zanydave
zanydave
First time I've heard of Ralph Gibson!
Very sweet Leica model
- Thread starter Chuck A
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 4K
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Same here, but I accessed his website. A good photographer, but an immortal??
FrankS
Registered User
jaapv said:
I think this is another reason why some people responded negatively: the "holier than thou" tone of the photographer and the description of him in the camera ad.
M
merciful
Guest
FrankS said:
I'm not sure that Ralph has to shoulder too much of the blame: the description is clearly written by a Leica flunkie who doesn't have English as a first language. I think that's contributed to the pompous tone of the text.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
- Local time
- 3:46 AM
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,076
What is that old saying, a fool and their cash are easily parted. I love Leica M cameras, I own one. If I ever came into enough cash to buy a new MP, I swear I will be extremely tastefull in how it is finished. The Ralph Gibson model is ummm...scary looking.
Bill
Bill
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
"So Ralph Gibson is the only name you recognize as an internationally successful photographer."
Thanks ManGo, you have made my point as you have intentionally taken a statement I made and left out a salient qualifier... "In this thread." My students would find that statement laughable as Gibson usually doesn't get mentioned in my Photo History class. But by taking a partial statement, out of context, to distort the original intent, you are attempting to demean me. That is a childish tactic.
For the record, Ralph Gibson is a long way from one of my favorite photographers, but I do think that some of his images are provacative. In addition his perceptions about the placement of photographs in context with one another are quite estute. But, like many other photographers, if you don't like his work, leave it alone. There are just too many excellent photographs out there to let one person's work ruin your day.
Certainly "international success" is not a reason for liking someone's work. But then again, there is something to be said for recognition in a very crowded photo world. But, even then can you disagree? Certainly, just ask me about Anne Geddes! But cheap name calling is just petty and doesn't move the discussion forward.
Don't throw out that red herring about just responding to the advertisement. Many of the comments have been directed precisely at Gibson's work and not the marketing of this camera.
Thanks ManGo, you have made my point as you have intentionally taken a statement I made and left out a salient qualifier... "In this thread." My students would find that statement laughable as Gibson usually doesn't get mentioned in my Photo History class. But by taking a partial statement, out of context, to distort the original intent, you are attempting to demean me. That is a childish tactic.
For the record, Ralph Gibson is a long way from one of my favorite photographers, but I do think that some of his images are provacative. In addition his perceptions about the placement of photographs in context with one another are quite estute. But, like many other photographers, if you don't like his work, leave it alone. There are just too many excellent photographs out there to let one person's work ruin your day.
Certainly "international success" is not a reason for liking someone's work. But then again, there is something to be said for recognition in a very crowded photo world. But, even then can you disagree? Certainly, just ask me about Anne Geddes! But cheap name calling is just petty and doesn't move the discussion forward.
Don't throw out that red herring about just responding to the advertisement. Many of the comments have been directed precisely at Gibson's work and not the marketing of this camera.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I've been to two Ralph Gibson lectures. They were both 25-26 years ago. The first was at the Floating Foundation of Photography. Mr. Gibson gave a wonderful presentation on his work. He showed a lot of early work before his trilogy series that I had never seen. He learned photography in the Navy. He was also an assistant to Dorothea Lange and Robert Frank, whom he served as a cameraman for a couple of his films.
The second lecture was some months later at the 14th Street Y. This presentation was entirely different, as Mr. Gibson was alot more famous, and terribly pretentious. He began to cry at one point during his presentation, saying that he regetted never becoming the photographer he had wanted to be. Still, it didn't prevent him form getting paid handsomely for doing all the Avenue Magazine covers.
Did these lectures change my mind about him? Yes, somewhat. I still enjoy looking at his trilogy book series that he self-published - The Somnambulist, Days At Sea, and Dejavu. I always liked the surreal, graphic quality of his work, and his sequencing of imagery.
I guess for Mr. Gibson, having a camera made in his honor is something special. I think it would be for anyone. I might disagree with having so many made, even 50, and having them sold world-wide. One would be plenty, as long as it was mine!
