el_fang

<i>In this case I don't think you should compare his approach to painting.</i>

<p>"WHOOSH!" said the point as it flew over Leslie P's head.</p>

<i>am i an "old traditional guy" </i>

<p>No, just someone who needs to expand his horizons a little. If I took the same approach as yours but applied

it to paintings, I'd only be looking at and appreciating prehistoric cave art, while dismissing the work of

Michelangelo,

Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Vermeer, daVinci <i>et al</i> as "not being up to the original standards."</p>

<i>after seeing a video about Bruce Gilden's work in NY, i never went to visit magnum photos site again (this

video:

<p>You're going to dismiss the work of an entire agency just because one (of several dozen) member's work doesn't

appeal to you? OK. Your loss, I suppose.</p>

<p><i>even if some few photos look nice, i think the intrusive and desrespectfull style is just not up to magnum

standards or should i say, the original magnum standards</i></p>

<p>Just what are the "original magnum standards" according to you? Magnum was founded in 1947 with the express

purpose of placing control of the pictures (copyright) in the hands of the photographers, preserving their

original authorship and encouraging individual styles. Whether or not you agree with Gilden's approach, his style

is his own and appears to me to be perfectly in line with the purposes of Magnum's original reason for being.</p>

<p><i>even using a flash w/ a leica M... that's a sin</i></p>

<p>One of the reasons it was deemed a "sin" to use a flash on a Leica M, I suspect, was the horrendously slow

flash sync (1/50) of the cloth shutter. So instead of just admitting "this shutter is quiet but it sucks for

daylight flash fill," people came up with the excuse that "it's a sin."</p>

<p><i>of course all of us remember famous Cartier-Bresson quotes about the horror of using a flash: "Avoid making

a commotion, just as you wouldn’t stir up the water before fishing. Don’t use a flash out of respect for the

natural lighting, even when there isn’t any. If these rules aren’t followed, the photographer becomes unbearably

obstrusive"</i></p>

<p>That was Cartier-Bresson's approach. I, for one, am glad he wasn't stupid enough to impose his own

views and philosophies on every prospective Magnum member, otherwise we'd have today an agency of

Cartier-Bresson-parroting lemmings indistinguishable from each other.</p>

<p>I remember once hearing a story from a Magnum member about a photographer who applied for membership but was

denied. The irate photographer cried out "But look! My pictures look just like Cartier-Bresson's!"</p>

<p>"Yes," the Magnum member said. "And in some cases I can't tell one from the other. But there is a difference:

While your pictures look like Cartier-Bresson's, Cartier Bresson's pictures look like no-one else's."</p>

The post-processing doesn't seem over-the-top to me, and much of the "dramatic" look of the color pictures

appears to have been achieved using on-location lighting rather than post-processing.

<i>Lastly, I see now Fang El, not being content with the success (or lack thereof) in "re-educating"</i>

<p>And don't flatter yourself; I'm not trying to re-educate anyone. I just really, really enjoy calling out hypocrisy when I see it.</p>

<i>Lastly, I see now Fang El, not being content with the success (or lack thereof) in "re-educating" the stubborn

and illiterate Leica users through his ever predictable, rather incredolous, bombastic diatribes now simply

advocates direct censorship:

"The only person saying anything stupid is Erwin Puts himself. Or do you agree with him that "when you see an

excellent Nikon picture, the camera takes the credit for 75%, where in the case of the Leica the user takes 90%

of the credits"? Because if you don't, then tell him to stop posting that crap on his own site. Censoring it here

doesn't eliminate the source of the problem."

But Fang El, what would you do then?</i>

<P>I was the one who posted the very first response to the OP with the quote containing the "75%" and "90%"

numbers that Puts pulled out of a black top hat. My post was then DELETED by a moderator, and the followup

responses by other thread participants will clue you into that. But hey, <b><u>I</u></b>

didn't write those figures; <b><u>Erwin Puts</u></b> did, and for whatever reason, a moderator thought it

necessary to delete them. Bit revealing, dontcha think? If he's so respected, why didn't said

moderator allow others the opportunity to defend what he wrote instead of attempting to erase it from the

discussion? And while I'm at it, <a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/camera/page46.html"

