-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
The Art of Photography from a Traditional Posture
- Thread starter LanceLewin
- Start date
The M9M were mostly with a standard 50/f2. In more recent years I've been using 50/f1.4 and 35/f2. I have a lovely 1957 50/f2 Rigid with near focus goggles sitting on it's original partner, an M3 double-stroke. I also have an M6 TTL (about 1999, I bought my son one from the same batch) and a Leica III (1935). They are all immaculate and work perfectly, so I enjoy them all and they should appreciate in value as well. I tend to use Ilford and Colormax.
I still have thousands of film scans and negatives from the 1980s and 1990s, went digital like everyone else and went to Leica with an M9 because I just wanted the simplicity of aperture priority. I never got on with complex SLR cameras. I got back into film in a modest way, I currently use an M10 and Q2. I bought a Q on launch and it was utterly brilliant and I eventually replaced it.
The M9M is now 9 years old and going up in price, it is now around £3,000, about half the original new price. I think because the 240 Monochrom was unpopular and there is now the M10M and Q2M, both successful, people want a piece of the action and the M9M is still a great camera.
The M10M has crazy resolution, tonality, dynamics, ISO performance. It's arguably at the limit of a MF rangefinder. The M10 (and even the M9) have so little camera shake, it works. I can shoot down to about 1/6 s hand-hand no problem at all.
Anyway a few more illustrations of the M9 dynamics and crop, and an M3 test shot. The two are about a 50%+ cropped.
Regrading resolution my b/w photo came from the Nikon D200 at 10 MP. I have it printed at 60x80cm and it looks amazingly sharp even at close distance (I used a tripod). So with my current D800 at almost twice the resolution I could have printed it at 120x160cm with the same visual sharpness (if the lense would deliver). What more does one really need?
I agree regarding dynamic range and noise. The D200 was not good, but the D800 was a major step forward.
Out of cam but not raw since it's an jpg (created by the jpg engine in the M9M). But quite good.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,367
- Likes
- 3,555
We need to have a special place for Leica fandom, nutritional supplements and audio tweaks, like /dev/null. I have owned a whole lotta Leica including M8 and M9, but like audio components, their performance parameters can be measured:
https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-review-for-the-leica-m9/
https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-review-for-the-leica-m9/
pads
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 209
- Likes
- 540
I was asked to show a bit of my father's work, as stated he was a photomicrographer and specialized in gemstone inclusions etc. As a bit of background, he was a master watchmaker, and a lover of gemstones, an early adopter of gemmological knowledge from the late 60's he was quick to combine his passion of photography with the worlds he was seeing under a microscope. he became friends with John Koivula of the GIA and Eduard Gubelin in Switzerland (both considered the pioneers of gemstone photomicrography). Dad's work was featured in Gems and Gemology, The British Gemmological Association's magazine Gem-A and various other magazines and trade journals world wide. If you like what you see feel free to PM me and I'll supply a link to his web page which I keep going for posterity's sake.
The above are both surface etchings of beryls
The above are both surface etchings of beryls
I had a look at your website. I like your photographs, especially landscape and family pix (they are very life like).
The first family pic came as a shock when I read the caption - I'm deeply sorry for the loss of your daughter. Despite her situation you've captured a strong and happy personality.
Being new here, I did not see this thread until it popped up on the New Posts list yesterday.
And the first post I read in response to the OP was on semiotics and indexicality. I thought for a moment I was on the Large Format Photography Forum (where I am even now one of several overseers, now mostly performing that role in silence). My last discussion that involved those concepts was on that forum, quite a few years ago, and it was with at least one of the posters in this thread (Paul, who taught me what the words mean). Small world!
One of the problems with art is that artists feel rather passionately about it, and are subject to drawing boundaries through the concept of art to include and exclude. C. S. Lewis wrote about literature as art, and demonstrated that art is art if it is intended as art, and if anyone--anyone--accepts it as art. As Paul said, not necessarily good art, but intentional art. Then, John makes a fine (rather, coarse) distinction--photography as art versus photography as reportage. But even journalists think of themselves as artists, and even those whose manipulations completely obscure the indexical content think of themselves as conveying truth, at least of a sort.
