Ewrin Puts on photo philosophy

[marke_gilbert]

ok, this is going to be 1/3 rant, 1/3 plea, and 1/3 primal scream therapy.

 

"I prefer a modestly equipped manual camera with lenses with really good

built-quality and outstanding optical design that require the photographer to

think and feel about his photography above a camera that shields the

photographer from the basics of the craft by introducing chance as the main

principle for creating good pictures. That said I have to confess that the E-3

is a very convincing tool and it is quite easy to seduce me into buying one. But

so is the new Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds etc. "

--Ewrin

 

Reading Erwin's article set off a cascade effect of irritation in my head this

morning, sorry you guys have to get the brunt of it. Erwin writes, and many

espouse the same view, that this is an either-or-proposition-- digital or film,

automation or manual purity, omniscient artist and craftsman or happy snapping

talentless neophyte.

 

I submit to you that this is simply not the case. Technology and features do

not render one unable to understand composition, exposure, or light. Nor does

possession of a finely crafted mechanical instrument turn one into a master of

the decisive moment, nor does the highest quality of optics make one understand

selective focus. I would posit that in going through the W/NW threads on ANY

forum, there are about the same percentage of good, average, and absolute

garbage shots. (and that might be being kind some...)

 

The shot below, I shot a couple weeks ago with a Nikon D2x, and a Nikon 105mm

f2.8 AF-S VR Micro lens. BUT, I shot it, on a tripod, with a release, hand

holding stacked ND and polarizing filters in front of the lens, after composing,

hand metering, and making my own mental calculations to adjust the exposure.

Several shots, I shot in bulb, and hand timed the exposure on my mechanical watch.

 

Granted, the shot is not great-- but to listen to many, nobody is capable of

using anything digital without relying solely on the camera's processing and

focus. Absurd.

 

When I read/listen to the endless carping about the advantages of this or

that, it is positively numbing-- from both sides. Some advantages, I would say

are genuine, some are spurious at best, and many are simply self-justification.

 

"Leicas are unobtrusive, they allow me to get shots I couldnt otherwise get"--

 

That may be true for you-- but isnt the process not a question of becoming

invisible, but rather becoming part of the environment? Is an M6 with a 35mm 4th

summicron less obtrusive than a Canon 1Ds Mk. III with a 500mm lens? yep. Is a

photographer who has developed some skill in becoming part of the environment

and making his subjects comfortable less obtrusive than a voyeuristic stand-

offish person with the most discrete, black taped rangefinder? yep.

 

There are a myriad of these examples-- how many of them are products of our

imagination, or held to give us assurance that we have simply the best, or worse

yet, by virtue of owning the best, we simply ARE the best?

 

I have shot some of my best stuff with an M6TTL and a Noctilux-- I have shot

some of my best work with a Hasselblad 503CW and 80mm-- I have shot some of my

best stuff with a D2x and 85mm-- I have shot far more crap with all three as

well. What is the thread here? Not the equipment.

 

I love Leicas, I loved MY Leicas-- but I love images more.<div></div>

[pjleeson]

Agreed -- in most photography, what's behind the camera is as important as what's in front

of it.....

[graham_line]

There are a handful of Erwins out there in the photo press, some with a lot less technical ability, who keep on writing about photography and gear long after they have anything useful or coherent to say.

[vivek iyer]

Who is <i><b>Ewrin</b></i>??

[marke_gilbert]

"Who is Ewrin??"

 

Vivek, told you it would be 1/3 rant-- typos come under the heading of speed typing, which is the audible equivalent of ranting!

 

 

or, thats my story at least...

[neal_martin]

IMO, Erwin's and Marke's posts are equally non-nonsensical. Both make good points, both are overly wrought, both could use a good editor.

 

Fundamentally, Marke's own opinions are correct (which is to say, I agree with him). Equally correct is Philip's cliche one-liner. But try to read Erwin's opinion musings as written by a passionate and knowledgeable camera fan, and maybe overlook his pedantic style.

[inspiration point studio]

Marke, I think you missed Erwin's point. I think he is saying the current camera manufacturers should concentrate on improving image and lens quality rather than on autofocus speed, frames per second, fully automatic every thing etc. Your H2O picture proves the point, you hardly need any of the latest automatic features, with the exception of matrix metering.

[marke_gilbert]

Michael,

My response wasnt just to Erwin-- it was more generally directed at the legions who espouse the "better than thou" school of equipment-- if most spent as much time on developing style and skill as fretting about equipment (myself included), we would see a quantum leap in the quality of our work.

 

by the way, the above shot was metered with a hand held spot meter... no matrix necessary!

[doug herr]

Marke, the herd is a myth. It's like prejudices and stereotypes, get to know the individuals then you'll realize how foolish it is to believe the myth.

[vivek iyer]

Agree with Doug Herr. There are some abusive posters who make that "myth, herd, etc" legends.

[Brad_]

What Erwin says is relevant for people who need to belong - ie, membership in the Herd of

product ownership and camaraderie.

 

For others who just want to make photos, why are his views interesting? Unlike some

photographers who offer developmental workshops or instruction, he's not offering anything

towards

making better photographs.

