boris c umanso

Jeff, a lot depends on your working rhythm. Typically, for me, I'll work all day, come back

to a hotel room, download my cards, back up in duplicate, get some badly needed sleep.

I'll accept that my needs (and probably your needs) aren't typical for photonet, but the

added cost of fast cards/readers just isn't enough for it to be an issue. Try an Extreme 4

with FW800 and you'll wonder how you were ever patient enough for anything else.

"The primary value of high speed cards is to the profit margin of card vendors"

The primary value of high speed cards is in reduced download times to your computer.

There's a huge time saving in using, say, Sandisk Extreme IVs with a firewire reader over a

no-brand card with usb. It might not matter to everybody but the difference is real and

pronounced.

Most people are suggesting going matte but, along with a couple of others, I'd suggest

glossy. No Macbook monitor, whether matte or gloss, is good enough for serious editing/

toning so you might as well go for the extra bit of bite/saturation that you'll get from the

gloss option. They're great for location work but not as a primary tool for imaging.

Travis, no, I haven't. Much as I'd like to work with digital rangefinders it strikes me that

neither of the current options is convincing. It's still early days for all digital cameras, and

the 5d is the first digital slr I've felt comfortable with - not too big physically, nice soft

shutter release, files that are both malleable and a decent size. I'm sure that within a few

years there'll be a good and affordable digital rangefinder, but I'm less sure that it'll be

built by Leica.

"the 5D has a much better LCD screen, the internal processing has been improved, and it

is well acknowledged to be a leader in higher ISO capture and noise control, including

when compared to the 1DsMKII"

Yeah, it's got a bigger LCD, but that makes very little practical difference in use. In bright

sunlight I struggle to see the histogram on either, the size doesn't help with that. I'll take

your word that "internal processing has been improved", but, let's be honest, the

statement is essentially meaningless pr guff. The 5D might have lower noise than the

1dsii, but it's a close run thing, both are better than a 1dii or 20d (regardless of the test

sites suggesting otherwise).

"The History of digital is there to read. The 1Ds plummeted in value as soon as the

1DsMKII became readily available ... there has been no other "generation"."

The "history" isn't that straightforward with digital. The 5d - lower price, bigger, better,

file - is the "other generation" that killed the value of the 1ds (although, unlike an original

1d, they still aren't given away). With film cameras I generally used them until they were

worn out, but digital is different, it's still in it's infancy. I realise, from glancing at your

posting history, that you have the same buying pattern regardless of medium - if the M7

comes onto the market then your M6s start looking a bit shabby, better replace them with

the camera that has more "features"; the MP comes out, better trade up, how did I ever

deal with that oh-so-vulnerable angled crank, not to mention the lack of real

brass....Digital has made us all like you. My first digis were 1ds, which I quickly traded for

d60s (bigger file, lower weight), which in turn were traded for 1ds' (too big for me, but I

couldn't resist the file they offered), followed by 1dsiis, followed by 5ds (big enough and

nice enough file, with a body the size of a film series 1 without booster). I've bought more

cameras in the last 5 years than in the 15 years before that.

"As to the personal attacks, transparently motivated psychological analysis, and snooty

comments concerning wedding work, you seem to not get that the previous personal

comments here have been expunged"

If offending comments aren't there how can I take them into account? I can only work on

the basis of the comments that remain and that I'm able to read. I've no disregard at all for

wedding photographers. Pointing out that they generally aren't the most discerning group

is hardly controversial - if you have real talent it's unlikely to be a direction you'll gravitate

towards. There aren't many editorial photographers (regardless of their shrinking incomes)

fantasising about a move into wedding work - those that do shoot the occasional wedding

only do so because their editorial career has hit the buffers. If I'm snooty about any

industry it's the advertising industry, it distresses me greatly that in order to make a

credible living editorial photographers are forced to spend maybe 30 days a year enduring

the vacuities of (laughably) self-styled creatives. If you had any idea what photographers

really thought about ad execs then you really wouldn't consider any comments here to

amount to "personal attacks".

Unlike some others here I have no antipathy to Leicas. My M series lenses are all nearly 20

years old (no current asphericals) but they're still way better than my Canon lenses. I'm

really looking forward to a convincing digital rangefinder, I just don't think the M8 is that

camera. You're welcome to see things otherwise.

"A wishful thinking 1DsMKII owner Boris?"

Mmm, no. Pragmatic owner of 5Ds. I've used 1 series Canon digi slrs but they're just too

bulky for me.

"The value will plummet just like every other DSLR"

No, the value will only plummet when the camera becomes totally outclassed - it normally

takes two generations for that to happen.

"The now aging 5D has features not found on the Grandpa 1DsMKII"

And what would those knockout "features" actually be? Having worked with both all I can

think of is a totally useless direct print button on the 5d.

"History is on my side in all these debate issues"

Excitability and hyperbole is on your side. Your reading of history is too heavily laden with

spin to have validity.

Marc, you get mighty irritable if anybody has the audacity to challenge your world view. A

world view that seems informed by insecurity (the feverish buying of every new camera

model in search of the silver bullet) and bitterness (the odd and uncalled for attacks on the

photography of people like Ray and Brad). You need some way stronger fixative for your

mask of urbanity, it slips far too easily when you're not getting the easy applause of the

weekend warrior wedding crowd.

