Pioneer
Veteran
I just finished reading Erwin Puts latest book in his trilogy, "Leica Practicum: Theory and Practice of Leicagraphy". The first one was "Leica Chronicle: Evolution of Leica Cameras and Lenses and the Origin of the Leica Legend." I can't say this newest addition is the most interesting book I ever read, but there were some interesting thoughts presented.
The first half (a little more than half) of the book is a review of the various photographic theories and philosophies, ultimately attempting to build a case for his own ideas called "Leicagraphy." Though I dutifully waded through this section I can't say I retained a lot. I was never a great fan of Susan Sontag and, as much as it pains me to say it, I think Ms Sontag did a better job at presenting a philosophy of photography. In the end I am not convinced that Mr Puts has actually presented any new information here, no matter what he would like to call it. Unless you are really interested in philosophy I am not sure I can recommend this part of the book. I can't really call this a success, even as an academic overview.
If I interpret his ideas correctly, Mr Puts feels that photography has been co-opted by the art world in the past 30 or 40 years and, as a result, has been somewhat distracted from what it actually does best, which is to record events, locations and condition of people. In a nutshell, to Mr Puts, Leicagraphy is the ability of the Leica camera to wrest the photograph back from the art world and put it back into the knowledge world through the use of the Leica to introduce and popularize the snapshot, which is incorporated into street photography and photo journalism. Though he admits that many other cameras have also been used in these realms, he opines that without the Leica being invented and sold these photographic disciplines would not have advanced as far as they have. The Leica and those two photographic disciplines are inseparably intertwined. And though he accepts that many use their smart phone today he does not agree that this is the best solution. Of course he doesn't really clarify how the Leica actually fits into the disciplines it started any longer, particularly when the price of admission is considered. Whether or not all this deserves its own photographic theory or not is up to you to decide.
The last half of the book, "Practice" was a little more interesting to me, but it was frustratingly brief and somewhat disjointed. A few of the sections seemed to end abruptly just as he was starting to make sense. Though a bit better organized than his past blog I feel that most of the information presented here was originally presented on his internet site. Not that it make it any less worth reading, just that it wasn't fully fleshed out to deserve an entire book.
I do like his perspective on digital and analog; that both camera styles are still capturing the light in front of the lens and translating that information to a storage medium. One happens through chemical means and the other through electronic means. As far as Mr. Puts is concerned it really makes little difference if you consider the Leica from a street photography or photo journalistic perspective.
In summary, if you are collecting Mr. Puts trilogy, then you obviously will buy this book. But unlike his first book, which was a terrific compendium of Leica information, I don't see this one as adding any new information specific to Leica. So if you are buying this book to add to your knowledge of Leica photography than it may not be your best buy.
His writing style is easier to read when it is presented as small vignettes accompanying a description of a camera or a lens. When expanded into a 500 page book with very few illustrations it gets quite overbearing, and very boring. As a result there are undoubtedly parts of this book that will take re-reading and more time to fully assimilate on my part.
If you are looking for an advanced "how to" book that describes and instructs in how best to use your Leica...this is definitely not it. Sorry. Rather this is his attempt to present the fundamentals of the philosophy and science of photography as they exist today. It is quite an ambitious goal and I am not sure he quite hits his target.
As for whether the Leica M any longer even has a seat at the table in the "Leicagraphy" photographic disciplines is quite doubtful in my mind. Barnack may have helped invent street photography and improve photo journalism with his Leica 1, but if I were to go out and play Garry Winogrand today I would take two or three phone cameras, not a Leica.
Obviously, this is my own opinion, so it is very biased by my own thoughts, experience and education. True of most books I suppose. Others may get much more out of "Leica Practicum" than I did and it would be very nice to hear their opinions.
The first half (a little more than half) of the book is a review of the various photographic theories and philosophies, ultimately attempting to build a case for his own ideas called "Leicagraphy." Though I dutifully waded through this section I can't say I retained a lot. I was never a great fan of Susan Sontag and, as much as it pains me to say it, I think Ms Sontag did a better job at presenting a philosophy of photography. In the end I am not convinced that Mr Puts has actually presented any new information here, no matter what he would like to call it. Unless you are really interested in philosophy I am not sure I can recommend this part of the book. I can't really call this a success, even as an academic overview.
