The journey and the end result cannot be entirely divorced, but they are certainly not a whole either. If I don't enjoy the process, I am less likely to get out there and shoot the frame. Therefore, no matter how idiosyncratic, if shooting a Leica is the reason to get certain photographers out of the door then so be it. For me, if the process was a lot of fun, but the results left me unsatisfied, then I would not bother, because the process would essentially lead to disappointment.
1. Any photographer that claims Leica is the answer to everything needs his/her head examining. Besides, their work is likely to be as inflexible and lacking in insight as their outlook. There are very few Leicaphiles of this ilk; far fewer than the leica bashers like to think.
2. Anyone who claims that Leica's are inflexible, antiquated and a universally bad idea is equally narrow minded. It also seems rather pointless to claim "my work is better than that of Leica photographers and so I'm smug rather than envious." That may be because a Leica is not the right bit of kit for you, so fine. But it is for others and for bloody good reasons. I shoot a number of camera types and the Leica was the last type (35mm RF) that I got into because in many regards I saw it as the most niche. however, that niche has opened up into a very enjoyable way of working within the limitations of the M system - I find it hugely liberating compared to LF, MF or even 35mm SLR work. I use the M when I am doing certain types of work and I get the results I want. Could I shoot the same things with an SLR? In some cases 'yes' and in others a fat 'no', or at least not without some serious compromises. Could I do the same with a Bessa? yes. But I wanted an MP because it felt perfect in my hands. How that affects the result of a day of shooting is impossible to show as we cannot go out and shoot the exact same day with the alternate camera system. This is particularly true when Leica Ms tend to be used under spontaneous conditions.
Leica absolutists and the Leica bashers: The latter can (but is not necessarily) about jealousy, or in some cases financial envy. In other cases they just don't see the Leica as a useful tool to them, but are adamant therefore it is no use to anyone. The former group is equally daft. They go on and on about BS and swear that (to quote another person whose name I forget) their instantly forgettable snapshots could not have been produced on anything else. However, there is, unsurprisingly a middle ground. This is where people buy and use Leicas very productively and genuinely feel they are the right tool for them for certain work. The fact of the matter is that this is completely undeniable and cannot be argued against - are whim, impulse and passion not essential? Chris Crawford likes to scan film and is very happy with his results. I wet print and am very happy with mine. We both get to where we want to go. Can he argue his process is better? No. This is because I do not like scanning film and so it is a non-starter. I am not inspired by processes I don't like. For me the digital darkroom is the equivalent of coming up with a program that allows a cellist to play music by holding a virtual bow and cello. If the output is perfect and the system works then what is the argument for continuing the production and use of cellos? For some musicians I suspect the gross change in the tactile experience would likely prevent some cellists going down this road. They would still turn up and perform with their trusty cellos. Are they idiots? Do they think they are playing 'better' music? No. This is their way of releasing themselves to their music and letting it flow. If the instruments are a physical crutch to ease them into 'the zone' then so be it. It is the same with cameras and the entirety of the process up to the print. If you cannot switch off from everything else and the camera consciously remains a 'feature' then with certain types of photography you are going to have real problems. It is the same if working on a computer prevents you thinking and feeling the same way you would using a darkroom. I actually use PS quite a bit, but like to keep it to a minimum for personal work that is important to me.
As for digital printing being just another printing mechanism, well of course! However, not all mechanisms are the same or ever were and each has had its fans. Do I like to look at a silver print and think it has been physically made by the photographer? Yes. does it make the image 'artistically' better? No. does it make it more precious and desirable to me and to some others? Yes. Does that mean it can be sold for more? Maybe. The end result of all of this is an image, which is not only a piece of art, but a 'thing'. There may be many; there may be one. As a work of art, we are considering the creative output (what it looks like). As a 'thing' we may consider other things, some irrational, some downright silly, but if it makes something more valuable (because it is a wet print and not a digital print etc) so be it.
Cartier Bresson used a 50mm lens the vast majority of the time. Was anything shot with a 28 or 90 not art? Surely he missed so much by virtue of being inflexible/parochial! Its a pointless point/question. The 50mm was 'his way' and his way produced great work. Rather than ask ourselves what he could have shot on other FLs perhaps we should really ask ourselves how he managed to shoot so much with only one. Its the same issue here with the leica M. Its the same point with the darkroom. You choose tools and processes that release you to doing what you want to do. Thats it. Try finding a successful creative photographer that spent his/her career using a camera system he/she did not feel at ease with? There could be worse places to start than using a camera - any camera - you like using.