target="_blank">here's another Erwin Puts quote</a>:</p>

<p><i>The R8 invites you, no induces you take pictures as the great masters did. There is harmony between

instrument, goal and action.</i></p>

<p>Wow, really? So what's the difference between the R8 and the D3? Film vs. digital, manual focus vs AF. But

essentially all the same automatic modes are there: Av, Tv, P, matrix metering etc., right? And this was a discussion

about automation,

right? So is it just autofocus, then, that makes the D3 take "75%" credit for the picture? I for one am looking

forward to what he says about the R10.</p>

<a href="http://tv.mediaprovider.se/?id=1223561589701" target="_blank">Maike Harberts of Leica AG</a> has said

(at 5:21 in the video) that Leica wishes the R10 to be a "modern" camera and that it will have autofocus.

Presumably, "modern" also means it will have the usual automatic modes.

<p>I'd like to see if Erwin Puts has the guts to write the following after the release of the R10:</p>

<P><i>"The <b>R10</b> scores with speed and dynamic automation, the <b>M8</b> needs skill and dedication. But

when you see an excellent <b>R10</b> picture, the camera takes the credit for 75%, where in the case of the

<b>M8</b> the user takes 90% of the credits. When using the <b>M8</b>, you use the bare essentials of the

photographic process and your own skills to get the picture. The <b>R10</b> is a most flexible instrument to get

the job done, but you are more removed from your own skills and thus the pride of accomplishment is less.</i>

(Bold edits mine)</p>

<p>I'm taking bets. Will he actually say this about the "modern" R10? Or will he backpedal his way past <a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gordon" target"_blank">Steve Gordon</a> into the Guinness Book of World

Records? Stay tuned!</p>

<i>Oh lord, what a load of rubbish. I still can't believe how many people buy into this kind of double talk. He's

the Ken Rockwell of Leica Photography.</i>

<p>Watch it there bud - that's an insult to Ken Rockwell :) At least Rockwell <a

href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm" target="_blank">admits that much of what he writes is not to be taken

seriously</a>.</p>

<p><i>By E. Puts' logic, the successful user of the Holga should be the proudest of his accomplishment! Or, maybe

the pinhole camera?</i></p>

<p>Nope, it's the Neanderthal "keepin' it real" with a charcoal stick and a cave wall.</p>

<i>Chris and Pete: This forum's reputation of spewing crud toward Mr. Puts is HORRIBLE and goes back for years. I

just don't get it. Never have gotten it. Never will get it. Don't appreciate it. Irritates the crap out of me

(and others, certainly). If I were to delete every post that said something stupid or mean to the man, there'd be

maybe twelve messages left.</i>

<p>The only person saying anything stupid is Erwin Puts himself. Or do you agree with him that <b>"when you see

an excellent Nikon picture, the camera takes the credit for 75%, where in the case of the Leica the user takes

90% of the credits"</b>? Because if you don't, then tell him to stop posting that crap on his own site. Censoring

it here doesn't eliminate the source of the problem.</p>

<i>Dude, you don't have to do that every time somebody posts something positive about a Leica product, OK?</i>

<p>Tony, a positive post would be a link to a significant photographer doing groundbreaking work with an M8. Or maybe even a scientific test showing conclusively that the M8 does indeed outperform other contemporary digital cameras through a range of ISOs, with accurate AWB to match, contrary to Kamber's report from Iraq. Or maybe a link to a YouTube video showing the M8 being used in vertical orientation, only to be sent crashing to the ground by someone tripping over the tripod leg, then retrieved with no ill effect whatsoever.</p>

<p>A post like this, featuring someone spouting nonsense like <i>"It's like every time I shoot something with the Leica it produces a look of history or better put the photograph looks like it should have historical merit"</i> is NOT positive. In fact it makes all Leica users look like fools.</p>

<i>Heres an idea -- take a look at Sam Abell's "Stay the Moment" (from a Virginia Woolf) in which he documents

his career and particularly the challanges in the earlier part of his life -- its filled with a lot of loneliness

and sorrow -- and yet he overcomes it to produce images that still enthrall the world.</i>

