So what do you think?

[adolph_marx]

hello everyone,

 

just recently i walked into a coffee house for a bite and noticed

some pleasant color photos on the walls. i walked up to one of the

photos to read the caption:

 

john doe,

LEICA PHOTOGRAPHER,

date, place

 

i immediately questioned why this photographer felt the need to

announce that he used a particular brand of camera to take the

pictures. did this photog feel that his photos would sell for more

because of the glamour behind the leica name? i don't ever recall

walking into an art gallery (or even a coffee house) and reading a

caption under a painting that stated what brand of paint and brush

the artist used.

 

i'm simply curious what your reactions might be to this situation.

thanks.

[james_.1]

I really wouldn't care, I'd think they were his photos, he can put whatever on them.

[el_fang]

<i>i'm simply curious what your reactions might be to this situation. thanks.</i>

 

<p>"Hmmm. What a freaking self-absorbed bore." Sip. Sip. "Mmm-hm." (leave)

 

<p>;-)

[rick_campbell]

I read someplace that painters can spend hours discussing paints and brushes. I just went to an art show and all the pictures had captions that included things like: aquatint, watercolor, oil painting, pastel on sandpaper, scratchboard, acrylic on hardboard and so on. This is information about the equipment used. And lots of Hasselblad photographers print their pictures so you can see those little vees at the edge of the picture.

 

So I don't see what the problem is. I actually get mad when I buy a photography book and there is no information about the equipment used. It's fun to know.

 

I recommend that the next time you come across this, just nod your head knowingly and say "Ah yes, Leica! You can always tell" ;-)

[preston_merchant]

He's hoping you will be moved to pity and buy a print--so he can pay off his camera.

[jackflesher]

He clearly has the same problem I do... That is whenever anybody looks at my images they say something like, "Wow, great images, you must have a really nice camera!" He's just letting them know he does.

 

<HUGE> ;>),

[mike dixon]

I like Preston's answer. Rick, it's common in a lot of galleries and museums to list the media used (as you described), but I don't think I've ever seen anyone list the brand of equipment.

 

I think my reaction to seeing that caption would have been laughter.

[wind.dk]

Maybe he thought his choice of camera had influenced the pictures he took, or the way he took them. This is very likely the case - just because you can take good pictures with any camera, it doesn't mean it's the same good pictures you can or will take with any camera, quite the contrary. (By good I mean worth looking at, not technically excellent)

 

And yes, most paintings that I have seen on exhibition have in fact had a caption or catalogue entry stating what materials or techniques were used. Outside of photography it seems the norm rather than the exception - maybe that's why you don't recall it, it's so common.

 

I think maybe your problem is that you believe the finished work of art to be independent of and above concerns of the methods and equipment used to create it, and so the photographer is debasing himself as an artist by mentioning technical details. I don't think so, so for me it's not a problem.

 

Saying it's made with a Leica is of course not a stamp of artistic merit, but the process is part of the finished product. And so the information will be of interest to some. To others it won't, and they'll ignore it.

[todd frederick]

I can take two photos, side by side, all else being equal, of the same subject from the same tripod holes, at the same time, one with my Minolta SRT101 50mm 1.7 and the other with my Leica IIIC 50mm Summicron f/2, and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two prints.

 

I like using a Leica from time to time for a few reasons other than image quality: quiet operation, compact design, and historical connections.

 

Sometimes we get carried away by our tools: it's interesting to read B&W magazine (the gallery ads) and it is stated that this is a "silver gelatin print." Snob version of Ilford FB paper. It's all in the terminology...hype.

 

We buy and use a Leica for reasons other than print quality alone.

 

But, I am also a bit irritated when the same journal (note, I did NOT say "magazine";>) has an article about a photographer and says nothing about his/her equipment or technique.

 

Listing the camera on the front of the print is like a writer stating on the cover sheet that he used an Underwood typewriter. It makes very little difference.