If I interpret his ideas correctly, Mr Puts feels that photography has been co-opted by the art world in the past 30 or 40 years and, as a result, has been somewhat distracted from what it actually does best, which is to record events, locations and condition of people. In a nutshell, to Mr Puts, Leicagraphy is the ability of the Leica camera to wrest the photograph back from the art world and put it back into the knowledge world through the use of the Leica to introduce and popularize the snapshot, which is incorporated into street photography and photo journalism. Though he admits that many other cameras have also been used in these realms, he opines that without the Leica being invented and sold these photographic disciplines would not have advanced as far as they have. The Leica and those two photographic disciplines are inseparably intertwined. And though he accepts that many use their smart phone today he does not agree that this is the best solution. Of course he doesn't really clarify how the Leica actually fits into the disciplines it started any longer, particularly when the price of admission is considered. Whether or not all this deserves its own photographic theory or not is up to you to decide.
The last half of the book, "Practice" was a little more interesting to me, but it was frustratingly brief and somewhat disjointed. A few of the sections seemed to end abruptly just as he was starting to make sense. Though a bit better organized than his past blog I feel that most of the information presented here was originally presented on his internet site. Not that it make it any less worth reading, just that it wasn't fully fleshed out to deserve an entire book.
I do like his perspective on digital and analog; that both camera styles are still capturing the light in front of the lens and translating that information to a storage medium. One happens through chemical means and the other through electronic means. As far as Mr. Puts is concerned it really makes little difference if you consider the Leica from a street photography or photo journalistic perspective.
In summary, if you are collecting Mr. Puts trilogy, then you obviously will buy this book. But unlike his first book, which was a terrific compendium of Leica information, I don't see this one as adding any new information specific to Leica. So if you are buying this book to add to your knowledge of Leica photography than it may not be your best buy.
His writing style is easier to read when it is presented as small vignettes accompanying a description of a camera or a lens. When expanded into a 500 page book with very few illustrations it gets quite overbearing, and very boring. As a result there are undoubtedly parts of this book that will take re-reading and more time to fully assimilate on my part.
If you are looking for an advanced "how to" book that describes and instructs in how best to use your Leica...this is definitely not it. Sorry. Rather this is his attempt to present the fundamentals of the philosophy and science of photography as they exist today. It is quite an ambitious goal and I am not sure he quite hits his target.
As for whether the Leica M any longer even has a seat at the table in the "Leicagraphy" photographic disciplines is quite doubtful in my mind. Barnack may have helped invent street photography and improve photo journalism with his Leica 1, but if I were to go out and play Garry Winogrand today I would take two or three phone cameras, not a Leica.
Obviously, this is my own opinion, so it is very biased by my own thoughts, experience and education. True of most books I suppose. Others may get much more out of "Leica Practicum" than I did and it would be very nice to hear their opinions.
Kwesi
Well-known
"As for whether the Leica M any longer even has a seat at the table in the "Leicagraphy" photographic disciplines is quite doubtful in my mind. Barnack may have helped invent street photography and improve photo journalism with his Leica 1, but if I were to go out and play Garry Winogrand today I would take two or three phone cameras, not a Leica."
Interesting... please explain further.
Not playing devil's advocate, just curious.
Interesting... please explain further.
Not playing devil's advocate, just curious.
YYV_146
Well-known
I respectfully disagree. Leica was not only about size, it was about the right combination of size, optical and medium performance and build quality. And, even if somewhat diminished by the mirrorless market, Leica is still a compelling option if you do not want to skimp on all of these aspects. The lack of autofocus is simply a plus for people who want full control of their own work.
If I want to play Garry Winogrand, I'll use two or three mirrorless bodies, preferably full frame with a wide lens, maybe even a Leica lens. You won't get the type of image he makes from a phone, not even a high-end small sensor compact
If I want to play Garry Winogrand, I'll use two or three mirrorless bodies, preferably full frame with a wide lens, maybe even a Leica lens. You won't get the type of image he makes from a phone, not even a high-end small sensor compact
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Actually, I have mobile phones for street photography years ago, then I switched to advanced digital P&S, then to DSLRs, to film XA (it was major breakthrough) and after several RFs and scale cameras to film M. 
I'm still using mobile phone for street photography. Like today I took website sign on the fence with it. Very useful. But actual street photography was taken with Leica.
And review isn't really short
I'm still using mobile phone for street photography. Like today I took website sign on the fence with it. Very useful. But actual street photography was taken with Leica.
And review isn't really short
Pioneer
Veteran
To clarify a bit, I was thinking more of the digital market then the M cameras ranging from the M3 through to the current M7 and MP. That can certainly be argued but that was my beginning premise.