<p>I'm more into Graham, Sternfeld, Billingham, Leiter, Eggleston, De Keyzer, Webb and Pinkhassov these days but

thanks for the suggestion. But funny you should mention it - I actually owned "Stay This Moment" a long time

ago... bought it at cover price, sold it a couple of years later for $300 to some fool (sporting an M6 over his

shoulder) who, upon my handing the book to him, SKIPPED RIGHT TO THE BACK and read the part where Abell writes

that he used Leica M and R cameras to take the pictures in the book. He then closed the book, held it to his

chest and looked off into space, starry eyed. He didn't even look at a single picture. I was speechless.</p>

<i>"James Russell is one of the world's leading commercial photographers, with offices and studios in New York, Los Angeles and Dallas"- struck me as talented and successful rather than drunk.</i>

<p>Because you read it on Luminous Landscape - so it must be true, right? But seriously, he actually almost had me for a second - I thought his name was very familiar and for a moment I thought he was <a href="http://russelljames.com/" target="_blank">this guy</a>, who is indeed a very well known and successful commercial photographer. But then I realized I had the names reversed. As you can see from their work, they aren't even in the same league.</p>

<i>"After you hold those lenses I was just in love....Shooting the Leica is like going out with Pamela

Anderson... but no camera I have ever used has touched me so deeply... It's like every time I shoot something

with the Leica it produces a look of history or better put the photograph looks like it should have historical

merit... I guess someday Nikon or Canon will make one that will probably better the Leica in all aspects, except

one, that is it's a Leica... There are so many wonderful things about this little camera, (including taking the

bottom off to load a card)..."</i>

<p>The only "treat" about this article is that it's a perfect demonstration of a man who's so drunk on the Leica

Kool-Aid that he doesn't even realize he's blurting out nonsense. I find it especially revealing that his

defensive "addendum" is just about as long as his original article.</p>

<i>Can someone please explain the reason(s) the M8 does not provide exactly what you are asking for? Is it just because of the price?</i>

<p>It is not because of the price, it's what we get for the price. If the half-baked M8 is the best Leica can do for $5k, when there are so many better alternatives that are better designed, better supported and give better results (plus the fact that they cost so much less just being icing on a very large and delicious cake), why bother...</p>

<i>It may not have the 6400ASA to get the motorcycle picture in Nikon's ad (no doubt one of El Fang's absolute

"must haves"),</i>

<p>Who said it was a "must have"? I'm simply marveling at what technology allows photographers to do these days.

Others may long for the "good old days" when f/2.8 was considered superspeed, and when ISO 25 was "fast" for

color film. They may also enjoy putt-putting around on their Model T Fords. To each their own, but let's not deny

that technology has made significant progress and as a result, there are better tools for the job than what was

available decades ago. Thanks to technology, photographers can now shoot decisive moments in available light at

ISO 3200 without even batting an eye, ruining the atmosphere with flash or missing the moment altogether by

setting up a

tripod. For the type of photography small-format rangefinders used to be excellent tools for, Leica was slow out

of the gate with

digital and got left way behind. That's all.</p>

<p><i>By the way, the 1.33 factor you highlighted is largely immaterial as the viewfinder appropriately frames

the image except that you could get more megapixels if it was fullframe (which for big enlargements would be a

factor) as well as wider angle shots (although an effective 21mm is pretty wide!).</i></p>

<p>"Largely immaterial"? Tell that to the sods who spent $4,000 on a 28/2-ASPH only to have it converted to a

$2,800 35/2 by the crop factor - all the while watching Leica piss what little R&D funds they had into a

"concept" camera that won't even be released until summer 2009, if at all. And what did current M8 owners get?

Some scraps

in the form of a few immaterial "fixes" a la the M8.2. But wait! If you act now, you can get <a

href="http://us.leica-camera.com/news/news/1/5861.html"

target="_blank">these same "upgrades" to your plain M8 for ONLY $1700.00</a>! Can you really not tell that you're

getting milked?</p>

<p>If it's one thing I admire about M8 apologists, it's that "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" attitude.

