JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I think there is a place for traditional photographic technique in a business model, but that technique had better go way beyond mere 35mm film cameras and enlarged silver prints. For portraiture (which is a common professional field), medium format would be required, at the very least, with enlarged 4x5 being a viable option that opens up the customer to the possibility of large format as a higher-priced option. If we're offering the customer the option of traditional silver prints, why skimp on format size just because we might personally like to fondle Leica's? Even in film's heyday, an M (or any miniature camera) would not be one's first choice for a portrait camera, by a long shot.
And let's not forget that wet plate collodion is actually enjoying a revival of interest, especially as a portrait technique, that could be a profitable niche market.
Perhaps in wedding photography a 35mm format film camera has a place, but medium format ruled weddings for decades. And folks now want their pictures up on a website NOW. The market has changed because of technology, expectations are different.
~Joe
And let's not forget that wet plate collodion is actually enjoying a revival of interest, especially as a portrait technique, that could be a profitable niche market.
Perhaps in wedding photography a 35mm format film camera has a place, but medium format ruled weddings for decades. And folks now want their pictures up on a website NOW. The market has changed because of technology, expectations are different.
~Joe
AncientCityPhoto
Established
Yes excuse me..."current and digital" lineup. Except for the S system which they used to have but let go as it wasn't worth keeping in stock. I can't imagine a rental business currently renting out m2 and m3 bodies.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Leica no longer designs the M series with the professional in mind. They are design as a high-end, elite-branded product...period.
"Stephan Schulz: Leica had a long history with professionals throughout the 20th century. Most of these professionals were photojournalists. But we realized that in the 21st century, the image of our brand was becoming weaker because Leica was no longer as strongly represented among professionals.
In today’s professional market, photojournalists are a rare breed, and they are no longer as well paid as in previous generations. For a high-end brand that charges premium prices, this secular trend needed to be addressed."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbab...ng-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/
Sounds like you're fixated on a camera brand (with a dismally weak sensor) that is not manufactured to your needs at your price point. There alternatives that produce equally or better high-quality images. Leica's M designs no longer translate into superior IQ or means of achieving competitive quality. The image of their brand is more important to Leica perhaps than the images their products put out.
In fact, the whole thrust of the article is about driving pros to the S series where very high-end prices can be used to justify professional expenditure. Put another way, Leica is not making their products for your type any more. They are pretty blunt about it.
"Stephan Schulz: Leica had a long history with professionals throughout the 20th century. Most of these professionals were photojournalists. But we realized that in the 21st century, the image of our brand was becoming weaker because Leica was no longer as strongly represented among professionals.
In today’s professional market, photojournalists are a rare breed, and they are no longer as well paid as in previous generations. For a high-end brand that charges premium prices, this secular trend needed to be addressed."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbab...ng-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/
Sounds like you're fixated on a camera brand (with a dismally weak sensor) that is not manufactured to your needs at your price point. There alternatives that produce equally or better high-quality images. Leica's M designs no longer translate into superior IQ or means of achieving competitive quality. The image of their brand is more important to Leica perhaps than the images their products put out.
In fact, the whole thrust of the article is about driving pros to the S series where very high-end prices can be used to justify professional expenditure. Put another way, Leica is not making their products for your type any more. They are pretty blunt about it.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Is that what clients are paying for?
This thread is about an amateur who washed dishes to buy gear and thinks a Leica digital is what a "pro" aspirant should use.
steveyork
Well-known
Rangefinders -- whether film or digital -- probably don't make sense for the professional photographer. They're far too limiting. Mystique, that's all. Good charisma will get you further down the road then a quiet shutter (unless you're in court). In fact,, most of the people who shoot rangefinders, given their subjects, would be better suited with an SLR. And probably take better pictures too (just from what I see on the web).
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm sure that this comes as a surprise to the dozens of pros that populate LUF and GetDPI.... The point is that a pro will use the tool that suits the situation best and that can just as well be a rangefinder. For travel, reportage, etc...
steveyork
Well-known
And that's why Leica commands such a big share of the pro market. I'm not even sure a rangefinder makes sense in a digital world.
Fraser
Well-known
Yes got too agree there is such a huge choice of other cameras around. When compared to other top end camera they just don't cut it anymore.
Pablito
coco frío
Actually this is a myth, as many collectors and curators know very well. I'm just a dude on RFF who remains anonymous, so laugh at me all you like, but I have seen some of the most recognized curators and connoisseurs in the world struggling unsuccessfully to tell pigment prints and wet prints apart... Then again maybe the black and white out of an M9 is really bad, I wouldn't know.