[fotografz]

I find it a point of interest that there was little mention of the

photography itself other than it was pleasant ( whatever that

means).

 

What was it of? Was it any good?

[Spearhead]

It's silly and pretentious.

 

The comparison with non-photographic arts is all wrong. No-one lists their brushes or their stone-cutting materials. They list the materials in the work that someone is looking at. No-one gives a flying f*** what kinds of tools were used in the creation.

 

The photographic equivalent is stating the materials it is printed on.

[dlegaspi]

<i>i immediately questioned why this photographer felt the need to announce that he used a particular brand of camera to take the pictures.</i><br><br>um. maybe he just wanted to mention it? give him the benefit of the doubt.

[sal dimarco]

A couple comments on the comments.....

One- "painters can spend hours discussing paints and brushes" From the late Bob Schwalberg..."What is the main difference between artists and photographers? Artists can go for more than ten minutes with out discussing brushes."

Two- "Silver gelatin print" is the correct term used by Museums. It is not being snobby.

[al henry]

Adolph you can tell there is not a salesman in the whole lot of shutter clickers. If I can get you to ask for information which you did. This opens a window for opportunity. How ever if I just walked up to you and ask if there was something I might help you with the conditioned response is ( no I am just looking.) 1st rule of good sales get them talking, if they initiate the conversation then they feel a responsibility to continue. A question shows interest and interest no matter how small leads to sales. That is why so many Eskimoes own refigerators and people who could not take a good photo if there life depended on it own $20.000 worth of Leica cameras and lenses.

[james_.1]

"That is why so many Eskimoes own refigerators and people who could not take a good photo if there life depended on it own $20.000 worth of Leica cameras and lenses." -Alfred Henry

 

Alfred, most persons with Eskimo ethnicity live in what are called modern heated homes, hence the need for a container that is refrigerated (ie: refrigerator)for food preservation purposes, and perhaps film. Also, a person with 20,000 bucks worth of Leica equipment can do damn well what he/she wants with his/her money. To some with that sort of money, spending 20k is like someone else spending 100 bucks on a point and shoot.

 

"It's like selling Englishmen some English language tutoring lessons." -James Allen

[john_collier2]

Quote

 

I can take two photos, side by side, all else being equal, of the

same subject from the same tripod holes, at the same time, one

with my Minolta SRT101 50mm 1.7 and the other with my Leica

IIIC 50mm Summicron f/2, and I would be hard pressed to tell

the difference between the two prints.

 

Endquote

 

Hmm, at the very least, the prints from the Leica negs will be

over an a inch or two to the left. :-)

[ramy_sadek]

I must disagree with Jeff. It is tangential to the discussion at hand, but there are, in fact, many many people who care what tools were used in the creation of various artworks. Does anyone care that Mrs. Artists used a Ryobi power drill to build her canvas? No. But the media and techniques used to produce art works gets alot of attention from critics, analysts, and students.

 

I think, for example, the pieta is much more impressive done with a hammer and chisel than if it had been made with a water-knife or a laser.

 

So people do care. That said, I can't for my life figure why the guy put that on his photo. But we're all proud of our leica's right? Why hide it? Maybe he thinks of it like the "Steinway Pianist" title. Not only would it mean the picture was taken with a Leica but that he ONLY uses Leica.

 

Still it's bizarre.

 

-Ramy

[markci]

Maybe he's looking for an endorsement deal.

 

A lot of people seem to identify with their Leicas. Me, I just wish their service department would send me back my defective 28 asph summicron, as they've been promising, and failing, to do over and over for many weeks now.

 

Maybe I'll start signing my prints "Mark Ciccarello, irate Leica photographer"

[frank_horn]

If he wants to tell us he shoots with a Leica, I'm all for it!

 

(I say this with my AMD computer and HP monitor!)

[jay_.]

I'd do it too...if Leica paid me ;>)

[glenn_travis]

At least, this photographer is shooting pictures while the rest of you (us) talk trash. And what's even more bizarre, at least for me, is that most of you don't post photos or even have any on Photo.Net.