But sorry, your apologist statements are just that - another cop-out - just like calling the M8 sensor's excessive IR

sensitivity a "great feature for IR photographers" rather than a design flaw that never should have made it past

QC.</p>

<i>I really do more documentary work than photojournalism I guess. I should have been more specific.</i>

<p>Yes, that would have been helpful. :) If you've got the guts and talent for it, getting really good at doing one specific thing is definitely one good way to beat the competition - and it sure beats hauling all the gear around that's necessary to be a jack-of-all-trades. Still, if you haven't seen this already - you might want to have a quick read of <a href="http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html" target="_blank">Michael Kamber's review of the M8 as he experienced it in Iraq</a>.</p>

<i>I just wonder how in the world ANYONE could possible take a photograph before the advent of ISO 25,000,000,526...?</i>

<p>Of course, I would put it another way: I just wonder how in the world ANYONE could possibly [sic] take a <a href="http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Photos/Nikon_Adv_USA.jpg" target="_blank">photograph like this</a> before the advent of ISO 6400. And now, while the M8 is still struggling at ISO 800, 6400 is already old news...</p>

<i>You seem to want to quantify everything against hand holding the camera under every lighting condition. If it

doesn't meet that metric it's apparently unusable - at least for you. Some people actually own and know how to

use both flash equipment AND tripods.</i>

<p>Isn't the ability to hand hold under a variety of lighting conditions the whole reason for being of the small

format camera? Isn't using flash against the whole "M philosophy" of available light? (Oh right, I forgot, that

was just Leica and Leica-fanboy propaganda.) If you're going to schlep a tripod around, what happens to your

"compact" kit? And, if you're going to use a tripod, why bother with a $5,000 small format digital body when you

can get a Mamiya 7 (including lens) for a third the cost? After all, unlike the M8, the Mamiya 7 can be used in

vertical

orientation without the risk of breaking the chassis, and its results will blow away the M8's.</p>

<p><i>Your singular fixation on ISO is a bit baffling.</i></p>

<p>Are you saying, then, that people who buy portable, small-format cameras - from professionals who are often

not allowed to use flash in certain venues or assignments, to amateurs who just want to make snapshots of their

families and friends both indoors and out, without needing to buy yet more camera accessories - are baffling to

you? I'm just asking for clarification because the things you're saying are getting more and more bizarre.</p>

<i>Unfortunately - I can't take photographs with "concepts." I actually need a camera.... </i>

<p>And this is excellent, too. Are you in agreement with me, then, that the S2 concept is the dumbest thing Leica could have come up with when they have thousands of customers still waiting for a full-frame platform on which to use their 35mm format lenses?</p>

<i>Leica was no more the "king" of low light than any other camera. That's a carnard trotted out as "proof" that an opinion is valid. Low light performance with film has to do with the film's ISO + processing - the only thing that Leica did was get away from the movement and vibrations from the SLR mirror.</i>

<p>Oh, so that was untrue too. I seem to recall Leica harping about the M system being ideal for "difficult available light situations" and certain of their lenses being "best suited for available light photography" in their own product literature. In fact, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091412leicam8previewed.asp" target="_blank">Leica's own press release</a> touts the M8 specifically as being <i>"ideally suited to available light photography, a typical Leica M feature</i>."</p>

<p>So are you in agreement with me, then, that Leica's advertising claims are nothing more than propaganda?</p>

<b><i>Secondly, for my use I don't need or want high ISO performance - so that "feature" is meaningless for me.

</i></b>

<p>Excellent, good to know. Now at least we know where you're coming from, and why your opinions and experience

are completely irrelevant to almost all photographers.</p>

<i>My counsel to a young person. If you are serious about testing your abilities: buy the very best there is or the very best that meets your needs. At least you will have the chance to use the best tools extant to test your skills, potential. Al is right in the sense that Leica stuff holds its value. Buy it right, treat it right and you will not have spent much to own it.</i>

<p>My counsel to a young person: Composition and seeing have been around for thousands of years before photography was even invented. Don't worry about useless things like gear and technical considerations. Go to the library or bookstore and check out <a href="http://independent.net-genie.co.uk/House_home/54750/the_ten_best_photography_books.html" target="_blank">great photography books</a>. Go to galleries and museums and look at great paintings. Then take a camera, any camera, and go out and figure out what it is you want to say with your own work.</p>