Huh? Not sure why you are calling me out and what your point is. It should be very apparent what I was responding to since I had quoted.
Ansel
Well-known
Dont let the doom mongers put you off. I know quite a few wedding photogs that use Lecia RFs for weddings, both film and digital. Film is not a detriment to getting work, - all you need is a strong portfolio and good images. Its all about the images at the end of the day. The format is irrelevant as its all convertible. You can scan film if need be for digital delivery, and a lot of digital images now apply film-look filters in PS.
Focus on the images and you will be fine.
Focus on the images and you will be fine.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I don't believe there is any "doom monger-y" going on here. Confusion in the rush to make our points perhaps.
I think there needs to be some clarification as people are coming from all across the spectrum with their opinions and tales of 'knowing of many pros using certain set-ups.'
If we're relating our comments back to the OP (who bless him, didn't even ask for any advice...he just wanted to have a wee moan) then we should look at what he says "I'm an aspiring Pro photographer" and "I'm aspiring to work in journalism."
So, we need to understand which section of photo related journalism, don't we? If he means working for local, regional or national press then surely we can all agree that while he could buy a film or digital M he would be extremely hard pressed to get his images picked up on a regular basis ( the basic reasons for this a) digital is what most newspapers and agencies are set up for now b) he has a far greater range of versatility available to him with a DSLR set-up (think super wides, long zoom telephotos, flash guns and power packs etc and c) even if he managed to get some good shots the simple fact is he's up against a very crowded market and that market tends to have ALL the gear to get the images from the location to the Press Desk within half an hour...perhaps not all but a good selection for immediate use on websites and the next print run.
If the area of journalism he wishes to get into is documentary or more "in-depth" photo-journalism then I'd suggest his options open up considerably more - though will still be based on so many more factors than simply what he enjoys using, moreso on what he will be able to use under his working environment. Maybe re-read Turtles comments a few pages back - he works in that area and so I'd personally listen to his experiences and expertise just as I would a Wedding Pro if the OP had suggested that was what he wanted to do.
Professional photography is a vast and sprawling arena with many and varied needs - the suggestions that seem to hint that you can use anything and get equally good results are misleading to someone starting out. The gear you use will depend on what you do, how you do it and whether it is viable to do it in that manner, what your client wants...and maybe when they want it. So some can and will use RF cameras, some will use camera phones others still LF and probably the majority DSLR's.
I mention all of the above in relation to everyday working Pro's rather than the Lee Friedlanders and others who have carved out a (worldwide) reputation over the decades and many outlets/clients will bend over backwards for in terms of timescales and medium etc.
So Ansel, I don't really mean to pick on you (though I have no doubt you can defend both yourself and your viewpoint) but your post highlighted to me that establishing what kind of work we're discussing does have an impact on what you use and when. Your point about it being all about the images is also half right, in terms of talking professionally, its all about the images and the invoices
icebear
Veteran
I guess someone out there thinks, there is the "RF-police" or the "pro" camera-police out there
.Folks, this is like telling a painter to use a certain brand of brush and not that brand with the red dot, otherwise he/she would not be considered a professional artist, ROFL
.Ultimately the only important thing is that the customer is paying for your work and not what tools you use.
You have to be able to deliver, how you do this, is your personal choice.
PKR
Veteran
"There is a good analogy. Photographers should imagine that a camera is a car. Many people, especially men unfortunately, are too interested in equipment, so they become obsessed by the car, what it does, what's inside of the car, and how it drives. But they are not so interested in where they are going to take the car. The same thing is true with photography. They become obsessed by the equipment, and they spend too much energy on that. They should spend more energy conceptualizing their work and being prepared. I am not saying they shouldn't be spontaneous. Photographers should be spontaneous. They should always be switched on if they have the camera in hand. But at the same time, you should have a plan about what your photography is going to be. You should have a philosophy. The technical is very important, but you should get that out of the way early on your life. You shouldn't be fussing about the equipment after you’ve been a photographer for ten or fifteen years. "
Albert Watson
http://procameraman.jp/Interview/kaigai_201109_inter_01.html#English
http://www.albertwatson.net/
Albert Watson
http://procameraman.jp/Interview/kaigai_201109_inter_01.html#English
http://www.albertwatson.net/
SaveKodak
Well-known
Since nobody has explained it, here is how the film workflow works in a 2013 professional environment:
Shoot film, send to Richard Photo Lab, Indie Film Lab, The FINDlab, or some other quality pro lab. Wait about 2 weeks. Recieve download file link of finished high resolution scans of images. Cull. Deliver. When you downlaod your files from one of these pro labs there is usually very little in the way of post processing. They are expensive, but you save time in front of a computer. For some workflows, it's worth it. LOTS of wedding photographers are going back to film. Seems crazy, until you shoot a bride with a Contax 645 and an 80mm f2 Planar and a modern emulsion see the difference. Doesn't work for workflows requiring expediency, but for clients who can wait, it's awesome.
