Al Kaplan
Veteran
Marke, smoking can easily be a religous experience. It contains a mind altering chemical. A shaman is a spiritual leader who uses a mind altering substance (try googling if you don't believe this) thus any spiritual leader who uses any number of substances, from mushrooms to wine to tobacco is a shaman. Tobacco was first cultivated by the North American natives, who smoked the stuff. You pray your way, I'll pray mine, and see whose negatives have the finer grain or prints have the better tonality. I've been performing the ritual of filling my darkroom, the SAME darkroom, with tobacco smoke for a bit over forty years now. I get fantastic negatives and beautiful prints. I avoid the use of matches though. The smell of sulpher reminds me of...
Gumby
Veteran
so how do you light up?
A bit off topic, but one of my work mates was annoyed by a neighbor (apartment building) who smoked on their outdoor patio. The smoke wafted over to my work mates outdoor patio and offended her sinuses. She retaliated by burning sage sticks and chanting nonsensically really loud. A complaint was made to the manager and my work mate defended herself with the 'shaman' story. Fearing the ACLU the complaint was dropped and the smoking neighbor soon moved.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
How do I light up? I perform the ritual of burning a light highly volatile hydrocarbon, igniting it by the ancient ritual of striking flint against steel in my Zippo.
Nh3
Well-known
I'm tempted to say get a life but that would be too generous... Carry on the way you're, your condition is my daily dose of schadenfreude.
edit: back to ignore bin where you belong.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
My former wife comes from Karlsruhe in Germany and we're still good friends. A year or two ago she brought back some cigarette tobacco for me named "Miami Style". Does anybody know if they still make it? I've certainly never seen it here in Miami!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Pitxu, I have a couple of Zippos. The older one is almost always the first time. The newer one rarely catches before the third try. I don't think that the wheel on the new ones have sharp enough serations. I might just send it in to Zippo. They have a lifetime warranty. None the less, it still beats trying to use matches or a BIC on a windy day.
Svitantti
Well-known
I guess many photographers would disagree... But probably also many Leica-owners would just agree and not care about the result, as long as they own a Leica.
For me and many others it is photography and about the photos, not using and owning a Leica M. Still I use one because I happen to be able to do so and enjoy it... But I wouldn't use it if it wasn't a good tool to achieve the results I do and want to achieve.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
"Are we Leica users kidding ourselves??"
I'm new to Leica; but ,after reading though these posts, I thought about why I am now turning into a Leica nerd and visiting this forum. The conclusion: is that I really know myself.
I buy used gear that are workhorses and have proven durability. My SLR's are Nikon F2AS, F3HP, and F3P (the F3P was a Newsday Press camera that was just rebuilt after coming back from Operation Desert Storm). Although they may not be used much in the future, I will keep them because they are familure and because of nostalgia. This forum was very helpful in helping me build my Leica kit: many thanks.
I have much respect for digital, but it is not for me. I'm old school, digital is complicated, and the constant drive of technology makes me feel even more outdated and old.
For me photography is film. I'm shooting mostly B&W and intend on setting up my darkroom. I realized at this point in my life I want to shoot a lot and print; but at heart I am a slacker, and for me shooting B&W and having a darkroom is easy. I once was pretty great at printing.
Cal
I'm new to Leica; but ,after reading though these posts, I thought about why I am now turning into a Leica nerd and visiting this forum. The conclusion: is that I really know myself.
I buy used gear that are workhorses and have proven durability. My SLR's are Nikon F2AS, F3HP, and F3P (the F3P was a Newsday Press camera that was just rebuilt after coming back from Operation Desert Storm). Although they may not be used much in the future, I will keep them because they are familure and because of nostalgia. This forum was very helpful in helping me build my Leica kit: many thanks.
I have much respect for digital, but it is not for me. I'm old school, digital is complicated, and the constant drive of technology makes me feel even more outdated and old.
For me photography is film. I'm shooting mostly B&W and intend on setting up my darkroom. I realized at this point in my life I want to shoot a lot and print; but at heart I am a slacker, and for me shooting B&W and having a darkroom is easy. I once was pretty great at printing.
Cal
marke
Well-known
Al, I completely understand what you're saying about spiritual leaders, shamen, and the like. I used to be a heavy "experimenter" (okay, there I said it). But even beyond that phase of my life, I have understood and appreciate how many other things can be tools to produce similar results. For example, to many musicians, their instrument of choice can itself become that object that helps them connect to that place. It can happen in sports too, especially those that involve spending extended time performing repetitive motions. As a former ultra-marathon bicycle racer, I used to reach states of nirvana. Sweatlodge is another part of my past that could bring a similar experience.
I think many of us might even have that kind of connection with our cameras. When one has mastered a tool to the level where you don't have to think anymore, just make the required actions without thought and create what your heart is crying for - that's when the instrument "gets out of the way", and the spirit comes to play! And with the experience you yourself have had with the camera and with light, I'm sure you can relate. I understand that some people don't care to describe their experience in this manner, but in the end, I think we all (hope to) arrive at that same place of "letting go" if we want to create.
For a long time, I wanted to write a book about these things, be they materials, rituals, ceremony, etc. - these things that help us make connections to that place beyond ourselves. I thought the book's title would be called, "Connectors of the Sacred". But alas, I am not a writer, and so that book will probably never happen. And I'm sure the world will survive, and possibly even thrive none the less.
