Are we Leica users kidding ourselves??

My Zippo goes better with either of my two Art deco sterling silver cigarette cases, and I'd never EVER consider using a black Zippo with a silver cigarette case regardless of what the color of my Leica might be!
 
Photograhy, I mean REAL photography, is something that takes time. A long time. Time to master the light, time to understand what is happening when light hits the film, time to master the wet printing.
It's all very religious, transcending the mind.

Nirvana is attained once the negative makes it into print, preferably Baryta. That single image you are holding suddenly is worth something, is worth a lot.

Digital, or scanning negatives and printing them with inks (and where those scanned files never go beyond the screen) is nowhere near the TRUE feeling and no real sense of accmoplishment exists.

To me, film photography with all its processes, is a way of life. And this is where Leica comes into play. This is why a nikkor 28 f1.4, a Noct-Nikkor, a Noctilux or 21 f1.4 summilux seem to fit just right, where they don't seem to be over priced anymore. Such specialized and unique lenses fit take on a different dimension once you view a good quality Baryta print.
 
Goldorak said:
Photograhy, I mean REAL photography, is something that takes time. A long time. Time to master the light, time to understand what is happening when light hits the film, time to master the wet printing.
It's all very religious, transcending the mind.

Nirvana is attained once the negative makes it into print, preferably Baryta. That single image you are holding suddenly is worth something, is worth a lot.

Digital, or scanning negatives and printing them with inks (and where those scanned files never go beyond the screen) is nowhere near the TRUE feeling and no real sense of accmoplishment exists.

To me, film photography with all its processes, is a way of life. And this is where Leica comes into play. This is why a nikkor 28 f1.4, a Noct-Nikkor, a Noctilux or 21 f1.4 summilux seem to fit just right, where they don't seem to be over priced anymore. Such specialized and unique lenses fit take on a different dimension once you view a good quality Baryta print.
Click to expand...

What a load of manure. Are platinum prints not True Photography? Are color prints not true photography? Are Daguerreotype not true photography? I suggest an education in the history of photography before making such statements. Inkjet prints are just the latest in a very long line of print processes used for photography, and they aren't the first to use machines. Google the term Photogravure.

As to photography being a religion or religious...That someone in the 21st century can believe such mindless superstition amazes me.

I get a great sense of accomplishment from my prints, from the many exhibits they've been included in, and the many publications. It is about the IMAGE not the technology. An artist knows that. A gear fondler doesn't. Lack of vision is compensated by overemphasis upon technique.
 
Last edited:
Actually, one cigarette case is marked sterling and made by Tiffany. I like the other one better. It's probably heavy silver plate since it's not marked sterling, but it has two gold stripes on the top side. While the overall design is very much Art Decco it also has extensive engraving on it that looks more Art Nouveau than Decco. I should take some photos of Monkette holding them. She'd probably tell me to get my M2 body heavily silver plated along with two strips of gold plate and hire a talented engraver. If I can't find a matching Zippo at least I'd have a matching Leica. The cases won't hold modern king-size smokes so I roll my own. That saves me at least twenty bucks a week, enough to buy another M2 body every year if I want. I'm content with the ones I already have.
 
Al Kaplan said:
Actually, one cigarette case is marked sterling and made by Tiffany. I like the other one better. It's probably heavy silver plate since it's not marked sterling, but it has two gold stripes on the top side. While the overall design is very much Art Decco it also has extensive engraving on it that looks more Art Nouveau than Decco. I should take some photos of Monkette holding them. She'd probably tell me to get my M2 body heavily silver plated along with two strips of gold plate and hire a talented engraver. If I can't find a matching Zippo at least I'd have a matching Leica. The cases won't hold modern king-size smokes so I roll my own. That saves me at least twenty bucks a week, enough to buy another M2 body every year if I want. I'm content with the ones I already have.
Click to expand...

If you quit smoking altogether, you could buy a lot more 😛

I have a friend who smokes, I kid you not, 3-4 packs a DAY. He's always complaining that he has no money!
 
I guess we're a bit off topic here but I pick up a can of tobacco every week or ten days for under $15. You can mail order it for under $10 a can. Get ten cans at a time and the shipping is less than a dollar a can. It's kind of like bulk loading film...LOL Yup, THAT'S IT!
Do I save enough by "rolling my own" cigarettes to buy the big rolls of Double-X 5222 or do I save enough by "rolling my own" film to buy the cans of tobacco? Anyway, the ladies love the silver cases. Nobody bums a cigarette that they know had my spit on it. It's win-win all around.
 
Have been a lurker here and at the other forums for many years. This thread has been one entertaining read - some insightful stuff also. Live and learn - forever. Camera's, cars and tobacco. Cool. I like my M2 and Contax IIa and the pictures they give, my old Alfa and the way it drives and nicely packaged cigarettes to warm your lungs, as well as a nice cognac and the glow it brings to the soul + good music. Happy New Year to you all.
 
Well, another opinion to add.

To me photography is a journey and as such the ride is more important than the destination. Just like life is.

I shoot digital and analog. Digital is a Canon 1DsIII and analog is Leica. Each has its pros and cons. I enjoy each for the experience. I guess in the end nothing can match the feeling of throwing that exposed print into the developer and watching the image appear on the white paper. Nothing! That is the drama for me - I also notice when Hollywood wants to use photography in a story it still shows that image appear on the page with analog. Wonder why...
 
Last edited:
Welcome, Momgo. We always have room for one more here in the asylum! In about two weeks I'm getting together with a real genuine psychiatrist (for real!) because he and I are splitting a shipment of Double-X 5222 film. 2008 was a great year! 2009 will be better!
 
Al Kaplan said:
Welcome, Momgo. We always have room for one more here in the asylum! In about two weeks I'm getting together with a real genuine psychiatrist (for real!) because he and I are splitting a shipment of Double-X 5222 film. 2008 was a great year! 2009 will be better!
Click to expand...

Have fun, Al. So, would that be group therapy? If it's only you and the therapist, then I suppose it's psychoanalysis, or cognitive therapy, etc.

Now, if you were splitting it with a priest, it would be confession. 😉
 
Just started the photography thing in summer 2005, buying a Canon 350D DSLR. This March, I switched to film, picking up a Bessa R2M rangefinder and a Canon Elan to host my M42-mount lenses that I was using on the DSLR. And this month, I added a Leica iiif to the collection. Yes, the camera apparently needs a new curtain, but beside that, it is a remarkable device to simply hold, and as others have mentioned, certain intangibles exists that enhance the process, at least for me; and as an amateur under no constraints, I am allowed to indulge in manually advancing the film rather than worrying about frame per second rates. I am not under any illusion that the Leica will suddenly improve my photography, and nor will I purge my existing cameras.

Apparently to the chagrin of many, I scan my negatives, but I am satisfied with the results, and as I have no pretense of being an artist, and as someone who enjoyed the Ramones far more than Emerson Lake & Palmer, my demands are perhaps more, say, provincial. That said, the whole film is a futile venture lest followed by a trip to the darkroom is gratingly pretentious. Don't get me wrong, as I stated, I value the pleasure that the process itself can offer, and for some people, working with wet prints might provide a sense of fulfillment, and yes, maybe even higher quality prints (the depth, the depth!) than can the digital route, but to universally impose such criteria as the only path to synergistic gratification is ridiculous.

Maybe one day I will have the opportunity to bring my negatives to a darkroom (as I do not intend to establish one in my 6-meter by 3-meter apartment, and walking down to the local community center will require an improvement in my Japanese skills). Until then, I am enjoying what I am producing, and the control I have with curves in Photoshop might not be as organically rewarding as the darkroom, but it gets the job done in a manner that I enjoy.
 
The output is nothing if you weren't there shooting the image with whatever medium it is film or digital... That's the story basically since you can't judge the image without capturing it.