(Yes, I did visit several sites to see whether you did or not.) So what's the lesson for me here? Pictures talk, bullshit walks. You honestly don't expect me to take the majority of you seriously do you? If you do, you're dumber than I thought. As for my reaction, I doubt I would have had any reaction at all (except to enjoy the photos,) until some knucklehead pointed it out to me. Then I probaly would have gone ballistic (against the knucklehead, obviously.) So all I have to say, is rock on brother.

[douglas k.]

Wow...Another cogent, friendly, community-minded posting from Glenn Travis. Just what we've come to expect.

[wind.dk]

"I can take two photos, side by side, all else being equal, of the same subject from the same tripod holes, at the same time, one with my Minolta SRT101 50mm 1.7 and the other with my Leica IIIC 50mm Summicron f/2, and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two prints."

 

Yes that's true, the piece of film being exposed can't tell much difference between one good 50mm prime and another. But if you have both cameras I'll bet you can tell the difference when using them and the IIIc is probably not there just to act as a lens test replacement for the Minolta on top of the tripod.

 

I know I take different pictures with a Leica III than I do with a F80 even if both are equipped with a 50mm and different again with an OM-10 again with a 50mm. Even if I use the same subjects, the pictures turn out differently. Does that make me a bad photographer? I don't think so. I may not be any good but that's not because of that.

 

Rather than asking "could this picture have been taken with any camera" the question should be "would this picture have been taken with any camera". For some photographers, the answer may be yes, and they probably won't mention their equipment. For others it is no, and they may think it worthwhile to state the brand.

 

Incidentally the canvas and the paints in a painting is something the painter works with in a very direct way - as much like to the camera as to the print paper in the photographic process.

 

The only silly thing is he refers to himself as Leica photographer rather than just stating it was "Taken with a Leica" or words to that effect. Like it is a degree or something. That's silly. But then, maybe he *can* sell it for more, or sell more of them because of it. Just as paintings are often valued most because of whatever signature happens to be on them, some may value photographs more if it says Leica on it. Certainly very silly, but what does that matter, if he makes more money, and more people buy pictures they're happy to hang on their walls.

[frank_horn]

I'd have to see his photos before I formed an opinion. If they were Leica quality, fine, but if it looked like the work of a kid with his first $40 point-&-shoot, it would be better if he didn't say "Leica Photographer". Glenn appears to be in a good mood today-- a bit rougher than usual. But I have to agree with him to a certain degree. It is not right to criticize if we can't post some work now & then. I haven't got the scanner or Photoshop. If I did, I'd have to hire some high school kid to teach me how to use them!>>>> I did go to Kinko's recently, to scan some photos. The lady was very good about spending time with me, to show me how the thing worked. But she was quite busy with other customers>>>> Learning to post pictures is not all that simple. You would not take your son out for a driving lesson-- one time-- then give him the keys and say, "Well, kid, there's the Santa Monica Freeway: Have a good trip!">>>> Kinko's gets $0.20 per minute for the use of their scanner. Or, they will do the scanning at the rate of $9.95 per picture>>>> It does seem possible that they would have an interest in NOT teaching people to do their own scanning-- you know, at $9.95 a picture. Of course, this just gets you on the disk-- it doesn't put your photo on Photo.Net. The lady didn't ever get into that.>>>> I was surprised that one disk only held 2 8x10s and an additional 5x7, before it was full. Photos use lots of bytes, or whatever they're called!>>>>I would like someone to tell me if the Photoshop program has a built-in tutorial that instructs in its use. The best way to learn is probably just to get a scanner & Photoshop 7.0 program and try to learn. Glenn, how about it-- how did you learn to post your work?

[Spearhead]

<i>some may value photographs more if it says Leica on it</i><p>

 

Show me one, just one, painting that sold for more because of the brand of tool used. Like the manufacturer of the brush, or the scissors, or the palette. Just one.