street shooter shootout??

[roger_michel]

marc -- you often sing the "it's the image not the camera" song.

a lot of people here buy into this (a curious situation since this is

the LEICA forum, and people presumably have some degree of

affection for that particular brand -- but that's another thread).

that's plain hogwash. as i've said before, a major part of what

separates amateur photography from digital is selecting just the

right tool to get the image you want. you can't control perspective

any more with a point and shoot than you can grab a sports

action shot with a burke and james full plate. in my view, small

high resolution digital cameras represent a major step forward

for street photographers.

 

and marc, you seem to suggest that my view is colored by some

sort of naive enthusiasm for something new. based on the

self-portraits that you have posted here, i can tell you that i've

been in this game much longer than you, used a huge diversity

of equipment over the years in my professional career, and am

able to discern a flash in the pan from a true, revolutionary

improvement.

 

your suggestion that the digital wave is going to "just die down"

and film and digital will be used side by side is, i think, naive in

the extreme. digital is going to wholly displace film for everything

but fine art photography within ten years. beyond that, digital

photography is going to open up truly amazing creative

opportunities in the future. is there any reason, for example, that

scheimpflug principles cannot be made part of a programmed

alogorithm, allowing in camera perspective correction entirely in

the digital domain. and once resolution gets high enough, will

digital zooms replace optical zooms altogether?? anyone who

uses photoshop knows how that process compares with wet

photography, even in terms of controlling basic print parameters

like contrast and tonality.

 

i guess i didn't realize how much fear is here. people love their

leicas, they love film, and hate the idea that the changes in

photography will require them to totally transform their

self-image if they want to continue to use leicas. no longer will

they be able to pretend that they are connoisseurs who use the

best equipment for the job because they know better than the

mass market masses. they will have to confront the fact that they

are retro hobbyists who use their old style cameras for nostalgic

reasons.

 

and i say this with a heavy heart. i doubt there are many people

here who have invested as much in leica, or film cameras

generally, as i have.

 

i will end by saying how strange it is that so many people who

jumped up to opine that digital cameras cannot be used

successfully for street photography are unwilling to put that

proposition to a simple test.

[travis1]

I love my leicas. If film is dead, I'll switch to digital if I have no other choice. Im not afraid of the impending change, I guess most people here feels the same here.

 

By insisting to prove that you can do so and so with a digital PROVES only nothing. If you love photography, you'll know what I mean.

[kevin m.]

"...so many people who jumped up to opine that digital cameras cannot be used successfully for street photography..."

 

This is becoming tiresome, Roger. I kept up pretty well with these threads and I don't remember anyone saying that. It's in your imagination. But you're a brave and lonely soldier, fighting the good fight, and what's a little exaggeration when your cause is just? You've already called for Dante's aid, try beseeching Zeus next.

[kevin m.]

Roger, on second read, just open your own website, then you'll never have to encounter any disagreement. You may be a fine photographer, (taking a potshot at Marc certainly elevated your status in my eyes!) but your ability to formulate an argument is suspect. It would help if you actually READ what other people write before you respond. Not one person, let alone "many" has actually made any of your sweeping generalizations. And Marc didn't say digital is going to die down, but that all this commotion about it will. (But hey, don't let that get in the way of your script!)

 

And he's right. This is a silly discussion, but it certainly does get people's passions worked up.

 

You don't seem too interested in input at this point, but I'll give some anyway. If Leica (or Konica or Voigtlander, etc.) made an affordable digital M, I'd buy one and never shoot color film again. I'd still keep the darkroom up for B&W, though, even if it's partly for sentimental reasons. That would be the best of both worlds.

[ray .]

"no longer will they be able to pretend that they are

connoisseurs who use the best equipment for the job because they know better than the mass market masses. they will have to confront the

fact that they are retro hobbyists who use their old style cameras for nostalgic reasons."

 

So, all of us who were making half-way decent photographs and still are, are pretending? When we make more good photos and the occasional great one we'll need to confront the fact those great photographs were made with retro hobbyist cameras? How terrible for us Roger.<div></div>

[patricks]

Diego, I like that Martini photo!

[roger_michel]

i thought that might get your blood moving ray!!

 

in all seriousness, the fact is that leicas are not usually

described here as just another film camera , but the non plus

ultra of the breed. indeed, how else do people justify spending

so many multiples of the cost of good used f2/lens or even a

used blad, rollei or bessa. people justify acquiring leicas on the

basis of superior performance.

 

and so while i have no doubt that people have made/will make

amazing images with leicas (and nikons and canons and petris

and praktikas), it will not be possible to justify spending $2600

on a camera body and $1500 on a 50/1.4 on quality/utility

grounds if something clearly surpasses the leica on those fronts

IN THE APPLICATION FOR WHICH THE CAMERA IS BEST

SUITED.

 

if people continue to use leicas after that time, paying the cost of

entry for same, they will have to justify their pruchase on

something other than quality/performance grounds. that's where

my quoted comment comes into play.

 

as for KEVIN, you really have to let things roll off you a little more

easily if you intend to enjoy internet fora without permanently

affecting your blood pressure!! and marc is a big, articulate boy

who can take care of himself. of coursei respect his fine work,

but i wanted to make it clear that i was not buying his suggestion

that i can't discern real improvement from mere novelty.

[kevin m.]

My blood pressure's fine, Roger. I'm still waiting for one example of the "many" you claim exist, though, of someone saying digital is wholly unsuited for street photography, as you claimed. Maybe it's the current political climate, but I find my tolerance for sophistry and mendacity just to 'win' an argument is quite limited lately. A quote, please.