Digital is a lot like the lottery, more than film imho. You shoot a lot, and a lot is wasted. All the waste you produce eventually might disgust you.
On the contrary film is more time consumming process and you might choose not to produce waste that much! If any film camera takes you there in any way, then it is a pros. If digital oversaturates your hunger for images then it is a cons. The truth is in the eye of the beholder...

When one talk about film, one should talk about the only film industry that is surviving: the large format film market (and cinema)! People still like the output of reality that is produced with the analogue film, mostly because we lived in a world that does since we were born. I like a nice portrait on b&w film because it is so personnal, physically and spiritually beautifull since I first fell in love with photography that way. A leica m4 with summicron provides me with that. It's not the only camera that will, a lot will do worse, and a few will do better. In that measure I don't feel any better than shooting a leica M, while knowing it will still be working in 20 years.
 
rayfoxlee said:
The problems start when I try to get top-notch enlargements from scanned negs (Coolscan V ED), and here the inevitable question arises about the quality from all of the expensive glass when compared to my Samsung GX10 digital slr RAW digital negs.
Click to expand...

Your question answers itself here does it not? It would appear to be the scanning, or your work after the scan.

If you really want to compare the glass- which you seem to be saying you want to- then compare RAW files shot with the GX10 and RAW files shot through the Leica lenses. Go get an M8 for a test drive- free (after the deposit) and you can put your question to rest.
 
Leica is like a Rolls Royce

Leica is like a Rolls Royce

As a young lad I was the Service Manager for Rolls Royce in New Jersey and then in New York. When a potential buyer was having a difficult time justifying the expense of the purchase of the car, he kept repeating to the salesman, " I don't like this and I don'y like that" as if the price could be reduced enough to overcome his objections. In my best snobbish tone,

"Sir! You may like most of what the Rolls Royce has to offer, I am just not sure it likes you"! (yes, he bought the car or I should say his wife forced him to buy it.)

The other time was when an owner was picking up his car after a series of fuel pump failures (Lucas, the Prince of Darkness strikes again). He stated, "my company $3,000.00 Chevy impala is more reliable than this thing." My response.

"If you wish to arrive and make a statement you ARRIVE in a Rolls, if you just need transportation I suggest you drive your Chevy. But please remember, the Rolls Royce is a work of art you display and others covet. The Chevy is like a refrigerator it works and every home has one."
 
A $500 beater M2 is more reliable than about any other camera you can find and for the most part nobody under fifty has ever heard of one so you're kind of forced into making your statement through your photographs. That's a good thing.
 
Lots of wise thoughts being exchanged here, and I hope my contribution doesn't have a negative impact on the net worth! The Leica is a tool. It happens to be my current weapon of choice and it just feels good using it.

Sure, I like the results I get, but when I just look over all my old images, I have favorites that I shot with a Yashica Electro 35, a Fed 2d with an Industar 61L/D lens, a Canon Powershot A20, a Canonet and even (the very first camera that I personally bought,) the Yashica Minister D! Further, the images I like are not necessarily those that are the sharpest, best composed, or perfectly balanced tonally. Images hit you in a gut level or they don't.

TAKING the photos is another matter. My Leicas are great little cameras and I appreciate the quality, feel and sound of them. That's where it counts while you are doing the work of photographing something. I did not think it would have that effect, so I bought a beater M2 to give it a whirl, thinking I could easily sell it for what I paid. But I won't sell it, now. I'm addicted. I sure can't aford the expensive Leica glass, but with my old lenses that I like just fine, I am happy. If it didn't make me happy, I would not use it. There are many reasons to buy a Leica, mine is to use it. Others buy as investments, as status symbols, and probably many different reasons. They are well built, reliable cameras. Especially, I think, the early hand fitted cameras. But there are plenty of other newer, "better" cameras that others may enjoy as much as I do enjoy my Leicas. I say we must all judge for ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom