• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What fuel Leica hatred...

Why don't we let blockend tell us what he meant instead of guessing.
 
I think this means something like: If you are taking a very special portrait of your niece and her new husband, you may choose to use a large, relatively awkward view camera (like the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire) in order to create something one of a kind and special, but if you are having fun taking photos of the reception guests at your niece's wedding, you may want to use a camera that is relatively small and flexible and permits easy sharing of the results (the Toyota equivalent).
 
Sirius Glass said:
I am still not impressed with digital except for remote sensing from space or aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's how I started in it... in 1981. I am impressed by the sensor uniformity of the Leica M Monochrom. I brushed off some FORTRAN code written in the 1980s and converted it to process the DNG files from the M Monochrom. It was an easy job, took a couple of evenings. No need for the non-uniformity correction (NUC) routines in the code. I like Leica Digital because they use all my old lenses and document the file format. The M8, M9, and M Monochrom use little-endian format files. The M240 and M246 use Big-Endian, which is a PINTA. And you don't need to use Liquid Nitrogen anymore. Having to Use Liquid Nitrogen with digital sensors was inconvenient. Less convenient than the Dry-Ice modified Praktinas that we used in High School for astrophotography.
 
Last edited:

A lot of people who are pros that I know brag above t their gear and are just '
like people on this site. And a lot of pros and people who have pro grade gear
( Leica or bald or whatever)”prosumer”? incessantly brag about their gear
dropping names of bodies and lenses and essotsric developers or techniques..
in person or online. Maybe everyone is caught up in reefermadness in Colorado
not really sure where you are coming from and the bigger / more expensive the gear
the better I am syndrome is rampant whether it is hammers or cameras...people want to impress
... the problem is after a while on websites or in person with pros or prosumers or whoever
you see the photographs produced or no photographs and just words and in the end it really
doesnt mater what gear you use except to the person using it ...
i have seen absolutely stunning images made from a biscoti can and a pinhole
and work done on the most expensive camera i have ever seen and they are just beautiful
i have also seen gear done on name dropped cameras and lenses and wasn't impressed...
who cares about the gear ,,, its just gear... its too bad people don't shoot more so they have chops

Personally I have a lot of respect for miroslav
Miroslav : I used premium grade post consumer cardboard for my camera body
and higrade plastic for my lens. What about you

Yuri : i used better plastic and ash for my lens your body is. crapola
And your cardboard is from Bulgaria it isn’t as dense as my good cardboard

In the end miroslavs photographs were in a show in Berlin his braggart friend
Never had a show in Berlin but his camera was so good
 
Last edited:
In 2006, an acquaintance of mine who was a well known author passed away by his own hands. His widow who I also knew allowed a fellow photographer buddy and I to spend the night making photos under the massive canon that was used to shoot his ashes skyward before it was dismantled. In evaluating this opportunity, we decided that this person deserved a proper photographic send off. So we used two pinhole cameras that we constructed just for this event.

One was a microwave oven that held 8x10 sheets of type R color paper simply called "Toast". The other one held 20x24" sheets of Fuji type R, was made out of a medium sized trash can, covered in reflective foil and is called the "Glory Hole".

The photos are awesome, the fake rock that lives in my den that came from the base of the canon looks equally as awesome. Tools for craftsman, tools for tools or tools for fools, regardless of what I use, I sure as hell don't need some tool-fool telling me I don't see a difference in my photos if I am using a specific tool.
 
And God help you if you're shooting with something like my Hermagis Eidoscope, which is a fuzz-u-lator if there ever was one. But those images have a certain je-ne-sais-quoi that would never work in a smaller format and they'd be bland and boring if they were critically sharp.
 
The car analogy was a send up of all the tortuous comparisons found on this forum. However the point is this: photography includes lots of mundane recording type images, as well as personal creative work. When film was the only stuff available, it had to cover all these options, from the simplest archival copy work to the grandest landscape.

Now we have the option of digital imaging, which is surprisingly good at the donkey work. So we can post a shot of our handsome Contaflex on eBay without having to develop and scan a film to do so, and take pictures of 500 pages of boring but essential documentation and deliver it to the recipient without it representing a week's work. That means we can save our film for the stuff we enjoy. No doubt there are people who would use film for those purposes, because they think they're keeping it alive by doing so, or because they think pixels are pixies and smell of the demonic, but most of us cling to the horses for courses school of thought.

The iPhone or DSLR is out Toyota, press the button and go A to B. The film camera is our Armstrong Siddeley (or AC Cobra, Borgward Isabella, Model-T Ford, depending on taste).
 


That cracked me up John. Bulgarian cardboard. Lol...

I think Dan (Ai Print) should compare his resume with Tichýs. Getting tired of this egotistical diarrhea he is spurtin'. Yeah there are differences in lenses, and his eagle eye can see them (so can everyone else), but Tichý don't give a sh!t. I think one of Tichýs cameras was named Poopka. Kind of like Leica, but crappier.

Just to reiterate yet again, I use Leicas, I like using them. Not a hater. I'll spare the good people of APUG/Photrio the list of what I own and how much it cost. No pictures either. Not into camera porn or jewelry. Sorry!
 
Tichy owned much better cameras than his home-made ones, but they weren't what his photography was about. He had an Exakta and various other "real" cameras.
 
blockend said:
Tichy owned much better cameras than his home-made ones, but they weren't what his photography was about. He had an Exakta and various other "real" cameras.
Click to expand...

