Leica photographers - the naked truth

[faberryman]

These days you can take a 50 megapixel photo (of your cat....that's what people do, apparently), in a black bag, in the middle of the night, at ISO 250 000 and then argue over technicalities on that site.

I just thought I would point out that no one ever takes a photo of his black dog in a black bag in the middle of the night. Always cats. What is it with these cat people?

 

[markjwyatt]

Why is he automatically lousy?...

Because it's my analogy!

 

[Don_ih]

I guess everyone really would be fine with one of these:

 

[Helinophoto]

I just thought I would point out that no one ever takes a photo of his black dog in a black bag in the middle of the night. Always cats. What is it with these cat people?

 

[Radost]

Yes

Photobooks are not optical printed

 

[markjwyatt]

Photobooks are not optical printed

I think the best ones are printed using the gravure process (though I suspect offset can come pretty close).

 

[benjiboy]

People with the best and most expensive cameras soon find out that owning a Stradivarius doesn't make one a concert violinist.

 

[Arthurwg]

Craftsmen tools are good, but if I used hand tools regularly I'd probably want Snap-On if I could afford them. Why? Because they are more precise and feel great in the hand. I use Leicas because they feel great and seem more precise. Same with Hasselblads. Both give me pleasure, which is really what I want out of photography. But I also use Holgas on occasion as they put me in the funky realm of Miroslav Tichy. Although I've sold a few photos I don't expect to make a living out of it. I do it for fun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agreed. So which would you pick if you had the choice of the two I laid out (an excellent mechanic who uses Craftsmen tools, or a lousy one that uses Snap-On)?

The better mechanic

 

[Don_ih]

Photobooks are not optical printed

He did only say that he gets his photos printed optically. That really doesn't say anything about looking at other people's photos in a book.

 

[Sirius Glass]

None of these people are in it for photography, it is gadget-masturbation and dick-measuring at an insane (and expensive) level, judging photo-quality based on math and graphs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

He did only say that he gets his photos printed optically. That really doesn't say anything about looking at other people's photos in a book.

Correct. I write exactly what I mean. That is why I will trounce weasel worders.

 

[Radost]

He did only say that he gets his photos printed optically. That really doesn't say anything about looking at other people's photos in a book.

It was just argument that film photos can be enjoyed many ways not just optical prints.

 

[Radost]

Regardless if people are doing photography for a living or for their own "or others" entertainment and enjoyment, trying to improve and acquire better tools is what humanity's progress is based on. A natural evolution.
Good tools do not make a good picture but they sure help. Especially when it comes to limitation of the laws of physics.

 

[ciniframe]

I guess everyone really would be fine with one of these:
View attachment 278538

Too fancy! If your a real purist you tape a 8x10 sheet of photo paper to the inside of a cardboard box, make a pinhole out of a bit of drinks can taped to the other end and sit it down with a brick on top and pull the tape up to start the exposure.
If your a real purist you make up your own caffenol developer. No store bought developer for real artists.

edit; where are my brains!!?? Of course you have to make up your own emulsion to coat the paper.
Sheesh, what a lazy dog I’ve become.

 

[Radost]

Too fancy! If your a real purist you tape a 8x10 sheet of photo paper to the inside of a cardboard box, make a pinhole out of a bit of drinks can taped to the other end and sit it down with a brick on top and pull the tape up to start the exposure.
If your a real purist you make up your own caffenol developer. No store bought developer for real artists.

edit; where are my brains!!?? Of course you have to make up your own emulsion to coat the paper.
Sheesh, what a lazy dog I’ve become.

I use potatoes for my emulsion because I am purist.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I thought you shot with a Leica. Your mother gave it to you for your birthday or something.

It has nothing to do with pathetic and empty Leica marketing slogans.

I have M-E 220 which was needed to be somewhere out of country for months to have sensor replaced and it is 2015 camera without Leica support for some major parts since 2020.
I have M4-2 which was is in repairs for months since I started to use it around 2015. And it still needs service and hundreds of USD.
And I have IIIc which was serviced recently.

 

[cliveh]

There is a saying that a bad workman always blames his tools. But if you have the best tools, there is only yourself to blame.

 

[eddie]

There is a saying that a bad workman always blames his tools. But if you have the best tools, there is only yourself to blame.

You can have the world's greatest hammer but, if you need a screwdriver, a poor one will serve you better than the hammer... Making photographs is the same. Sometimes your goals aren't necessarily the sharpest images possible.

 

[cliveh]

You can have the world's greatest hammer but, if you need a screwdriver, a poor one will serve you better than the hammer... Making photographs is the same. Sometimes your goals aren't necessarily the sharpest images possible.

I agree, as you may wish to show the image out of focus. I think you don't understand my point?

 

[eddie]

I agree, as you may wish to show the image out of focus. I think you don't understand my point?

I think, if your aim is the ultimate in sharpness/contrast/etc, you're right. A lot of Holga images would look terrible taken with a Hasselblad, though. The right tool is always the one which gets you the results you're after.

 

[Arthurwg]

Jnancy: "There's nothing like a ...Hasselblad. " That was a joke, a play on one of Leica's old marketing slogans. But if you prefer shooting with Soviet cameras, so be it. From my perspective it's what you enjoy.

 

[markjwyatt]

Regardless if people are doing photography for a living or for their own "or others" entertainment and enjoyment, trying to improve and acquire better tools is what humanity's progress is based on. A natural evolution.
Good tools do not make a good picture but they sure help. Especially when it comes to limitation of the laws of physics.

There are improvement in tools, and marketing and cost driven changes. Some of the best tools (i.e., specifically cameras) were created in the 1950s-1970s. Some of the changes later on were not necessarily improvements to the tools (some were). Improvements to lenses to technical metrics did continue with increase in computational power and materials development (especially coatings, as well as manufacturing technology (e.g., aspherical lens production). I am not sure if lens aesthetics necessarily improved in proportion to the technical merits.

 

[cliveh]

I think, if your aim is the ultimate in sharpness/contrast/etc, you're right. A lot of Holga images would look terrible taken with a Hasselblad, though. The right tool is always the one which gets you the results you're after.

If you are talking about sharpness/contrast/etc, then that may be your aim and it may not. But you could make a leica image look like a Holga image, but you couldn't make a Holga image look like a leica image. A Leica just gives you more flexibility.

 

[unwantedfocus]

The truth is, that Leica is too expensive for the majority of people.