"Trying to apply the digital principle of obsolesce to Leica's tradition of holding it's value is

ludicrous....What do you think the $8,000. 1DsMKII will be worth when Canon drops the

next bomb shell on the industry?...Invest in digital? LOL ... the terms are mutually

exclusive"

The 1dsM2 will retain a reasonable value for a year or so after the release of a new model

unless the replacement does more than offer extra pixels (the current file size is adequate

for most users) - say increase dynamic range. The likely incremental increase in file size

that the new Canon will offer is not remotely comparable to Leica fixing (in a more elegant

way than front of lens filtration) the ir issue in the replacement for the M8.

I'm sure that under most conditions the M8 is capable of producing high quality images,

but the key issue is that Leica didn't have the corporate decency to warn the first wave of

buyers that the camera had a serious shortcoming. This smacks of either financial

desperation or simple contempt for the customer.

One of the constants on this forum is the claim that your money is safe in a Leica - if you

sell a couple of years down the line then you still get a big chunk of your money back. As

soon as an M9 (M8 MkII?) comes onto the market (and, given the serious shortcoming in

the M8, this will, if Leica survives, happen quickly) the M8 will become pretty worthless on

the used market. If Leica has the remotest sense of decency they'll offer a huge discount

on the price of the M9 to the first wave of M8 buyers - a couple of free filters (which

should have been included in the first place) and a discount on a lens isn't enough. I'm still

using a pair of M6s that I bought new 18 years ago, but, given the fact that digital is still

in it's infancy, my Canon digital SLRs are lasting me an average of 2 years before being

replaced with updated models. Until digital is mature (there are big advances to be made

in dynamic range) nobody's going to be happily keeping their Leica digis for decades like

their M4s amd M6s. M8 users, if Leica don't intervene, are going to take a big financial hit.

"A good street shooter is never even noticed"

Try telling that to Bruce Gilden. The "good", or otherwise, is revealed in the images, not in

the approach.

"Check out Luc Delahaye's "L'autre", a series of portraits done on Paris metro"

Nels, if you haven't already, have a look at the Haneke film "Code inconnu" - the Delahaye

Metro pictures (and some of his former-Yugoslavia work) are integrated into the plot.

"Does anyone know the reactions among photojournalists and street photographers to this

French "privacy" law?"

It's been an inconvenience but photographers largely ignore it. In most of the cases that

have reached a court of law the damages awarded have been laughably low - largely

making it pointless to take action.

Sandisk cards are very reliable but they have backward compatibility issues with previous

generation readers. The Extreme 3 CFs wouldn't download at all with the previous

generation CF readers, but, strangely, would with earlier multi-format readers. It doesn't

help you with SDs but the new Firewire Extreme CF readers are very fast with Extreme 4

cards, they're also backward compatible with Extreme 3s and even with these noticeably

faster than USB readers. Readers don't cost very much and it makes sense to regularly

update them.

On a slightly more serious level....Sandisk is pretty much the industry standard and their

fast (at least in terms of download speed - they probably won't clear the camera buffer any

more quickly) Extreme cards are now really affordable. If you're working in RAW buy a

bundle of 2 or 4 gb cards.

Up to now I've only used my M8s for black and white, but what about color? Do I go for E6

or C41 processing? Or do I ship my cards to Duane's for the Kodachrome look?

Nels, how are you processing your Lexars? Currently, I'm giving them 10 minutes in D76, 1

to 1, at 20 degrees, but others have suggested I'd get better results with Rodinal. This

digital thing is way more complex than I realized.

Brad's on the right track, but until Leica releases it's own cards I'd recommend Lexar. I'm

sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that the Lexars have

a slight green cast - the perfect counterbalance to the magenta bias of the M8.

"Many magazines still prefer slide film because it gives instant feedback (faster than

digital). Hold a transparency against the light and you can immediately see if it's good

shot. Selecting a photo is faster and easier"

It's conceivable that a photo editor might prefer transparency over digital for a particular

"look" (for example, Kodachrome), but when it comes to instant feedback it's way faster

and more informative to view and edit digital images via a browser than transparencies on

a light box. It also allows a group (it's normally a three way dynamic - photo editor, art

director, story editor) of people to discuss the relative merits of the images in question

way more conveniently than a loupe and a light table.

"It depends on the throughput and lead time. If you need really fast images, like

newspapers, use digital. For all else a transparency is perfectly acceptable"

What drives the increasing choice of digital over film in the publishing world is cost, not

lead times - don't forget that the newspapers had no trouble getting up to date images on

their front pages long before digital. It's also cost factors, rather than aesthetic, that led to

the restructuring of the NatGeo photo department in an effort to move primarily to a

digital workflow.

"if one look's at the vast majority of street photography, it has a decidedly different look/

quality than landscape, still life, portrait, or other kinds of photography out there. This

goes well beyond subject matter. I'm talking about the look of the prints"

You sure about this thread of coherence in the "look of the prints" in the world of street

photography? Pinkassov's prints don't

have much in common with Parr's. Moriyama's don't have much in common with Kalvar's.

