M8 and Simon Wheatley in BJP

S

Sorabji

Newbie
Local time
11:12 PM
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
3
Dear all of you,

The pressures from many users have forced the digital tide upon Leica and to be fair to them, they have evidently come up with the goods in the shape of the M8.

However, if like me, you are a blissfully happy analogue M user, you cannot deny that there is a different look to digital images in general. Some may say this is just a difference, not necessarily better or worse. Some may even say, if I'm blissfully happy with the analogue M's, why bother posting about the M8? "Film" is the issue? How long will it be available at a reasonable price?

If anyone saw the Simon Wheatley pictures in BJP with the M8, you must agree that the results are rather disappointing. Colours look flat and dull. Contrast is lacking and images generally look lifeless. Is this the result of digital imaging in general or specifically the M8? Most digital files I see have great clarity, but show no depth in the image quality - compared to film.

Can anyone help with a knowedgable answer, or am I the only one who perceives these differences? Most experts tend to fall in the firmly biased digital camp, because they're young and want to embrace the new technology etc., so I've found precious little material on the net with regard to the scientific analysis of image qualities of both analogue and digital.
 
I guess it was Simon Wheatley's call to process them this way. I agree with your asessment, I don't like them either...Most of his work is in this style. I don't see any difference in his treatment of either film or digital shots.

Have a look at his portfolio for yourself.
 
Last edited:
well ..... i do not agree.
That's just a trend in modern photography.
If you take a look in the Magnum book: "Eurovisions" the whole book is printed in that style.
There is also a tendency for colorprints on matte paper ...... they all look flat and dull.
It all fits the taste in the fine art world of the moment ...
Times are a changing ..... stop imitating the old masters and move on ......... photograhy is (as every artform) an art in transition.
Art and personal taste do not go very well together in general: these are 2 differen things;)
These files could also have been printed shiny and saturated: its a personal vision we have to accept: liking or disliking has nothing to do with this!

Just my 2 cents!
 
Last edited:
Two things, Vladimer:
1. It is a great photo, what has the capture medium to do with that? Nobody asked Rembrandt which brand of brushes he used.
2. It is a great photo. What has the time factor to do with that? There are nature photographers who disappear into the wilderness for months on end, only to return with one shot -but what a shot. And how many of his waking hours did AA spend in his darkroom? 50%? Again- the result counts.
 
It is a great photo no doubt, why don`t you leave it color? why photshop it and make it black and white? why play with curves? if it makes no difference? for me aesthetics make difference no metter subject is amazing or not...
 
It does make a difference, it was his choice to present it in B&W, and with good effect. But I think there is a confusion between the artistic merit and the technical process going on here.
 
Nachkebia said:
Oh god, how can it be confusion when technical process makes difference in artistic merit?
Click to expand...

Because the technical process is the artist's choice to arrive at a certain result. We can analyze it to death, but the result is what it is and we will never know whether it would have been even better or worse had it been done differently. We can only apply our preconceptions to that and offer suppositions. The photo as such stands as an end product.
 
Exactly, so what are you claming? the guy is saying it is looking lifeless and flat to his aestetical needs, what is your (not yours personaly) problem?

1 -
Because the technical process is the artist's choice to arrive at a certain result. We can analyze it to death, but the result is what it is and we will never know whether it would have been even better or worse had it been done differently. We can only apply our preconceptions to that and offer suppositions. The photo as such stands as an end product.
Click to expand...

2 -
1. It is a great photo, what has the capture medium to do with that? Nobody asked Rembrandt which brand of brushes he used.
Click to expand...


Are you contradicting yourself or its just me?
 
In a similar vein, there is a comparisn between a M8 shot and a 645 shot of the same subject Here on FM forums.
Interesting - I leave everybody to drw their own conclusions...
 
Nachkebia said:
Exactly, so what are you claming? the guy is saying it is looking lifeless and flat to his aestetical needs, what is your (not yours personaly) problem?

1 -

2 -


Are you contradicting yourself or its just me?
Click to expand...

I think it is just you - or I did not make myself clear: The medium is the artists choice - it makes a difference -to the artist- in his workflow to arrive at the result he presents to the world. The viewer likes or dislikes the result. But it is foolish to hold the technical process responsible - the artist is the factor involved. In other words: who are we blaming for the cabinet - the wood, the saw and hanmmer - or the carpenter?
 
Okey and what are we discussing than? For my aestetical taste digital is flat, lifeless, cheap and crapy what is the problem?
 
No problem- the difference is that I look at the photograph and you look at the machine...;) And I'm glad to hear you find the M8 cheap :D:D
 
Just remember whenever you or anyone else states that M8 has film like feel (even if you think it should not have because digital is different medium) I can also state that it has not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom