jesse_hutton

Bailey,

 

Heh, you're getting cleverer and cleverer! Now I think you're mudying the idea even more with something that happens to be illogical, but which is also immoral. (If it _were_ based on some criteria that you found to be "logical" you would then be a biggot then, I presume?) It's a bad example for that, but also for the term "racist preferences" which is kind of a strange form of "preference." At least it's a lot different than liking Leica rangefinders or dark beer or flemish art or...

Baily,

 

I looked for a link to the Beckerman - Canon thing, but couldn't find one...

 

"he ... logically ... found the Leica..."

 

I think you're confusing yourself with your use of the word logical. Should one be aware of one's personal preferences and understand their ramifications? Absolutely. But it doesn't necessarily have much to do with logic.

Baily, you should realize that, as it's something that pertains to _personal preference_, liking or owning a leica is neither illogical (my statement, contradicting the subject of this thread) nor logical (what I expected you to infer; i.e. it itself is out of the realm of logic) . You can give justifications for or against it and that's pretty much it. Whether these justifications are logical or not depends on your own situation, and everybody's is different. You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote.

 

In any case, the sense that the word illogical carries in the parent post is something like "mysterious" which is rather different than its strict sense.

Amusing thread, y'all. There's nothing "illogical" about leica cameras. It comes down to a matter of personal preference, which is something that can't be said to follow hard and fast the rules of logic anyway.

 

For kicks, a few justifications in favor of my M6 with its 50mm summicron:

 

1) Incredible optics! Seriously, the results taken from my local pro B&W lab are sometimes breathtaking: sharper, with better shadow detail, that "pop", etc. ( I have processed stuff from my nikon there for comparison, stuff taken with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, so the comparison seems pretty valid)

 

2) Extremely durable. I haven't dropped my leica down a flight of stairs, but I'm comforted by reports of people who have and who've said that it still works. Incidentally, I dropped my old Nikon N70 from knee height (camera was in my lap, I stood up to get off the metro, and plop) and the batteries went flying out and it cracked the body. I had to glue it because there was a jagged piece that was stabbing my right palm every time I took a picture. To the N70's credit, however, it did still function properly after that.

 

3) Has great longevity. I'm not very old, but I intend to keep my leica for the rest of my picture taking life. I doubt very seriously that it will become obsolete and unrepairable while I (or even my future children) are alive.

 

4) Investment factor. It's illogica to buy a camera that you can recoup virtually 100% of the original investment on when reselling? (I haven't done this, but considering the price I paid for mine, which is second hand, and what they continue to go for, it's not far fetched.)

 

5) Lastly, I fricking love it! I'm not interested in carrying around medium or large format gear in order to get great results. My old Nikon was heavy and awkward enough. The M6 is small, and so solid that it feels like a brick in my hands. I took the it hiking through a pretty dense redwood forest shortly after getting it, and I was instantly sold on the feel while climbing and jumping over huge logs, running down slopes, etc.

 

There are many other reasons to prefer Leica rangefinders, and most people here are already aware of them, so I won't bother continuing.

 

There's a photog on the web named Dave Beckerman (www.davebeckerman.com) who wrote a review of the M6 (posted on his website), which explains from his own experience the exact phenomenon being discussed. I found it very useful when I was considering a leica.

I quite like the photo, as well. The only thing I don't like that you could have done something about is the the choice of framing. It has an unbalanced feeling for me. While the buildings in the background are nice, I don't think they deserve as much realestate as you have given them, and I would have liked to see more of the bodies of the women -- they're chopped off at the waist.

 

Other than that, I think it's a great photo.

Well, your point was also that his photograph was a violation of copyright, an accusation which I say is a totally false. First, you make the assumption that the building is part of the artistic vision of the artist who placed those sculptures there, and then proceed to claim that the entire picture, or scene, must be protected under copyrighted by such person. It just seems pretty rediculous, and it doesn't even matter that the initial assumption is groundless.

 

As for whether something like what we're talking about constitutes good art, that depends on if you like it! As a photo, it doesn't do anything for me. But, I know there have existed artists who have made some good work out of other peoples images.

Roger, not that I care very much about this particular argument (with respect to photography, it's pretty plain to me), but isn't every photo, in some sense, a derivative work? On reality, shall we say? You point the camera somewhere and you release the shutter. It's no less valid when the subject of the photo is a work of art on its own. A photo stands entirely on its own merits; it's the idea that counts, not who makes it.

Is your question about whether the electronic Leica M will endure and if the purely mechanical M will forever and increasingly be a thing of the past? Or is it, should I go for an M7?

