Why Leica- Trying to explain the illogical

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Scott's a very good photographer. I thought his generalisation("Leica users are, etc") shows some immaturity. But what never gets stated outright in this forum is that the M cameras and the screw mounts before them, are beautiful objects in and of themselves. And they are very functional. They encapsulate the concept of simplicity, and the phrase "form follows function". Some people could care less about this, or don't see the esthetics of Leica, and some of them are fine photographers. Like Scott. Nowadays if you're shooting news, sports, fashion, corporate portfolios, you mostly want a camera from the 21st century to do these tasks. But because the Leica product is of such a high caliber, there are and will always be(as long as film is a viable option) practitioners using them. Google up the name Nubar Alexanian. I believe he uses only Leica for his 35mm work. And yes, you often can see a unique and consistent "look" in the work done by Leica photographers.

[albert knapp md]

To me, Leica represents the penultimate in optics. It is still up to

us to put that to good use.

[james_.1]

I'd like to spar with Mr. Eaton in the ring...how about it Scott? ;)

[cd thacker]

<I>Leica represents the penultimate in optics.</I><P>

 

If Leica represents the penultimate, doc. . . then what represents the ultimate? Medium format? <P>

 

And if film area trumps every other concern, Scott. . . then why aren't Magnum shooters using Speed Graphics?

[mike dixon]

One of the biggest reasons photo.net doesn't get my financial support of much of my respect is that a troll like Scott Eaton has hero status. I've lost count of the number of times he's spouted senseless garbage just for the sake of meanness or the number of genuinely knowledgeable people he's run off with his hateful attacks.

 

I use a Leica because it suits the way I shoot extremely well. I don't require anyone else's approval and I offer no additional justification. They're my pictures, they're my cameras, I'll do whatever the hell I want . . .

[dan_brown4]

Here, here!

[larry_kincaid1]

I could see immediately the "difficult-to-describe" differences in the photographs taken by David Alan Harvey, then Sam Abell, then William Albert Allard. I found out what cameras and lenses they used, then noticed on the web that many other Leica photographs had a similar quality. Then I read all the promises being made on this forum and elsewhere. I decided I no longer wanted to wonder if any of my photographs might have been better if they had been taken with Leica M and lenses. So, I bought a used .58 and 50 cron, took some photographs and discovered that all the promises were true, and all my photographs were better. Side by side with the ones from my Nikon lenses, everyone immediately chose the ones taken with the Leica without knowing, but neverthless using all the right "Leica" words (special, 3-D, really sharp,... etc., everything but "glow"). Of course, I also realized that the three photographers above were also doing a lot more with their cameras, but that is merely the challenge.

If I fail, I know it's me not the camera or lens. I did not think the rangefinder camera itself was much different from my SLR in terms of viewfinder, shutter speed, or even the weight (N80 is small and lightweight). Until a year later and I also tried to take some party snapshots with my Nikon with flash, instead of the Leica (I knew people would pose anyway). What a shock. I couldn't see them as well. The time for the shutter to work seemed like at least 5 seconds. It was too slow to get the unposed natural shots in between the poses. Little kids were way to fast to get any good shots. The final prints were good, okay, but none were special. I snapped everyone's picture and many were impressed with my 85mm 1.8 lens. And so forth. Enough said. For the purpose the Leica was designed for you are wasting your time with any other camera. You will just miss out on too much. Everything else--autofocus and telephoto lenses-- will have to come from the Nikon.

 

If I were a pro, the speed and cost factors would force me to use digital "as long as the customer did not know any better" and would be satisfied with the 8 poses out of 60. But I would still want to offer them a Leica portrait to give them a choice. From what I've heard on this forum, when that is done they choose the Leica photographs because of the way that they look. The "way that they look" is what got me started in the first place.

[doug_landrum]

I tried to send an email message to Scott Eaton. I tried to access his email address through his identity on photo.net.

 

My message, in civil tones, strongly disapproved of his post in this thread.

 

Sorry Chris for the skewing of your original post - which I enjoyed.

 

Apparently, Mr. Eaton has a fake email address listed in his photo.net identity.

 

Mr. Eaton, why do you hide?

 

I think Mr. Eaton should be stripped of his luminary status on photo.net and banned. If Mr. Eaton has a fake email address and will not receive replys privately and posts uncivilized crap, then why is he considered a luninary on this site?

 

I don't think Phil Keen was any more disruptive or uncivil. Phil at least had some sense of humor - not just pure meanness.

 

Mr. Eaton, if you read this, please email me and leave your real email address, I have a response already composed - and it is civil but directed to you. And, I will publish your address in a post on this forum so that others may correspond directly with you.

[james_.1]

OOOOhhhhhhhhh flower boy, come out come out where ever you are! >:)

[noah]

Scott,

 

I don't think anyone here who has experience with larger formats

would argue that bigger film equals TECHNICALLY better

results. But there is more involved in making a great photograph

than mere technical issues.