It's funny that much of the history of photography was represented in monochrome, which is an enormous abstraction of the world around us. Adams commented on that--but he preferred black and white primarily because it allowed him to strongly manipulate the image without undermining the illusion of being real.
Anyway, threads about photography need photographs. Here's one of mine:
Rick "is it digital or film, straight or manipulated?" Denney
And the first post I read in response to the OP was on semiotics and indexicality. I thought for a moment I was on the Large Format Photography Forum (where I am even now one of several overseers, now mostly performing that role in silence). My last discussion that involved those concepts was on that forum, quite a few years ago, and it was with at least one of the posters in this thread (Paul, who taught me what the words mean). Small world!
One of the problems with art is that artists feel rather passionately about it, and are subject to drawing boundaries through the concept of art to include and exclude. C. S. Lewis wrote about literature as art, and demonstrated that art is art if it is intended as art, and if anyone--anyone--accepts it as art. As Paul said, not necessarily good art, but intentional art. Then, John makes a fine (rather, coarse) distinction--photography as art versus photography as reportage. But even journalists think of themselves as artists, and even those whose manipulations completely obscure the indexical content think of themselves as conveying truth, at least of a sort.
It's funny that much of the history of photography was represented in monochrome, which is an enormous abstraction of the world around us. Adams commented on that--but he preferred black and white primarily because it allowed him to strongly manipulate the image without undermining the illusion of being real.
Anyway, threads about photography need photographs. Here's one of mine:
Rick "is it digital or film, straight or manipulated?" Denney
@LanceLewin started this thread to discuss his paper on the merits of Digital manipulation (editing).
My discussion with @LanceLewin was specifically about the M9 Monochrom, an almost unique camera at the time lacking a Bayer filter, not using RGB and only producing monochrom images. Whilst the M9 was pretty hopeless beyond ISO 800, the M9M was indistinguishable at ISO 3200 compared to ISO 320. It eliminated much of the need for editing, which is what was being discussed, by removing colour. That may sound ridiculous, but Leica surveyed users and found about 70% mainly photographed in black and white anyway. So if they don't need colour, get rid of it if it makes a better camera.
The M9 was, in terms of specification, really very poor, and I owned one. Its ISO performance was terrible. The screen was laughable, probably because Leica resented there being a screen at all. It's the ergonomics that attract most users. You can pick up any Leica M from 1954 and they largely feel the same and work the same. That's a lot to do with why people buy them, they are easy to use. People buy audio systems because they are easy to use, even if there are ones that measure better. People are like that.
I also own a Nikon. For me it is impossibly complicated and I very rarely use it. I feel the same about Sony, had one of those as well.
Photography and audio are not the same in that what the photographer wants to achieve is entirely subjective.
You can't edit an image unless you have an image in the first place, and people choose the brands of camera best suited to their needs, often different brands like I do. I really enjoy editing images, and I appreciate it is a creative art in itself.
When @LanceLewin says:
"However, I must declare, I feel it is also proper the final artistic version does not transcend the natural psychophysical characteristics of a photograph, that is, a photographic image evoking a sense of reality and authenticity".
I think he is exactly correct. He is saying you can change the image as long as it remains believable.
However, 10 photographers can produce 10 different but believable images of the same thing and different people will prefer different ones. That's exactly what consumer audio is all about.
Being new here, I did not see this thread until it popped up on the New Posts list yesterday.
And the first post I read in response to the OP was on semiotics and indexicality. I thought for a moment I was on the Large Format Photography Forum (where I am even now one of several overseers, now mostly performing that role in silence). My last discussion that involved those concepts was on that forum, quite a few years ago, and it was with at least one of the posters in this thread (Paul, who taught me what the words mean). Small world!
One of the problems with art is that artists feel rather passionately about it, and are subject to drawing boundaries through the concept of art to include and exclude. C. S. Lewis wrote about literature as art, and demonstrated that art is art if it is intended as art, and if anyone--anyone--accepts it as art. As Paul said, not necessarily good art, but intentional art. Then, John makes a fine (rather, coarse) distinction--photography as art versus photography as reportage. But even journalists think of themselves as artists, and even those whose manipulations completely obscure the indexical content think of themselves as conveying truth, at least of a sort.