Frank's don't have much in common with Mermelstein's. I could go on. And on.

Approaches to

printing don't seem to be dictated by the genre of the photographer.

If you want to keep it "straight" try Polaroids. Although even with Polaroids photographers

have found the temptation to manipulate pretty strong. What's the attraction (other than

ease) of the "straight" print?

"Compared to the "fine print" world of nature and landscape photography, most of the

street guys seem to have much staighter prints, which I think is good"

Ironically, making "straight" prints can take a lot more time, effort, and

"manipulation" than making more stylized prints (and this applies equally to digital

imaging). From initial exposure, through development, to making the final print, it can be

a real struggle to make a "natural" looking image. The manipulations may be less radical

but they'll often need to be more widespread to retain the balances between light and

shade. Regarding Klein, a lot of his images have such radical work at the printing stage

that the only way of

making them remotely repeatable is through large format copy negs. The fine "straight

print" (outside of large format contact prints) is only marginally more common than the

unicorn.

This does seem to be a recurring fault in this lens. If the focus seizes up there is still a way

of manually focusing the lens - if you prize off (or just break) the transparent cover over

the focus scale you can turn this internal ring to the distance you want. It's not ideal, and

it'll probably add to your repair bill, but at least you can carry on working if you need to.

"people are quite attached to their Apples!"

They are, aren't they? It's a bit like people and their Leica M8s. Interestingly, the first years

production of the current model 23" CinemaDisplay had a pronounced magenta cast - if

only the

M8 had a green cast it would've been a marriage made in heaven.

If you get the chance, go to a dealer who has calibrated examples of both Apple and Eizo

monitors and open up some image files. I think you'll see a difference.

" I know a lot of high end professionals"

So do I.

I never said that working photographers don't use Mac monitors, I said that I thought

there were better alternatives - I'm not alone in this thought. Just as 10 years ago the

majority of photographers used LaCie or Sony CRTs rather than Radius Press Views, the

majority of photographers today use Mac LCDs rather than Eizo ColorEdges. Similarly,

more photographers probably use Nikon scanners than use Imacon - it doesn't follow that

the Nikon must be better, it's about price and pragmatism.

In the 90s a Barco or Press View was way more expensive than the same sized LaCie, and

only color specialists and production departments ponied up for them. Perceptions

changed with the introduction of the relatively affordable Sony Artisan. Today a ColorEdge

is maybe triple the price of a CinemaDisplay, but, to put it into perspective, that's around

the price of a (totally mainstream) Canon 5D.

I've no idea why a statement as mild as "I'd suggest having a look at Eizo monitors" has

aroused such passion in Barry and Ellis.

If you're not getting an iMac, I'd suggest having a look at Eizo monitors. Even their entry

level monitors seem to have better tonal separation than the Mac equivalents. Mac LCDs

are superficially very appealing (nice design, good to look at) but they're not quite there

yet for serious image editing.

Sunil, you began by proclaiming: "Photography has been a very gratifying experience for

me; to claim that it has made me a better human being might be an exaggeration, but yes,

it has certainly made me more sensitive to my surroundings".

You ended with this: "So now take your great images---and shove it..."

Sensitive to your surroundings? Yes. But maybe not in the way you were initially pitching.

You linked to your project - you got some positive feedback, one guy was strangely

hostile

(but was challenged by others), two people thought your images were fairly ordinary. All in

all, a pretty good response. Why the drama?

Antonio, the above was meant to clarify why I was uncomfortable with your initial post.

Unlike others, I have no problem with a photographer choosing a subject that might be

considered cliched - look hard enough and you'll find that anything can be considered a

cliche. I also don't believe that any subject should be considered taboo. All photography

relating to other human beings is intrinsically voyeuristic, and, therefore, potentially

exploitative. It doesn't follow that we should stop because of this, but it does make sense

(even if just from a selfish perspective) that we should consider the impact of our

approach.

Antonio, maybe there's a connection between the problems you're having here and the

problems you're having "reasoning" with people on the streets. Your initial question/

comment: "how do you get a homeless person sign a release form most ive met cant be

reasoned with" seemed weirdly simplistic and insensitive to me. You can have great visual

sense, but if it's coupled with the personal sensitivity of a Scud missile then you're always

going to have difficulties with certain subjects.

"boris cumanso...have you ever spoke to a homeless person"

Yes I have.

"most are not to worried about the photo part its the whole signature on paper"

In my experience there's a whole range of attitudes and personalities amongst people who

live on the streets - just as with those who happen to live in homes. You said in your

original post that "most ive met cant be reasoned with", which implies that at the very least

it's somehow unreasonable not to sign a model release form for you - it isn't, it's perfectly

rational. Leaving aside the

fact that you don't need a release to sell prints, the very fact that you imagine some kind

of entitlement to the cooperation of those you'd like to photograph goes a long way

towards explaining why you're having problems in "reasoning" with your subjects.

"im smart enough to ask for royalties and i never said i didnt offer it to my subject"

Payment isn't the key to getting compliance, behaving with respect and dignity is.