[marke_gilbert]

Douglas,

Point taken-- but I will say, Ive been posting here for going on 8-9 years, and while I agree, there is not a "herd", there are certainly trends-- and I include myself as often as not.

[bobtodrick]

Uhhh...it's one mans opinion and he's entitled to it.

 

The above rant (oh...1/3 rant) is no better. Erwin says 'this is my opinion, take it or leave it'...at least he's not ranting about the people who don't agree with him.

 

Hint:...if you don't agree...DON'T READ HIM...pretty simple in my mind.

[jtdnyc]

Whatever his strengths and weaknesses as a photographer, researcher, analyst or critic, Erwin has no peer in his ability to inspire Leica-related discussion.

 

For those who just want to make photos, there are many internet forums devoted to that general activity. For those who want to make photos with Leicas and other rangefinder cameras -- a legitimate choice, even if not every shares it -- Erwin's observations can be interesting and occasionally helpful.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I think Erwin is more of a film era guy than a digital oracle. With a good basic 12mp image like the Nikon D3 gives in raw you can get whatever you want post processing wise. Lens problems like CA , barrel distortion, color correction, lenses being too warm or cold can be corrected.

 

you don't need to be using a small camera to get shots without being observed. A Cunning photographer can and many do there work without notice its technique and lens selection that does it.

[icuneko]

<...this is going to be 1/3 rant, 1/3 plea, and 1/3 primal scream therapy.>

 

I didn't hear any screaming, so here's some: "Aaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...!" Phew, that felt good.

 

I concur, though, that the bottom line is the image, not the means that

produces it.

[laurentvuillard]

The most irritating about EP is his mix of apparent scientific knowledge on optics with archi subjective interpretations. This is particularly bad when it turns to lens evaluations, (microcontrast bla bla bla). Most of the time he is unable or not willing to show any simple side by side comparisons which would tell fare much than his (hardly edible) prose. Furthezrmore, when he goes as far as comparing the "feel" and "properties" of the film transport of M3 vs M6, I feel he is badly out of focus with real photo issues. Having said this he has a lot of useful data (serial numbers versions and so on). BTW, why does he never mentions that, hand held, rangemeters such as Leicas are better not only because the optics are excellent but because they do not shake? A tripod IS a nuisance!

[don dudenbostel]

Erwins opinions are worth what you paid for them. He's a technician and amateur photographer and not a very good amateur at that.

 

Full feature cameras like the D3, 1DsIII and 1DIII are designed for working professionals and adopted by the amateur market. Certainly they're loaded with features but they can also be used as a basic non auto camera and the photographer taked charge of the machine just like the old days. It's a choice and if we need it available and at orur finger tips.

 

I agree that many folks are equipment driven including Erwin. Yes in many cases much of the money spent on premium cameras and lenses could be better spent on education to learn to make better images. I've noticed an increasing number of people more interested in how their equipment looks and how they look with their camera than how their photographs look. Sorry but IMO the equipment is far less important than the final photograph.

[dan flanders]

"If you don't like the apples, ****!"

[Troll]

I've been shooting with Leicas for nearly 60 years, am interested in the technical history of our medium, something that you Point & Shooters apparently consider passee and beneath yourselves.<P>For photographers interested in the technical aspects, especially regarding Leicas, Erwin does a job which is not available anywhere else in print or on the web. That work can be depended on to be exact and correct, and when he expresses an opinion, it is (usually)labeled as such, not as fact.<P>Who is Marke Gilbert? What major gallery represents his work? When did he have his last one-man show at MOMA? Why is he posting one more picture of rushing water with the highlights burned out (just like every boring pictorialist 100+ years ago, only now in living color)? Why does he spell Mark with an "e"?

[marke_gilbert]

Bill,

<P>The picture, you will note, was described as "not great"-- I shot that specifically as a gift for someone.

<P>I was however, nominated for the 2006 Michigan Governor's Awards for Arts and Culture as Artist of the Year. I have been published, but I do not consider myself accomplished-- conversely, Im still (hopefully) always learning...

<P>As for the "E", youll have to blame my parents-- (it was 1968, Im pretty certain they were high when they came up with it)...

[paul_neuthaler]

Guys, just enjoy taking pictures, fondling your film/digital cameras & forget about Erwin Puts -- he's just trying to earn a living.

[rj]

Photography is all about the equipment, never about the photographer. My cameras take excellent shots, better than anybody's, when I am not even touching them, thinking about them or even in the same country as them. Amazing aint it? You gotta believe or it won't happen. Come to the dark side and believe. ;-)

[asher]

<p>The quoted paragraph in the OP started with "I prefer ...".

<p> Sounds like an opinion, not gospel. All the Talmudic debate over this guy's writings

perplexes me. I agree with Paul, above.

[len_smith]

Erwin makes some good factual statements. His lens tests are carried out meticulously and the results have enormous practical value.

 

However, he also has the habit of talking what appears to be nonsense. This appeals to some Leicaphiles, who presumably regard Erwin as part of the Leica mystique. For mystique is definitely what it is.

 

I don't think Erwin's musings are helped by the fact that English is not his first language. His English is certainly a lot better than my Dutch, but I hope I would never attempt such esoteric discussions in a language of which I did not have a near-complete command.