It's funny that much of the history of photography was represented in monochrome, which is an enormous abstraction of the world around us. Adams commented on that--but he preferred black and white primarily because it allowed him to strongly manipulate the image without undermining the illusion of being real.
Anyway, threads about photography need photographs. Here's one of mine:
Rick "is it digital or film, straight or manipulated?" Denney
To me that looks a bit over-edited, but its a very pleasing and evocative image. It's the shadow of the edges of the paper lining the wall that gives it unreality, but it evokes the feeling of decay.
These two images are the unedited raw files, taken one afternoon.
Is the first one a picture of a man walking down the stairs at the Bird's Nest stadium in Beijing?
Am I lying that the second image is unedited and cannot be an image of reality?
It's very easy to use images to play mental tricks, just like using two boxes to create a soundstage of illusory musicians.
I've looked at those Leicas, even though I've always preferred cameras that would give me a good upper-body workout. But the prices are a bit breathtaking, and I fear modern Leicas have become the same sorts of fetish objects as a lot of high-end audio. That does not in any way diminish my admiration of Leica's no-compromise approach.
My current digital camera for serious work is a Pentax 645z, which wasn't exactly cheap itself. (See above about upper-body workouts). But I work in color much more than black and white, and the big Pentax makes simply stunning images.
For stuff that's more production-oriented, I use a Canon 5DII (despite that it's now a decade old) and just had a new shutter and mirror box installed in it. But for the sheer illusion of endless detail, it can't touch the big Pentax.
On the topic of digital editing, my darkroom printing days are over, notwithstanding my unwillingness to pass along my Omega D2 enlarger, which still resides in the store room. When I use film, it's in a Pentax 67, or one of my large-format cameras (the preferred ones being a Sinar F2 and a Sinar P, depending on how bulked up I'm feeling that day). But like Paul, most of my personal serious stuff is done using digital cameras. And even when I use film, I scan and make prints in the computer.
For me, the dividing line between traditional and au courant is between those who make physical prints (or, at least, books) and those who display on computer screens. I do the latter but only as a means to an end. My endpoint is always the print, but I suspect that would be rare for those much younger than most of us.
If I take final prints and a bunch of Photoshop files to a book publisher, and tell him to make a book, I expect the reproductions in the book to be as close as possible to my final print. That's the line between music and "audio"--the job of audio equipment is like that book--convey as much as possible the original artistic intent. But some have taken pictures off my online pages and edited them to be more like what they want (usually with greater saturation, although I'm not that afraid of a little color intensity). That's not reproduction--that's derivative art.
Rick "who comes far closer to his original vision using digital editing" Denney
My current digital camera for serious work is a Pentax 645z, which wasn't exactly cheap itself. (See above about upper-body workouts). But I work in color much more than black and white, and the big Pentax makes simply stunning images.
For stuff that's more production-oriented, I use a Canon 5DII (despite that it's now a decade old) and just had a new shutter and mirror box installed in it. But for the sheer illusion of endless detail, it can't touch the big Pentax.
On the topic of digital editing, my darkroom printing days are over, notwithstanding my unwillingness to pass along my Omega D2 enlarger, which still resides in the store room. When I use film, it's in a Pentax 67, or one of my large-format cameras (the preferred ones being a Sinar F2 and a Sinar P, depending on how bulked up I'm feeling that day). But like Paul, most of my personal serious stuff is done using digital cameras. And even when I use film, I scan and make prints in the computer.
For me, the dividing line between traditional and au courant is between those who make physical prints (or, at least, books) and those who display on computer screens. I do the latter but only as a means to an end. My endpoint is always the print, but I suspect that would be rare for those much younger than most of us.
If I take final prints and a bunch of Photoshop files to a book publisher, and tell him to make a book, I expect the reproductions in the book to be as close as possible to my final print. That's the line between music and "audio"--the job of audio equipment is like that book--convey as much as possible the original artistic intent. But some have taken pictures off my online pages and edited them to be more like what they want (usually with greater saturation, although I'm not that afraid of a little color intensity). That's not reproduction--that's derivative art.
