[Leica] more questions

[lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III)]

Ted,

This is one of the better explanations I have read about Leica M's. Some
people have a mental block about a bright v/f where everything is in focus.
IMO a Leica forces you to "see" first BEFORE you take the picture. I switched
to M's in 1972 after using SLR's for a number of years, and although I own an
SL for macro, etc., I could not take relaxed pictures without my M's. May 
there
be decent film to shoot and places to have it processed adequately for a few
more years!

O.K., I understand today's professional work flow and the demands of clients.
As an amateur, I don't have these demands and my pictures need only please
me. My filmware is the choice of film I use and the results from my local 
shop's
high-res scans from their new Agfa machine don't need much PS. I have little
time to fiddle due to the demands of my job. Unlike yourself, I'm no photo
journalist and my documentary photos are confidential and taken inside
factories. I know when I pick up an M after months of no use that I WILL get
lots of hits and many happy surprises. I don't need to review my shots in an
LCD to know I have what I need on the emulsion. There is often no time to do
this reviewing anyway and I can't come back to re-shoot.

Speaking of light, I MUCH prefer film capture to digital capture since the
digital capture frequently looks plastic and highly manipulated. Maybe some
day it won't. I still can't deal with fighting with menus to get what I can 
with
a Leica by simply removing a lens cap and making a few adjustments.
Anything which comes between me and what I want to capture is fatal.

You would probably hate my stuff because I am not a people photographer
and much of my stuff could be taken by others with an SLR, but I could not
do as well without an M.

Are you following this?

William

At 09:37 PM 08/12/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Juan Gea-Banacloche offered:
> > I would not recommend a film camera to anyone interested in photography
> > today; I would recommend digital.<<
>
>Jaun my friend,
>How can you say that and sleep at night? As it's absolute
>blasphemy!!!!!!!!!! Why would you do that! It generally takes a tiny amount
>of intelligence to use most idiot proof digital machines these days and
>getting easier. They don't really teach anyone anything about being a
>photographer nor capturing the moment as we who are photographers understand
>it as being a photographer or photograph!
>
>Hell an exposer of electrons or whatever the hell they're called in a
>digital camera can almost be done by a blind person. And yes there are film
>cameras that can be set for auto everything that can do the same thing.
>However! A Leica R/F teaches one to "see" when they are "looking" and that's
>the difference between digital and Leica!
>
>A Leica teaches you to see as a photographer! A digital? Hell just point it,
>press button "A" image recorded with no sight at all! Sort it out later!
>
> > I practice film photography as a hobby and I see it, as someone else
> > has mentioned, as a thing of the past. If one wants to "paint with
> > light", digital is the way to start.<<<<<<<,
>
>Well me young / old son that's baloney! Hell if I didn't learn what light
>was all about long before digital was ever thought of, let alone as a tiny
>dinkie toy for recording. I'd never have had the career I've enjoyed for 50
>years!  And just what makes you think digital would teach someone, anyone,
>about "painting with light" over a Leica? Or what light is all about in the
>first place?
>
> > I bought my first Leica (a Leicaflex SL) in 2002; the M3 last year.<<<<<,
>
>Well gee whiz eh! How about buying your first Leica 40 years ago and still
>shooting in the hectic world of these days while producing internationally
>recognized books? I think maybe when you are dry behind the ears you could
>come to the table and make recommendations whether one should start digital
>over a Leica and film! Certainly when it comes to learning what light is all
>about!
>
> > Again, photography for me is something I enjoy, not a craft, nor a job 
> > (if
>it
> > were, I might think Leica is the right tool for something, but I
> > honestly don't know what).<<<<<<<<<
>
>You truly are a neophyte aren't you!
>
> > I just enjoy the whole process of shooting and developing
> > but it is frustrating to ruin the negatives or find out you have two
> > keepers out of 36. I don't pretend it makes sense. If one enjoys it
> > (and it does not hurt anybody) it should be OK.<<<<<<<
>
>I suppose, but screwing-up negatives goes with the territory of being a
>photographer, pardon me even a professional. Hell on an assignment of
>shooting say, 500 hundred rolls of 36 it's nice to have 10% as the main
>keepers. Considered normal averages within the profession. That doesn't mean
>the others are throw aways, it means on average 10% are the best and within
>the 10% one hopes to find a few absolute diamonds for the project.
>
>So don't be frustrated with ruining a few negatives here and there as it's
>all part of the learning curve.
>
> > Leica film photography may be on its way to become something like Minox
> > photography: an oddity.<<
>
>Not on your life! Can I prove that? Not on your life! ;-) But sometimes a
>tool of such greatness, the M series of bodies,  with the feel of a finely
>made piece of equipment has followers who will forever look for it and use
>it with great reverence, simply because of it's involvement with some of the
>finest moments in photography history.
>
>Did the camera make the photograph? Naw, we all know the guy or gal holding
>it did. But over the years the end photo product has been equated to "this
>is a Leica picture!" ERGO: There are always going to be Leica users as long
>as there is film to fill them!
>
>ted Grant