As for Leica, consider that they actually don't want you as a customer. They could care less about photography. Case study: Leica X Vario. Sure, nice lenses, cool lineage, but you would have to be out of your goddamn mind to write a business plan and include Leica M digital bodies or lenses in it. If you're doing pro work you'll be better served with a dslr or Fuji anyway, and when you're doing your personal work to GET YOU work, use your Leica.
Shoot film, send to Richard Photo Lab, Indie Film Lab, The FINDlab, or some other quality pro lab. Wait about 2 weeks. Recieve download file link of finished high resolution scans of images. Cull. Deliver. When you downlaod your files from one of these pro labs there is usually very little in the way of post processing. They are expensive, but you save time in front of a computer. For some workflows, it's worth it. LOTS of wedding photographers are going back to film. Seems crazy, until you shoot a bride with a Contax 645 and an 80mm f2 Planar and a modern emulsion see the difference. Doesn't work for workflows requiring expediency, but for clients who can wait, it's awesome.
As for Leica, consider that they actually don't want you as a customer. They could care less about photography. Case study: Leica X Vario. Sure, nice lenses, cool lineage, but you would have to be out of your goddamn mind to write a business plan and include Leica M digital bodies or lenses in it. If you're doing pro work you'll be better served with a dslr or Fuji anyway, and when you're doing your personal work to GET YOU work, use your Leica.
Pablito
coco frío
I thought he said he wanted to be a photojournalist, not a wedding photographer.
Focus on the images and you'll be fine? Maybe in school, but not when you are hustling to get an internship at a paper... You'll need the images and a lot more...
SaveKodak
Well-known
If the OP is trying to be a photojournalist, then he is truely lost. This is not scaremongering, those jobs are gone. Documentarian is another thing, still possible, but the idea of working as a photojournalist is over. You will end up hating photography, seriously.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well: I've lost track of how many Leica pictures I've had published. Along with how many from other cameras too. All I can say is that the majority (the vast majority) are Leica. Film until the M8 came out: mostly digi-M since.
Most of the advice to "buy a second hand Canon" or "stick with film" comes from amateurs, hacks or people who have never used Leicas. Note that I say "most", not "all", and that there are plenty of hacks who make more money that I do. Note too that at least 90% of my income has historically come from words & pictures together: not much from pictures alone. On the other hand I am reasonably confident that Leicas have been all but essential in helping me put together those word/picture packages.
If you personally are happier with Leicas and find/believe they give you better pictures -- well, find the money for a Leica. Don't whinge about the price: that's what it costs to make the best (and currently only) digital RF camera on the matket. And no, I don't have family money behind me. The only camera my father ever bought me was a Pentax SV in 1966.
Cheers,
R.
Most of the advice to "buy a second hand Canon" or "stick with film" comes from amateurs, hacks or people who have never used Leicas. Note that I say "most", not "all", and that there are plenty of hacks who make more money that I do. Note too that at least 90% of my income has historically come from words & pictures together: not much from pictures alone. On the other hand I am reasonably confident that Leicas have been all but essential in helping me put together those word/picture packages.
If you personally are happier with Leicas and find/believe they give you better pictures -- well, find the money for a Leica. Don't whinge about the price: that's what it costs to make the best (and currently only) digital RF camera on the matket. And no, I don't have family money behind me. The only camera my father ever bought me was a Pentax SV in 1966.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Depends on how you define photojournalism. There are still grants, for example: see http://mrofoundation.org/ -- I met Manuel at Arles.
There was never much money in it, but I still know a few people who either earn a full time living from it or work at McJobs to supplement their income and pay for their habit.
You've got to be good. Very good. But then, how many great photojournalists can you name in the history of photography?
Cheers,
R.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Nice M8 in the classifieds right now