Now, as far as my wisecrack goes, I hope you didn't take me the wrong way. I was just messing with you, as I'm sure you already know. I thought you possibly had some kind of magic spit that could produce aberrations beyond my normal lens flare.
I think many of us might even have that kind of connection with our cameras. When one has mastered a tool to the level where you don't have to think anymore, just make the required actions without thought and create what your heart is crying for - that's when the instrument "gets out of the way", and the spirit comes to play! And with the experience you yourself have had with the camera and with light, I'm sure you can relate. I understand that some people don't care to describe their experience in this manner, but in the end, I think we all (hope to) arrive at that same place of "letting go" if we want to create.
For a long time, I wanted to write a book about these things, be they materials, rituals, ceremony, etc. - these things that help us make connections to that place beyond ourselves. I thought the book's title would be called, "Connectors of the Sacred". But alas, I am not a writer, and so that book will probably never happen. And I'm sure the world will survive, and possibly even thrive none the less.
Now, as far as my wisecrack goes, I hope you didn't take me the wrong way. I was just messing with you, as I'm sure you already know. I thought you possibly had some kind of magic spit that could produce aberrations beyond my normal lens flare.
los
Established
i get the original poster's question. i shoot film and digital. i do not have a darkroom but enjoy a fiber print. i post well in PS, and enjoy large color prints without lab "help". i've used an M6 and found it way more satisfying than my canon vt (which i love). here's the deal. digital has allowed me to produce more work (finished) at a price i can afford. the fiber prints from pan f out of my vt are little jewels, but they are quite few and far between because of the cost of printing at my local lab (A&I in LA). it is a sorry choice for me to make. i would prefer the m6 and fiber 16x20, but i can afford to continue to print with the canon G9 and 16x20 lightjet/noritsu prints. so no, i don't think the leica folks are fooling themselves. more like, treating themselves.
photogdave
Shops local
edodo
Well-known
so is all the leica bashing another form of jaelousy?That is a fine way to put it!
photogdave
Shops local
It usually is!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Perhaps they DID get Leicas and are jealous that their photography is not as good as the rest of us Leica owners!
(I'm not even sure who we are talking about anymore!)
Maybe they don't have Leicas and still take better pics than the Leica owners and are just being smug rather than jealous?
los
Established
oh, and for you guys who use lighters...something i discovered this weekend:
http://www.elighters.com/18787.html
the knock offs are $75
http://www.elighters.com/18787.html
the knock offs are $75
jwhitley
Established
Motion seconded. A relevant quote, ahead of its time:
I must also concur with Chris on the challenges presented by scanning film and mastering digital printing. Both film scanning and digital fine printing are unique digital darkroom skills that demand personal investment, just as does wet darkroom work. From the OP's posting, the first thing that came to mind was the likelyhood of problems right at the scanning stage.
FWIW, I've heard wet darkroom masters revel in new digital processes, especially for color. With digital color, the freedom to dodge, burn, and otherwise work a print is brought to life. One such photographer, whose name escapes me, felt that digital brought a joy to color work akin to traditional black and white printing... a rather interesting statement, IMO.
It's also interesting to observe that many of the old "alternative" processes (Platinum/palladium, kallitype, gum bichromate, etc.) are seeing quite the revival due to digital negative printing. The image is shot (digital or scanned film), processed in Photoshop to produce an appropriate negative image, printed on inkjet transparency film, then contact printed in the desired media.
Migracer
"MigRacer&amp ;qu ot; AKA Miguel
Good Greif Charley Brown!
Good Greif Charley Brown!
A proper gentleman will only use a Dunhill D-Eight Gold Rollagas Lighter, anything less is for the plebeians. But out of the public eye if the wind is blowing and the rain is falling I reach into my bag and pull out the Zippo, this gentleman is no fool. How many of us, besides Al, would expose their Leica to extreme inclement weather? Now I understand why so many also have a FSU copy.
Good Greif Charley Brown!
oh, and for you guys who use lighters...something i discovered this weekend:
http://www.elighters.com/18787.html
the knock offs are $75
A proper gentleman will only use a Dunhill D-Eight Gold Rollagas Lighter, anything less is for the plebeians. But out of the public eye if the wind is blowing and the rain is falling I reach into my bag and pull out the Zippo, this gentleman is no fool. How many of us, besides Al, would expose their Leica to extreme inclement weather? Now I understand why so many also have a FSU copy.
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
My post has certainly generated some interesting debate - I now know how highly regarded Zippo lighters are, as well as Leicas!
Manual Leica's have a strange pull. I have a Pentax ME Super that is sharp and has the 'advantage' of aperture priority, yet it sits in it's hold-all largely unused. I keep going back to the M2, partly because it is undoubtedly very nice tyo use, but also because I keep trying to match my ability to the potential!
Manual Leica's have a strange pull. I have a Pentax ME Super that is sharp and has the 'advantage' of aperture priority, yet it sits in it's hold-all largely unused. I keep going back to the M2, partly because it is undoubtedly very nice tyo use, but also because I keep trying to match my ability to the potential!
Svitantti
Well-known
Indeed aperture priority is not only advantage and ME Super's manual mode is not what I would consider good or great. It also is SLR and has the properties of one (mirror sound and shake, retrofocus wideangles, different focusing system...)
Turtle
Veteran
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.
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.