[ray .]

"if something

clearly surpasses the leica on those fronts IN THE APPLICATION FOR WHICH THE CAMERA IS BEST SUITED."

 

You can have that opinion Roger. If it works for you, I have no problem with it. It seems like you're stating it as a fact though. You're just a little heavy handed with this I think. Why do people have to justify what they use, if it's what they feel comfortable using? There's no objective tests for these things, it's a matter of personal preference.

 

I don't claim that people need to use a Leica rangefinder to make good street photos, that would be silly, and I don't think anybody else here does either. There seems to be a little reverse snobbery going on though toward people who choose to use them. As if the enlightened ones need to come and wake us all up to save us from our ignorance. You might read my response to you on Peter's R goes hybrid thread, if you care to and didn't already.

 

And I'll agree to Kevin's comment about political climates. People don't want to be "coverted". Live and let live.

[diego_k.]

Thanks for noticing Patrick ;)

[roger_michel]

kevin -- i'm glad you're well!! i could be wrong, but my

impression is that you ar etaking all of this too seriously and too

personally.

 

as for your request to name names, i am loathe to do that, but

since you are so persistent, i will point to jay's comments in the r

hybrid thread where he actually uses the word "impossible," and

skip's post where he talks about the shutter lag and other

aspects of digital p&s shoot making the camera too

cumbersome "to be useful" as a street shooter. there are other

comments in this vein, butthis should be enough to get you

going. perhaps you thought i was referring to comments just in

this thread -- i thought i made it clear that this thread was a

response to the r hybrid thread.

 

ray -- you may not do so, but i think a lot of people here justify

their leica expenses on the basis of superior quality and

performance. this makes sense. why else would someone

spend 4 thousand dollars on an all manual camera with a

(slowish) "fast" 50?? if there is clearly a better alternative for the

purpose for which the leica was designed, it begs the question

why someone would continue to spend so much to acquire the

beast. if the answer is not performance-related, what then??

 

as for the general idea of "live and let live," of course i agree. i

don't make decisions based on what i read here or let anyone

else dictate what equipment i use. this place is for shooting the

breeze. but having said that, WHEN HAS LIVE AND LET LIVE

EVER BEEN THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE HERE???!!! this has

always been a place for spirited debate about trivialities. i like it

like that. and the best debates (or at least the ones i have

enjoyed the most here) always contain a bit of hyperbole.

[beau 1664876222]

I don't see why people feel anxiety about the digital thing. If one day there's a digital camera that makes you want to ditch your Leica and buy it, then you will be very happy to do so and you won't have any regrets. For some people that moment has already come, for some it will come soon, and for a few it may never come. But for as long as your Leica makes you happier than any of the digital offerings out there, than be happy with your Leica. Jeeeeeeez.

[ray .]

I got you to admit to hyperbole? I feel better now. ;)

[roger_michel]

ray -- i think that FAILING to engage in hyperbole in a leica forum

thread should be grounds for immediate suspension.

[travis1]

Yea, it's not like we have never used a digicam before to know what they (digicams) can/cannot do. So what's the lesson again?

 

I just bought 4 RFs on ebay (yes, I finally won ;)). It's not because I think they take better pictures, but mainly because I like using mechanical old stuffs and loading FILM.

 

tiresome.

[kevin m.]

"...this has always been a place for spirited debate about trivialities."

 

Now that's something I can agree with.

[Tony Rowlett]

The easiest way to post images is by using the image upload feature of photo.net. It makes it easier for viewers as well, and you don't need to use HTML to do it. All you have to do is point to the images located on your hard disk.

 

It's OK to link to them, though, if they exist on another site.

[andrew_grant]

And a good illustration of a weakness of digital capture, limited exposure lattitude, B&W negative film is much better in this regard. I used to use a digital P&S but switched to a digital SLR because they are so much nicer too shoot with and produce much better image quality. As good as a film SLR or even perhaps a Leice M. I don't think the digital equivalent of the Leice M exists. However if you mostly shoot B&W, that probably doesn't matter.

[roger_michel]

andrew -- i agree with you. as you surmise, i never use the color

setting. in in the interest of full disclosure, i should point ou that i

jacked the levels way up in the flower shot to get the print i

wanted. it is quite saturated wit color in the print. it likely will be

my first and last color shot with this camera in any event.

[bong]

<i>is there any reason, for example, that scheimpflug principles cannot be made part of a programmed alogorithm, allowing in camera perspective correction entirely in the digital domain.</i>

<p>

Physics?

[Karim Ghantous]

Touché, Bong, touché. The keystone effect can be fixed to some extent in computer software but I think that's about it. And like with so many things a computer can do, why bother putting them into the camera?

 

Don't mind me, I just lurk this forum now and again. I used to have a Leica IIIc with a 2.8 50mm that had been collapsed one too many times by its previous owners (probably tourists who collapsed it after every damn shot) and was therefore a bit wobbly. I shouldn't have sold either of them though.

[roger_michel]

if you study a book like merklinger's "focusing the view camera," you realize that many/most of the corrections obtained by camera movements involve geometrically predictable shifts in the relative angles of incoming light rays. if you know the relation of the film plane and focus plane (parallel in a standard camera), it is possible to interpolate the effects resulting from changes in these relative positions. with the preview of a digicam -- essentially the same as ground glass viewing -- it is at least theoretically possible to effect these changes in the digital domain, selecting the desired effect based on the screen image.

 

significant perspective correction is already done in various types of microphotography.

 

correction for keystoning, as noted, is already quite common. the rest is just variations on this theme.