Rick "who comes far closer to his original vision using digital editing" Denney
I'm the complete opposite, I like small cameras, and Leica's origins and claims to fame are setting the 35mm standard and miniaturisation (the Leica I). That's why the Q has been so popular - a magnificent 28/f1.7 macro lens, incredible electronics and ease of use, feels like an M and weighs about 700g. I bought my Q for £2,900, bashed it up over 4 years (including one serious accident) and sold it for £2,000. The Q2 is weatherproofed and a larger sensor (50mp), still only 734g.
If I were a studio pro I might use a Leica SL, which tethers to CaptureOne, or Phase One. Thankfully I'm an amateur who photographs entirely for my own pleasure and enjoyment, just as I listen to audio. So I don't look at first instance at equipment primarily for professional use, whether photo or audio.
I do lots of printing at home, using a cost-effective 9-colour inflow system that is regularly colour calibrated (both the printer and screen). So I agree that for the end product, there is no compromise, and I agree with your audio analogy, even if the image was taken with a $10 pinhole camera. The good news is that a professional quality A3 printing system is cheaper than even a single fairly modest lens.
My standard is sustaining the illusion of endless detail in a 16x20 print, even when viewed up close. I want to believe that the only reason I don’t see more detail is because I forgot to bring a loupe.
That’s harder in practice than it seems.
And I want to do that with maximum flexibility. My Alaska book has 182 images, using lenses ranging from a 30mm fisheye to a 560mm telephoto (normal is 55mm on the Pentax, sort-of equivalent to 43mm on a 24x36 camera).
The smaller the format, the more difficult and expensive it is to attain that technical objective, like getting both efficiency and deep bass from a small speaker. In the digital realm, the Pentax was by far the least expensive path to providing that quality and flexibility. It didn’t hurt that I had been using a Pentax 645 film kit for occasional paid stuff for 20 years
By the way, the image I posted isn’t edited very much. Were I using film, I might have achieved a similar effect with a 4x5 camera, a a Schneider Super Angulon of about 120 mm, Fuji Velvia 50 (RIP), and metering the highlights on the right to about Zone VII. It would need to be printed on the old Cibachrome (RIP) with not much manipulation under the enlarger. The look would be similar in artistic terms, but I would be able to increase my 16x20 print standard to 30x40. Velvia would have lost some of the shadow detail. Not many digital cameras can produce a credible Velvia effect, but the Pentax can (as can the Leica S2). I’ve never gotten a Velvia look from my Canon with any amount of editing.
Rick “still has some Velvia in 120 and 4x5 in the freezer” Denney
That’s harder in practice than it seems.
And I want to do that with maximum flexibility. My Alaska book has 182 images, using lenses ranging from a 30mm fisheye to a 560mm telephoto (normal is 55mm on the Pentax, sort-of equivalent to 43mm on a 24x36 camera).
The smaller the format, the more difficult and expensive it is to attain that technical objective, like getting both efficiency and deep bass from a small speaker. In the digital realm, the Pentax was by far the least expensive path to providing that quality and flexibility. It didn’t hurt that I had been using a Pentax 645 film kit for occasional paid stuff for 20 years
By the way, the image I posted isn’t edited very much. Were I using film, I might have achieved a similar effect with a 4x5 camera, a a Schneider Super Angulon of about 120 mm, Fuji Velvia 50 (RIP), and metering the highlights on the right to about Zone VII. It would need to be printed on the old Cibachrome (RIP) with not much manipulation under the enlarger. The look would be similar in artistic terms, but I would be able to increase my 16x20 print standard to 30x40. Velvia would have lost some of the shadow detail. Not many digital cameras can produce a credible Velvia effect, but the Pentax can (as can the Leica S2). I’ve never gotten a Velvia look from my Canon with any amount of editing.
Rick “still has some Velvia in 120 and 4x5 in the freezer” Denney
paulraphael
Active Member
C.S. Lewis was right there with the critical thinking of his time. One lesson of the 20th century: restrictive, classical ideas of what is/isn't art didn't make sense anymore (lucky thing for anyone trying to make art with a camera).
Part of it, though, is that the intentions/perspectives of the viewer don't have to agree with those of the maker. If people regard something as art, it becomes art. This is by no means a free ride, because it also means it will be judged as art, possibly cruelly!
This thinking goes back over 100 years. It was 1917 that Marcel Duchamp hung a snow shovel, a bicycle wheel, and a urinal at the museum of modern art. Many people were outraged—and the joke was ultimately on them. By judging it as art, they affirmed it as art. They made Duchamp's point for him.
Over the next decades, the museum's photo collection—the defining photo art for more than half of the 20th century—acquired journalism, documentary pictures, scientific pictures, criminal forensic pictures, and snapshots. Stuff never intended as art by its makers, but transformed into art by its new context.
nobodynoz
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I prefer the B&W picture by far.... You will never be able to make your color picture more interesting than your black one.
nobodynoz
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Where do you stand in respect to Ansel Adams. The guy wanted to move away from photography movements prior to his, which all attempted to take cues from art masters of the past, and instead said letting photography stand on it's own as it's own medium. He then proceeded to do extensive processing work of his images.
One of his most famous, before and after
I know the story behind this image... I've seen the original.... that night Adams forgot his exposure meter at home... because he had made so many pictures at night he was able to evaluate the settings of his large wooden camera on top of his wooden tripod made by Zone VI.
He used to take pictures perched on the roof of his car.
Zone IV didn’t exist for 30 years after that photo was made—Moonrise over Hernandez NM was made in 1941. I don’t know what tripod he used, but Ries was making that style of tripod at the time.
He knew the luminance of the full moon and keyed his exposure to that. But it underexposed the foreground badly which challenged him when making prints. He later treated the bottom of the negative with chromium intensifier to make it easier to print.
As he got older, his interpretations became more intense, and he printed Moonrise with a darker sky.
Rick “yes, he owned a station wagon with a roof platform” Denney
He knew the luminance of the full moon and keyed his exposure to that. But it underexposed the foreground badly which challenged him when making prints. He later treated the bottom of the negative with chromium intensifier to make it easier to print.
As he got older, his interpretations became more intense, and he printed Moonrise with a darker sky.
Rick “yes, he owned a station wagon with a roof platform” Denney
paulraphael
Active Member
I love making fun of that company, and the ever-pompous / lovable Fred Picker. But I've been happily using one of his tripods since about 1994. Kind a frugal workman's version of a Reis. I think it's actually a surveying tripod with a piece of plywood bolted to the top so you can screw on a regular tripod head.
I still use the thing today with a dslr. When you carry it through the city slung over your shoulder, people look at you like you think you're Jesus dragging a cross to Golgotha.
You notice that I poked a bit of fun, too, by downgrading the company’s exposure two stops.
I was rolling a Cambo view camera into the grounds of Mission San Jose in San Antonio many years ago, with a huge Bogen tripod and a foot-locker-sized case. A nice lady park ranger asked me if I was doing it commercially (which required an easy-to-get permit in those days), and I said nope, just for me. She looked at me doubtfully, and the guy I was with deadpanned, “It’s an expensive hobby”. We all laughed.
(Made that same day, but at Mission Concepción)
Rick “who knows the difference between Zone IV and Zone VI, honest” Denney
paulraphael
Active Member
That exactly describes the large format kits you could borrow from my college's art dept. back in the day. It was impossible to lug that stuff even 50 feet from the car without ending up covered in bruises.
One thing I like about the Zone IV is the lack of sharp edges and little sheetmetal bits to pinch your fingers. And it doesn't freeze to your flesh!
The view camera at my college (I was in the architecture school) was a Linhof Kardan Color from probably the late 50's. It weighed what seemed like two or three hundred pounds. The Cambo was a wonder of light weight by comparison. But the worst of all was the Newton NewVue that was the best camera I could afford after college. The Linhof was heavy but beautifully made. It was like going from a pristinely maintained Thorens TD124 to a cheapie Decca record player with a molded plastic tonearm and a sewing needle for a stylus. The Sinar P I use now is more like the Thorens TD125.
But the Sinar isn't much lighter than the old Linhof.
You are from Chicago (or at least were there for a while, as I recall). I lived in Texas. Freezing-to-flesh was not a thing there (except for the one-a-decade event like last week). Bogens offered a lot of stability for the dollar, though. I'm still using big Manfrotto/Bogens for view cameras.
Back to the topic, though. (Well, sorta.) Digital cameras surely do reduce the load. The cameras aren't necessarily any lighter, but I don't have to carry 20 film holders.
Rick "noting that Adams owned and used pack mules" Denney
Similar threads
- Poll