 

I'm a professional photographer, and I have many friends and

acquaintances in the business. I know countless photographers

who shoot 35mm. Many are documentary photographers who

not only put food on their tables with photography, but they have

devoted their lives and made many sacrifices for their work. They

are passionate and care deeply about their work. Some shoot

Leica, others don't. But none are "hatefull hobbiests" (sic).

 

Don't believe me? If you want to see some 35mm work (not all

leica), check out www.magnumphotos.com, or

www.viiphotos.com. Look at work by Sebastao Salgado, Larry

Towell, Eugene Richards, David Allen Harvey, Abbas, James

Nachtwey, Zalmai, etc. etc. etc.

 

And being "professional" doesn't mean crap. There are some

amazing photographers out there (some on this forum) who

photograph only because they love to. There are also plenty of

professionals who, quite frankly, suck.

 

This thread started with a leica user sharing his insightful

thoughts on why he choses to use a certain photographic tool,

and thanks to your post, it has turned ugly. No one here is

bragging about how good his or her photographs are, so I don't

know where your statement about bragging came from. This

started as an intelligent discussion about the positive and

negative aspects of shooting with leica cameras. An interesting

and appropriate discussion for this forum.

 

I've photographed with everything from digital to 35mm to 8x10.

There are benefits and disadvantages to each format. Part of

being a good photographer is choosing the right tool for the job.

 

I was going to avoid this, but since you are so quick to critique

other people's work without seeing it, here goes. I took a look at

your work online and found it extremely average. Most of the

photographs are technically extremely good. Great exposures,

sharpness, color, etc. But these photographs are full of every

visual cliche in the book--pretty flowers, silhouetted things at

sunset, bridges with reflections, etc. I've seen these pictures a

million times and I don't need to see them again.

 

Many of the photographs are uncomfortably composed, which

combined with the technical perfection, seems out of place. More

importantly, the work has no emotion, no soul. I look at the

images and I wonder why someone went to so much trouble to

make them. I don't know your photographic background, if you're

new to photography I have to say you are doing very well.

Otherwise, take a good hard look at your own work before

criticizing others and insulting a whole category of

photographers because they use a certain kind of camera.

[ray .]

Now, now boys, it's reaching a bit to say Scott's work has no soul. Scott's a good photographer, his work even shows a certain amount of sensitivity- probably at least as anyone else here. Scott is very knowledgeable and passionate about his craft from what I've gathered reading his posts. The thing is he's a little headstrong, and shall we say, <i>opinionated</i>. I think it's pretty obvious Scott showed his prejudices by contradicting himself between his comments on the Nikon forum (which I posted above) and his comments here. He seems to have a soft spot for Nikon in the same way he criticizes those here for their fondness of Leica. Does it really matter? Scott always has something interesting to say, and I dare say I've learned from his knowledge. I don't even dispute his viewpoint on Leica, it's a perfectly legitimate view that gets argued over again and again from both sides. I don't know why Scott loses his perspective on things and goes overboard in his generalizations about the people on this particular forum. It's too bad he seems to drop his bomb and take off into the night without hanging around long enough to really communicate about these things, but that's him. Maybe someday we'll find out why he has the particular chip on his shoulder he does. I certainly wasn't around to see it when it happened, but somebody somewhere here must've pissed him off. Maybe in time he'll mellow, maybe not. Whatever, we all do what we think is right for ourselves and everyone's viewpoint is heard. What camera anybody chooses to use isn't really so important anyway in the end. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans. We're all in it for the same game. Peace, Scott.

[henk]

Well, how illogical it might seem to many of you, Scott only explained his view on the subject IMO. With all these people getting all defensive about it you only prove he was RIGHT!

 

I personally find it pretty childish his opinion HAS to be discussed by all of you.

 

DO YOU GUYS SHARE ONE BRAIN OR WHAT?

 

Please relax and let someone else have an opinion of themselves, even if you dont agree, ok?

 

Greetings,

[gary_yeowell]

Chris, decent question! Scott Eaton, I try to avoid taking part in "slagging off of others" type discussions, but I think your comments are really rich, especially after looking at your updated photo's, pretty average by any standard - really! and I do make my living from my images.

[jsbc]

Scott's language can be quite abrupt and opinionated, and he champions digital but what's wrong with that? Particularly there is an element of truth in his statements. Come-on, 85% of what appears in this Forum is not novel stuff to any of us. (usually it's Medium Format better than 35mm, Leica has a smaller number of dog lens than other manufacturers, the bodies are hardly innovative etc).

 

The quarrel seems to be more about his abrasive style and the ends he espouses than what explicitly appears in the statement.Nothing to fuss a lot over in my humble opinion and at least it is not personal and provocative as "Digital is bulls**t and Jack is making a huge mistake." As far as I know, Jack has not repented his switch to digital. Who are we to judge?

 

Btw, given the quality of comments we are seeing, who can really claim to learn a lot from one day at the Leica forum? (Don't mean to pick on you Chris but your original post is the only one I see after hitting the comments button so I draw my examples from your statement).

[Brian]

<P>Let's not attack Scott Eaton. He may not always know what he's talking about but he carries out a useful function on the forums - as an irritant; something like the particle of grit in the oyster shell that occasionally produces a pearl.</P><P>You can play him at his own game. If you really want to get him frothing at the mouth, tell him you use Fuji Superia 100 in your M7, developed at Walmart, and "it's awesome".</P>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

"Hateful hobbiest"

 

Indeed.

[kevin m.]

I primarily shoot handheld, 400 speed negative, so the superiority of Leica glass isn't usually apparent to me, other than being very useable wide open. The reason I love the M system is the handling. A focus tab and a small body make for quick, intuitive use.

 

It meets my needs, feels good in my hand and I can afford it. The end.

[joel_matherson]

Read your own words Scott, "their lack of camera skills and technique requires the use of Leica gear to GET decent results in the first place. " So if we have to use Leicas to get decent photos in the first place RATHER than any other brand you yourself are suggesting Leica is better! Your post is a joke. I first got into Leica M's because at the time if you wanted a current rangefinder system thats all there was, and when you think about it if you still want a Manual focus rangefinder system it will STILL be M mount. Cant I just like using rangefinders because they are what they are without your insults and predeterminations?

 

PS Tony, you were just busting to use the term "Thread-crapper" werent you?! LOL

[Robin Smith]

Scott has had a character change. Perhaps he should consult a psychiatrist or get himself analyzed. Once he was helpful and informative person. Perhaps he has had a bereavement or a divorce. He is now bitter and twisted. I should know, I have these tendencies myself. As for his "I can speak for all professional photographers" it is plain absurd and a little unbalanced as is his hatred of Leica.

[ron_l]

>>"One of the biggest reasons photo.net doesn't get my financial support of much of my respect is that a troll like Scott Eaton has hero status. I've lost count of the number of times he's spouted senseless garbage just for the sake of meanness or the number of genuinely knowledgeable people he's run off with his hateful attacks."<< Mike Dixon

 

Mike - I am in absolute agreement with you. I am one of those people who left (although I don't profess to be as knowledgable as the almighty Eaton). I came back after a 6 month hiatus because the site had been restructured, I felt, for the better. One of the reasons I spend time in the Leica forum (having never owned the camera) is to get away from vitriolic losers with huge chips on their shoulders. And on the top of that dysfunctional list is Scott Eaton. How he can continue to have hero status on this site is a complete farce. Especially given the supposed new tighter controls and lower tolerance levels of the photo.net administration. Apparently the sanctions are selectively handed out on criteria other what they claim. I too, will never give this site any of my cash as long as it continues to implicitly condone such ridiculous behavior.

 

 

>>"Apparently, Mr. Eaton has a fake email address listed in his photo.net identity."<< Doug Landrum

 

Doug - It has always been that way. One of his cowardly tactics. He says something nonproductive and hateful, never answers for it and doesn't allow anyone to contact him to respond. He personally attacked me last year in a film/digital debate and then refused to have any contact either on or off board. How's that for a joke? A HERO status photo.netter who personally attacks others on the site AND has a fake email address. What a joke.

[travis1]

what's a photonet hero? that little label?

[doug herr]

Leaving aside the personality issues that have derailed the thread, I don't think using a Leica is illogical at all. In many fields of study, like art, evolution, or computer science, a recurring theme I see is "simplify, simplify, simplify!". One does not use a complex operating system to run a pocket calculator, generalist animals are not efficient at any particular task, and the simplest compositions are often the most powerful.

<P>

The camera I've chosen (a Leicaflex SL) is not a generalist; it's the simplest camera I could find that can do what I want it to. My most-used lens, the 400mm f/6.8 Telyt, is even simpler: 2 elements, not even distance or DOF scales, and a bare minimum aperture mechanism. This is not general-purpose equipment than proliferates like crows or starlings; OTOH it meets my specialized needs exceedingly well, and it's exceptionally efficient at that task.

<P>

Some people respond that one could use a complex camera in manual mode and get the same results, ignoring the unused features and modes but IMHO carrying unused features has its cost. Unused organs in animals shrink and eventually disappear under evolutionary pressure, unused software eats drive space, RAM and clock cycles, and camera features that I don't want to use have to be checked periodically to be certain they haven't been accidentally re-activated or to be certain they haven't broken and are causing problems. There is always some cost associated with unused features. There is nothing illogical about using a camera that isn't loaded with features, but don't expect a specialized tool to be as common as the crow.

[chris c]

Doug, Logic or lack of is directly proportional to the weight of your argument. <P>If when you approach the pearly gates and have to explain one of your lifes choices to move on, and that question was " how do you justify your decision to spend obscene amounts of time and money on photo equipment? You response could simply be to point at the pictures and remain silent. No logic needed. I on the other hand would be left to talk real fast an pray for an easier question...

[ray .]

Thanks Douglas Herr for your very insightful post, one of the most intelligent things I've read on this forum.

[james_.1]

You Scott sympathizers take the cake. Self flagellation anyone?