1. Cost. It is very hard to find a digital M for less than $3,000 unless you use the M8. Even then, a used M8 will often be higher priced than other mirror-less options.
2. Security. Walking the streets with an expensive mirror-less camera (assume $700 to $1,000) is bad enough if someone grabs it and runs. $3,000 to $8,000 is far different territory for most people.
3. Availability. I don't see very many people walking around with Leica cameras of any kind, let alone expensive digital Leica M cameras. On the other hand just about everyone, including photographers, are walking around with a cell phone that includes a camera.
4. Invisibility. I see people everywhere with cell phones in their hands. I don't even hardly notice them, even when they have lifted it to take a picture. Lift a camera to your eye on the other hand and you get noticed, particularly around schools and public buildings.
5. Display medium. Most images taken today, even by a lot of photographers, never get printed at all. Instead it goes to Flikr or to friends. Even if it does get printed, most cell phones used today have enough quality to print to 8x10. And this is kind of what Oskar had in mind when the Leica was born in the first place.
I don't mean to indicate that they cannot be used for street photography or that they aren't. Rather that they are now an after thought, not the driving force.
I won't even discuss photo-journalism, an arena that Leica surrendered to the SLR back before the M4 became a reality.
As for snapshots, you and I may, or may not, use their Leica for family snapshots. But we are most definitely a minority.
Pioneer
Veteran
I don't necessarily disagree based on my own personal preferences. But the reality is that the great majority of the rest of the world doesn't even consider Leica anymore than a rich man's toy today. Go cruising on Flikr for street photography and tell me what you find. Even mirror-less is struggling to get a foothold.
I love my Leica and Zeiss lenses. I think they produce extremely high quality photographs. But street photography is less about stunning image quality and more about subject matter. One can hardly make a credible argument about the raw image quality of HCB's photographs, the majority of his photos I have seen don't even live up to the quality the lenses he had were capable of. But what you cannot argue with is the composition, the subject matter, the shapes. Many of his photos grab onto my eyes and hold them there, and it has nothing to do with sharpness and grain. It has everything to do with vision.
Pioneer
Veteran
Actually, I have mobile phones for street photography years ago, then I switched to advanced digital P&S, then to DSLRs, to film XA (it was major breakthrough) and after several RFs and scale cameras to film M.
I'm still using mobile phone for street photography. Like today I took website sign on the fence with it. Very useful. But actual street photography was taken with Leica.
And review isn't really short
You are certainly right Ko Fe. The title came first and after a few edits it grew. I need an editor.
YYV_146
Well-known
Yes. I've used SLRs for street photography. It is intrusive, and I don't think I'm the kind of person that would be comfortable with using SLR systems on the street. Mirrorless offers you a chance to not be noticed, Leica even better because people will think that you have a film camera, and be less alarmed.
Leica has and will be a premium brand. They were never about delivering the best price/performance ratio, at least not since Japanese camera makers appeared. The reason you paid for a Leica, even back in the film days, was because you wanted the build quality, ergonomics or rangefinder experience or something "more". I have many things that are "premium" - Thinkpad W laptops and Filco mechanical keyboards, for instance...Most people don't pay an extra $500 for durability and great service for their laptops, and very few will spend $150+ on a keyboard, but these brands have a following, and they have a presence in their respective industries. And I don't see anything wrong with Leica pursuing such a strategy.
YYV_146
Well-known
Me too. HCB's equipment was technically advanced for his time, and he relied on critical attributes of Leica M systems to aid his work - the focusing scale, the ease of RF focusing verses a SLR without focus confirmation. And these attributes are why Leica lenses and cameras are great tools for street photography. HCB had great vision - but he also had the help of a wise selection of tools.
Although I don't use an RF for street photos myself, I use Leica lenses and their short focus throw design and distance scale is a huge bonus no matter what camera you put them on.
Pioneer
Veteran
I fully appreciate your disagreement. I too understand the siren call of those wonderful lenses, not to mention the cameras. But when I look critically at what is occurring today I am afraid that time has left Leica behind. Thankfully they are not gone. Their position at the top of the camera heap in the luxury market has kept them profitable and alive.
Perhaps their recent innovations with the Leica Monochrom will be an indication of where they may be able to go in the future. Things can change, but for now I do not see Leica as anymore than a historical player in the street photography and photo journalist disciplines.
BenCoyote
Newbie
Thank you for your brief review. I really found it worthwhile as I wade into the topic. It kind of gives me a better understanding of where the book is going and that helps when trying to comprehend the dense material.