Can you share some link about this? I have seen many Tichy documentaries / short videos, and I have a book about him, but this info is new to me. Thanks.
 
dang ai photo the last post had some dr seus in it tool fool fool tool

not sure why or who you are saying a tool fool &c
i was responding to your specific comments about
pros not talking about their gear and found it to be un true in the 80s as much
as it is untrue in 2017. what have found is the more time people
spend online or at a coffee shop or bar talking about gear or the latest
recipe of pyro they are using or the microlitre or sheeps urine used in
some 19th century plutonium based toner they make, the less time they spend shooting
and getting better ...
i cant tell you how many times i have had in person conversations with people
and it starts to sound like that guy commander mcBragg from the rocky and bullwikle show.
its fun a few times but after a while, ,,,

darko+patrick everyone knows bulgarian waste paper is the best !

---now if you will excuse me, i have to go to newport photograph one of the glitteratti
ill be using a variable back lazar wide open with expired kodachrome processed
in hair dye and blood from the index finger of a virgin who can trace her lineage back
to neffertiti, and the 2nd film will be 78 year old tri x sh33t taken with a 164 year old tailboard
from the renoir estate with knuckler purchased at the f.holland day estate developed in
a combination of dektol and 4 day old putrified beef broth ( channeling my inner pasteur )
fixed in kelp and toned using natural elements found in the woods..
or maybe ill just roll with my iphone ,,, itll be last minute
 
Last edited:
blockend said:
The iPhone or DSLR is out Toyota, press the button and go A to B. The film camera is our Armstrong Siddeley (or AC Cobra, Borgward Isabella, Model-T Ford, depending on taste).
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say that the film camera is your Armstrong Siddeley etc.
 
darkosaric said:
Can you share some link about this? I have seen many Tichy documentaries / short videos, and I have a book about him, but this info is new to me. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I can't remember, I watched it on YouTube a few months ago. It was an interview with one of the curators or executors of his work, and there were shots of his old house with various cameras piled up among the crap. From memory there was definitely an Exakta, a Praktica and a couple of medium format cameras. The guy speaking said it wasn't as though Tichy didn't have better cameras. Whether this was an aesthetic decision, or he thought home made cameras would draw less serious attention, who can say?

edit: I can't find the film but Pinterest has a picture of Tichy's Praktica. It looks to be in the same condition as his other cameras...
 
Last edited:
faberryman said:
I think you meant to say that the film camera is your Armstrong Siddeley etc.
Click to expand...
My folders might be an Armstrong Siddeley. I have a number of Ford Escort 1980s plastic SLRs, British large format cameras (Bentley's?), lots of Austin Metro point and shoots, Russian Lada lenses, old Nikons (VW vans), etc, etc.
 

Resolution is not the only advantage as far as photo emulsion goes but you already know that.
...I hope you will use double glass film holder when printing the negs.

Also, make sure to check the prints and film neg in 10 years, same applies for the files integrity, storage media and physical print, if any.

Ai Print said:
...
I love film far more than digital but in also having the latest digital equipment, I also know what that does in the real world..
Click to expand...
The real world is film's territory, while digital imaging / computer graphics / synthetic imaging is more like virtual reality that relates to the visual perception of realistic Image synthesis... after all, you can easily render a very realistic imagery from geometric model or mathematical formula.


Tichý fuels Leica hatred?
Haters will hate as long as Leica make the cash register ring.
Been over 100 years now...
 
jnanian said:
...
you see the photographs produced or no photographs and just words and in the end it really
doesnt mater what gear you use except to the person using it ...
Click to expand...

And in the end both of us agree on that.
 
A little while ago, I searched for and re-read the article Your Camera Doesn't Matter on Ken Rockwell's web site. In it, he recounts a story about an Ernst Haas response during a workshop he was conducting to incessant Leica fanboy activity: "Leica, schmeica. The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."

'Nuf said . . .
 
Hatred? No, I think it's not hatred as much as an expression of frustration and helplessness (e.g., last defiant gesture) when lacking the resources ($$$) to access their products. Corporations needing precision optical equipment to help them meet their goals are in a better position to afford that access and, being driven by competition, are more likely to acquire the best that money can buy rather than the "most bang for the buck." Leitz is willing to oblige them with the best equipment they can be produce. But that effort comes with at a high cost; research and development when on the cusp of striving for perfection does require a high investment of labor, and that affects the cost of the end product. Whether that cost is amortized over the amateur world I can't say, without knowing Leitz's business model. So that topic can be "discussed" ad infinitum.
 
It's partly the fact that for Westerners at least, Leica ownership is a realistic aspiration. Even low paid workers can, if they save hard and forego other pleasures, attain Leica ownership of some variety in a way they couldn't with fast cars, race horses or yachts. So Leica is a kind of democratic luxury, and gives everyone the ability to sound off one way or the other on its benefits.

I understand the desire because I succumbed to it, rather half heartedly when the price and condition was too good for me to pass on, but it was too like the experience of other cameras to be seduced by the pull. I knew it would bounce around in a normal shoulder bag and be dragged out at a moments notice, like my other cameras, and someone else would fuss over it in a way I wasn't prepared to. So I'm rather been there-done that about Leica. My XA's are much smaller, my Kiev is quirkier, my Nikons as solid and lots of cameras have sharp lenses, especially at the middling apertures I usually shoot. I certainly don't hate Leicas or Leica owners, but as photographic tools they have far more competition that their heyday,
 
silveror0 said:
No, I think it's not hatred as much as an expression of frustration and helplessness (e.g., last defiant gesture) when lacking the resources ($$$) to access their products.
Click to expand...


These two statements seems diametrically opposed. Which is true, if either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register