Bob also said, I think, that new technology brought on global warming. Actually, Bob, I think the old technology of burning fossile fuel is the major culprit.

[orvillerobertson]

Film and digital are tools. You can use one or both. All that matters is the final image

anyway.

[jtdnyc]

Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Could we please omit the gratuitous swipes at Leica users and get back to addressing Erwin's argument?

 

Erwin, I am sure, doesn't think for a second that "photography doesn't exist anymore." Rather, he is trying to draw our attention to the ways in which photography is changing. And, apparently, he has done so successfully.

 

Lost in this discussion, however, has been the contention quoted in the original post, i.e., that Leica has been neglecting traditional photography as it focuses on the transition to digital. Is this true? As film photographers, what would you want Leica to do that it isn't doing right now?

[sven_ochan]

This thread isn't about Leicas, film/digital, or even photography. It's about male, middle-

aged, angst...

[jtdnyc]

Well, Sven, having started the thread, I can tell you that it was about Erwin's provocative comments on photography in general, and Leica's relationship to film photography in particular, before it got somewhat derailed.

 

Would anyone care to address the issue that Erwin raised and I quoted, i.e., is Leica too focused on digital nowadays?

[sven_ochan]

"is Leica too focused on digital nowadays?"

 

No. If it doesn't focus on digital it dies.

[Brad_]

>>> Well, Sven, having started the thread, I can tell you that it was about Erwin's

provocative comments on photography in general, and Leica's relationship to film

photography in particular, before it got somewhat derailed.

 

Such derailments seem to be common - whenever digital is mentioned, traditional

photographers express so much anger about how today's digital photographers are

screwing

it up for everyone. Taking business away, shoving crap on the dumb unsuspecting public,

fixing schlock in photoshop. And on and on.

 

Sure seems to be a lot of fear and insecurity out there...

[mike dixon]

<i> "It is truly bad that the Leica company has been totally occupied with the transition from film-based to sensor-based image capture and is forgetting its heritage of great silver halide photography."</i><P>

Leica doesn't have a heritage of great photography--it has a heritage of great cameras and lenses. It's the photographers who use the cameras who have the potential to make great photos. And most active shooters are now using digital (perhaps not exclusively, but primarily).<P>

Is it "truly bad" that Leica is at least trying to produce something that's useful to people currently doing photography? Would it be better if Leica stuck to bringing out nothing but new collectors editions of their film cameras?

[sven_ochan]

"Would it be better if Leica stuck to bringing out nothing but new collectors editions of

their film cameras?"

 

For the majority of people here I'm guessing yes. Just as I'm sure that instead of embracing

new music they're happier tapping their tassled loafers to the latest repackaging of Dire

Straits greatest hits.

[jtdnyc]

I have to agree with Mike.

 

I am hoping that Erwin, in a future post, here or on his website, will give some indication of what it is he would like to see Leica produce for the film photographer. An autofocus R camera? An M with a zooming viewfinder? A Hexar built to Solms standards (and prices)?

 

As a film photographer, I am thankful for each new product Leica produces, and I buy some of them, but offhand I can't think of any additional piece of equipment I need in order to take the types of photographs I enjoy taking. And that, in essence, is Leica's problem. Many of us already have what we want; and for those who don't, there is already so much good, virtually indestructible product out there that their main competition is the used market in their own goods.

 

Once in a while, Leica comes up with a winner, like the viewfinder magnifier, or something I buy simply because I want it whether I really need it or not, like the Leicavit. But such products hardly seem like a strategy for corporate survival.

 

Personally, I hope Leica makes a bundle on digital products so that it stays in business and is able to produce items that I don't own yet but someday may convince myself I "need," like the 75/2.

 

If the premium paid for collectors' editions helps fund the R&D, that's okay with me.

[jtdnyc]

Sven, you've got your demographics all wrong. For some of us, Dire Straits *is* new music and tassled loafers are a concession to modern fashion, to be worn only on social occasions. In private, we wear sensible lace-ups.

[dead_metaphor]

As Larry Kincaid's pic shows, crappy photos are crappy photos, regardless of capture.

[paulmoore]

leica should be developing film products? why? that is not the future or will be, I would

rather they stay on course with the digital world we now find ourselves, and have a good

business..but what do I know?, I am a middle aged, middle american living in mddle earth.

[Alex_Es]

I don't think this is a great discussion. It is a good discussion. It's good because it let's a lot

of steam out. Artists need to do that. And get on with whatever they are on to.

 

I usually respect Ernwin's opinions. In this case I think he is totally and absolutely full of it.

Photography isn' t the medium that the camera uses. That's elementary.

[sprouty]

Dead Metaphor shoots an arrow straight through the heart...

 

Hey I'm pretty happy with my M6. It's pretty much everything I want in a camera that I lug around with me everywhere.

 

But my shiny new D200 was a hell of a lot more useful the other night when I was figuring the lighting for shoot I was doing for a friend.

 

And they seem to share the same camera bag a lot better then some of us share this forum.

[bobtodrick]

sven...give me a break. For f**k sakes what has gone wrong with the world where having experience and knowing what your doing is far less important than getting the best price?

 

Case in point...one of my 'clients', a 'pro' shooter (actually a stay at home mom who has Saturdays free and bought the aforementions 30D to do weddings because some of her friends told her she took 'nice' pictures), comes into my office and bought the 30D because one of her friends told her it would take 'way better pictures than a D200.

 

Yep-Sure!

 

Had her husband (who thought an extra $500 or so a month will be nice) helped her put up a little website. She has some business cards and started doing a few weddings.

 

I've now had complaints about her. I'm fairly high profile in the pro business in Edmonton (where I live) and regularily get calls from people asking what recourse they have as customers when they get bad photography. Usually tell them it's buyer beware and that they should have done a little more research.

 

Anyways...for $500 they get someone who does have an 'eye' to some degree. But has absolutley no idea how to use fill flash, how to compensate for heavy backlighting...etc.

 

This, in my mind is the bain of digital. Sure, if conditions are right any dufus can pick up a DSLR and bang away...checking the LCD screen till they get the shot that looks nice (and of course deleting the bad). But in no way does this mean they are a capable shooter who knows what to do when the lighting gets tough or a background has to be blown out to be less distracting.

 

But hey...500 bucks...such a deal.

 

Just like so much in our fast food society today, photography is falling prey to the 'why take time to do it properly when I can do it RIGHT NOW'...and digital goes hand in hand with that attitude.

 

You should read 'On Waldens Pond' (Thoreau) to get what I mean. (oops, probably too old fashioned for you guys :-(