So far I have a slightly contrary view point. I'm finding the whole philosophy section quite interesting. If your summary is correct, I will almost certainly reject his ultimate thesis while finding the philosophical underpinnings of my understanding of photography in the theories he seeks to discredit. So far the process of wrestling with the ideas that he presents mirrors arguments and discussions that I've had with a friend who is a modern painter and to a lesser extent several other artists that I know.
It also dovetails nicely with discussions that I've had with tutors and friends and girlfriends about straight photography, journalistic integrity, photography as evidence, Kant, and more modern neuroscience. It sort of feels like the early days of college again when you drank and stayed up late into the night arguing about metaphysics.
Just for future reference so that I have publicly recorded my opinion when I'm only a few dozen pages into the book, I'm going into the book of the opinion that ALL photography is an artistic and creative act to one extent or another. Just the fact that we are creating a 2D and often times B&W abstraction of reality at a particular moment in time makes it an artistic creative act. Even the simple acts of choosing the vantage point and exposure settings are the inputs of the artist. The rest is down to technical mastery of the media and aesthetics. I would argue that unquestioningly considering photographic evidence reliable in a legal context is fraught with ignorance but in comparison to eyewitness testimony it may be practically better. Similarly, I would argue journalistic standards for photography such as those from the AP are based upon ignorance and are not well considered and certainly not in line with the standards applied to the written content of a story. Finally, I would say that a significant part of the mastery of the medium of photography in addition to the technical mastery of the equipment and processes ultimately comes down to a decoupling of sensation from perception and then re-adding the layers of perception back into the artifact.
I intend to reply back to myself once I've completed the Practicum to compare my thoughts after reading the book to those that I currently have.
thompsonks
Well-known
Mny thanks for a review that saves me and probably others so much time. We should help one another more with reviews like this!
Kirk
Kirk
Pioneer
Veteran
Thanks for the feedback BenCoyote.
I have since gone back through the philosophy part again, and though I think I have a slightly better handle on what he was trying to say, I still think it could have been said with fewer words and a lot more clarity.
I have since gone back through the philosophy part again, and though I think I have a slightly better handle on what he was trying to say, I still think it could have been said with fewer words and a lot more clarity.
Last edited:
CMur12
Veteran
That's a well written review, Dan.
I was amazed to read that the author would actually rail at photography as art and assert the view that "Leicography" is the only valid form of photography (if I understood your review correctly). It's reminiscent of the digital vs film and color vs B&W debates, while we have largely grown to the point of recognizing all of these variations as valid forms of expression.
I'm not sure what the author would think view cameras are for.
- Murray
I was amazed to read that the author would actually rail at photography as art and assert the view that "Leicography" is the only valid form of photography (if I understood your review correctly). It's reminiscent of the digital vs film and color vs B&W debates, while we have largely grown to the point of recognizing all of these variations as valid forms of expression.
I'm not sure what the author would think view cameras are for.
- Murray
djcphoto
An Englishman Abroad
I think this could be inferred from the book title alone!
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I fundamentally disagree with the notion that there was a period of history when photography was straight, unmanipulated documentation, and that all this somehow went to hell with the advent of contemporary media practices (notice how he so skillfully avoids use of the dreaded "D" word).
Sontag taught us that photography is always and essentially an abstraction, always has an editorial slant (where to put the frame lines, when to trip the shutter).
I disagree with the insinuation that there was a past era when media were intrinsically honest and had no alterior motive, that there was some age of purity when all men's intentions were honorable. Anyone remember the Hearst empire?
Certainly Leica deserve credit for their pioneering a personal, portable technology of photography, but that was nearly a century ago. If such a technique is to continue, there are other tools more easily and affordably obtained by the masses than a Leica camera. And the single biggest revolution is now that the common person does have access to a form of ultra-mobile photography, whether that be cell phone, compact camera or GoPro shooting hi-res video.
~Joe
Sontag taught us that photography is always and essentially an abstraction, always has an editorial slant (where to put the frame lines, when to trip the shutter).
I disagree with the insinuation that there was a past era when media were intrinsically honest and had no alterior motive, that there was some age of purity when all men's intentions were honorable. Anyone remember the Hearst empire?
Certainly Leica deserve credit for their pioneering a personal, portable technology of photography, but that was nearly a century ago. If such a technique is to continue, there are other tools more easily and affordably obtained by the masses than a Leica camera. And the single biggest revolution is now that the common person does have access to a form of ultra-mobile photography, whether that be cell phone, compact camera or GoPro shooting hi-res video.
~Joe