 

I'm pretty sure that, 10 or 20 years down the line, if Leica customers are really wanting the return of the mechanical camera--because the M7 turns out to be less reliable or because there is some incredible shortage of batteries--Leica will start another run of production on an M3 or M6. I can imagine it perfectly, and I'm sure it would be another great success for Leica, considering the following they have. In fact, I'd be surprised if they never did reintroduce one of their classic, mechanical cameras.

 

Than, look at any other camera or piece of machinery that is dependent upon electronics. In general it seems that they're pretty reliable, given that the electronics aren't physically abused (verbal abuse is fine). Would you expect Leica to do any worse than any other piece of equipment that uses electronics?

 

As to the second interpretation of your question, that is purely an economic matter for you to decide, based on your own finances. True, there might not be a whole lot of used M7's to choose from at this point, so you'd more than likely have to buy one new, which will depreciate immediately more than a used M6 would. However, if I had the money, I'd probably get an M7. But, I am _perfectly_ content with my all mechanical camera as well.

Is it true that the meter will drain on the M6 classic if the shutter is not cocked? With my camera, there are no signs that the meter will even function if the shutter isn't cocked and you're pressing the shutter release. If you're looking through the viewfinder the red arrows fail to appear, etc.

 

I've just gotten in the habit of leaving it always in the uncocked position, and therefore I don't have any problems with battery drainage with my M6 classic.

I bought a late M6 classic (probably made in the mid-90's). It's the only Leica I've ever owned, but I looked at a few of the early versions that have the engraving on the top plate, and compared those to some later classics and some brand new TTL's in the shop.

 

All I can say is, make sure you can check it out in person. If you can't do that, try get some kind of guarantee from the seller on the product, but still go to a shop and check out some used bodies so that you can find out what to expect. Fire the shutter over and over again at all speeds, and listen to see if there is any perceptible inconsistencies at the lower speeds (it's kind of hard to tell at the higher ones).

 

I ended up purchasing mine at *bay, and I was really pleased to find that the body I got seemed to be more mechanically sound and smooth than any of the ones (even compared to the TTL's) I looked at in the store. But, the seller was also prepared to give me a full refund if I wasn't happy, which, needless to say, wasn't at all the case. Guarantees are good.

As one who appreciates nice techno-gadgets, I say very cool, Mani. I look at this as not a photographic tool that's going give me the best of available image quality, but as an MP3 player/digital spy-camera that you could have with you when the same would be difficult to impossible with a normal camera. You see, it doesn't _look_ like a camera, and if you had headphones running down connected to it, and were bobbing your yead to the music on the train, for example, I doubt anyone would even think twice. Camera's like the coolpix 5000 and such are big "let me take your picture" signs and can be somewhat intrusive, hence the huge difference. (Plus, do they play MP3's?)

 

The use for this thing? I'd use it for a 'sketch pad' of sorts (and for an MP3 player!). Not for serious work, but just to experiment with new ideas.

 

Keep the leica (or your choice of replacement) for serious work, and use this as a toy. I'd buy it. In fact, considering all its aspects, including price, it's probably the only digital cam I'd buy right now, as I basically prefer that old fashion film stuff.

I read here once before that it's only a problem at a distance. For example, if you're close to the subject--as in 2 feet--the actual coverage of the negative will correspond to the inside edges of the frame lines. But if you're shooting something at > 100 feet, the negative will show things outside of the frame lines.

 

My own experience seems to confirm this, and I've just adjusted by hugging subjects that are far off with the frame lines a little more.

What area are you in? Do you shoot black and white, color, or both?

Woops, good point. I do shoot only 35mm at this time (and for the forseeable future), and I wonder if a flatbed would give me good enough quality for that. I've been looking at the Minolta Dual Scan II, which looks pretty reasonable. It's supported by VueScan, but unfortunately it doesn't look as good for SANE. I would prefer to use something that is completely open source...

Hello,

 

I've been lusting after a film scanner (none in particular) for a

while, and I can't seem to resist anymore. So I'm in the market.

However there are a couple criteria that I must meet: 1) I can't spend

loads of cash, so I'm thinking about something in the < $500 range; 2)

I run Linux (Debian).

 

Since I noticed some other Linux users on this forum, I thought I

might look for advice from you guys. Anyone have any suggestions on

something in my price range? And any experience with different film

scanners under Linux?

I'm pretty new to lieca land, and I've noticed that my 50mm summicron actually passes perfect alignment when set to infinity (full rotation). If the object I'm focusing on is closer the degree to which it goes past perfect alignment is greater than if it's a far away subject. I had never thought twice about it, but now I'm wondering: could this be a problem? Is that the way it's supposed to be?

I find the relationship between photography and politics interesting (everything is political, right?). My question is, to what extent can photographs be considered as clear political statements? I guess that varies from picture to picture, but there is a whole lot more going on behind the scenes in Selgado's pictures (which he writes about to accompany his photos in some of his work) than what you can see in the frame (there is a lot going on inside the frame too, which makes it great). Clearly, there is also more of a coherent statement to be seen in a whole body of work, but if you took one of his pictures at random, I don't think it would be easy to see where he is coming from politically, or what he thinks about the forces that create the world which he photographs.

 

One common theme in some of my work over the past year has been American flags. They are *everywhere* around here, which is in the north eastern part of the US. But, my political leanings are definately left, and I'm one who feels that it's appropriate to blame the US first when there is reason to--after all, what's the use in blaming people and governments where you have perhaps little real knowledge and absolutely no influence? There is none, and I think the idea of the theatrical aspect of peoples views on events in the world that Rob gives helps to explain that. People would rather be able to pretend to take a morally riteous position when in fact it makes almost no difference what their position is, because it has no potential for real consequences, and therefore is almost morally vacuous (this isn't my idea--I heard Chomsky saying something to this affect, and I agree with him).

 

To go back to my pictures, I usually mean the image of the flag to be a bit ironic...I'm not sure what I mean, but I don't understand the why people hang flags on bridges, and put them on their car windows, in front of their houses, on tee-shirts, lining streets, etc. I interpret this display more as a show of nationalism than as true patriotism (I think of Mark Twain (paraphrased)--"Loyalty to your country always; loyalty to your government only when it deserves it"). I'm just wondering if that would be obvious to someone else who saw my pictures? Sadly, I can't afford to process as much film as I shoot, and I don't have a scanner. Otherwise I'd post some; I'd love to get everyones opinion.

 

Does anyone else have any "overtly political" pictures they could post for discussion? And, even though yours isn't that political, thanks Marc, it sure makes things less dry.

For about the past year I have kept film stored, both before and after

shooting it, in the refridgerator. Recently, having a bunch of rools

on which I have to wait to figure out how I'm going to develop them

(anyone know of a good lab in New Jersey that does contact prints?), I

decided to put it in the freezer, perhaps out of convienence, I'm not

sure.

 

But now I'm wondering, could my film be damaged by a long stay in the

freezer? Where do you normally store your film?

Excellent pictures!! I especially like 'Clearance'and 'Alone on the long meadow.' The juxtapisition in the former is clever and almost mischievious (you devil!) :-), and the latter scene has a very calm and pleasant feel to me. Makes me wish I could come out to see the real prints. Congrats on the show.

Boon Hwee, you have great stuff. I had a friend who's from Singapore whom I haven't talked to for a long time. I've never been there, but this picture made me think of him and wonder... Interesting picture of an interesting place.

Great shot! I really like it.

Thanks for your "tolerance", Eliot.

I hesitate to respond, because we're getting so far off the original topic, and furthermore, I don't intend to get into a flame war. However, I don't think that your term ("vitriolic hatred") is appropriate. Dispite the cynicism of some of his statements, his point about a country's values being compensatory with its actions seems true enough, given that were talking about democratic societies, no? And the truth is that the US has done a lot of very ugly things in the world. It is documented and known outside of the mainstream media and highschool textbooks.

 

Its obvious that part of his statements were made expressly to get under your skin, and he seems to have achieved that, but apart from the obvious taunting, those quotes are not especially inflamatory to someone that does know something about the history of US foreign policy. To express disdain for actions that are disdainful shows that a person actually cares. I'm very critical of many aspects of the US, but that doesn't mean that I "hate Americans and America." Some of us simply feel morally obligated to face the truth, and others don't like it.

"your vitriolic hatred of America and Americans" --previous post

 

I don't know Rob, but I'd bet that with that name he _is_ American, and it's phrases like the one quoted above that are the hallmark of "intolerance for opposing points of view" these days..

Wow, wow! As someone who spent almost all of last year in France, I think I have a valid point of view. I think what Michael was getting at is that there is, to some extent, a difference between American and European *mentality*. Anyone seen any good French or Spanish films lately? What about American films? Lets face it, there is certainly a difference between European and American cinema (should we say visual arts in general? aesthetics? do you care what your city looks like?), and that says something about the people of both continents: they like stuff that is a little different than what most Americans like. Now, I'm not going to go flaming all Americans (indeed, one can't give Michael many points for tact), because while I sort of see his point and I tend to agree, it is a gross generalization that obviously isn't correct for _a_lot_ of people who are Americans. Sadly, what he's getting at is _true_ for many other Americans, as well. I think we need to get over the stupid superiority complex that we have when it comes to foreigners' (as often as not, valid) criticisms. But, just for the record, I think there are a fair amount of stupid Europeans, too, but at least they tend to acknowledge that the rest of the world exists and that it matters what is going on there...