The second lecture was some months later at the 14th Street Y. This presentation was entirely different, as Mr. Gibson was alot more famous, and terribly pretentious. He began to cry at one point during his presentation, saying that he regetted never becoming the photographer he had wanted to be. Still, it didn't prevent him form getting paid handsomely for doing all the Avenue Magazine covers.
Did these lectures change my mind about him? Yes, somewhat. I still enjoy looking at his trilogy book series that he self-published - The Somnambulist, Days At Sea, and Dejavu. I always liked the surreal, graphic quality of his work, and his sequencing of imagery.
I guess for Mr. Gibson, having a camera made in his honor is something special. I think it would be for anyone. I might disagree with having so many made, even 50, and having them sold world-wide. One would be plenty, as long as it was mine!
Last edited:
Chuck A
Chuck A
If we are going to criticize, then Leica bears part of the blame. The Leica collectors bears the rest. Not Ralph Gibson. IMHO Leica brings out too many collector models and they are also overpriced. But if they didn't sell them them they wouldn't make them. There is obviously a market for them. Leica is in business to make money and this is a lucrative part. Like I said before, if Leica came to you and wanted to make a model with your name on it, what would you do?
dll927
Well-known
There have been as many "special editions" of Leicas as Carter has little liver pills. They are nothing new, and go back almost as long as there have been Leicas. Early on, there was an edition called "gold Luxus".
But it won't help any to cover your box Brownie with red vulcanite. It didn't come from the TRUE SOURCE.
Actually, the MP is a retrograde model. It's supposedly a copy of a much older same-named one. If I were in the market for a Leica, nowadays, I'd get an M7. The MP even has the older 'hard to turn' rewind, so they came up with an add-on crank for it!! But for now, I'll stick to my M4-2. I bought it in 1983 for $800, and later added the 35 and 90 lenses. I'd be hard-put to agree that these ritzy models take better pictures - that's not the function of the camera, but of the EYE behind it.
But it won't help any to cover your box Brownie with red vulcanite. It didn't come from the TRUE SOURCE.
Actually, the MP is a retrograde model. It's supposedly a copy of a much older same-named one. If I were in the market for a Leica, nowadays, I'd get an M7. The MP even has the older 'hard to turn' rewind, so they came up with an add-on crank for it!! But for now, I'll stick to my M4-2. I bought it in 1983 for $800, and later added the 35 and 90 lenses. I'd be hard-put to agree that these ritzy models take better pictures - that's not the function of the camera, but of the EYE behind it.
F
former member
Guest
I think the framelines appear one at a time, but are selected by the lens only. Like on the original Leica M3 without the preview lever.
Price of this MP? About half of what I paid for my first digital camera. Value in 10 years? A lot more than the $50 that my first digital camera would get. And that's because you can remove the digital back and load it with film.
Now, on the Nikon SP the outer lines stay up as you switch in each of the longer focal length lenses. The selector is around the rewind knob (folding crank). The framlines are all in different colors. OOOOhhhhhh.. Pretty! The original SP owner's manual went through great length to have a few color inserts to show the pretty framelines.
> For 5K+ US I'd rather have a Nikon SP.
There is one on in the 35mm Classified Section for $1,850 right now. EX++ condition.
Had my user SP out this weekend. The RF spot is as good as the S3-2000, and the later SP's are brighter than the S3-2000. I believe that the Titanium Foil shutter curtain'd SP's, introduced ~1960, have a brighter finder than the earlier ones. The SP was criticized "in the day" for having a finder not as bright as the M3. All three of the late-version SP's that I have used are brighter than the S3-2000. Pretty good for 45 year old cameras.
Just to add, I would not turn down this limited edition MP. I would probably go for am Mint condition M3 and have it painted Black. And getting it without the pre-view lever is now instilled in my Brain!
Price of this MP? About half of what I paid for my first digital camera. Value in 10 years? A lot more than the $50 that my first digital camera would get. And that's because you can remove the digital back and load it with film.
Now, on the Nikon SP the outer lines stay up as you switch in each of the longer focal length lenses. The selector is around the rewind knob (folding crank). The framlines are all in different colors. OOOOhhhhhh.. Pretty! The original SP owner's manual went through great length to have a few color inserts to show the pretty framelines.
> For 5K+ US I'd rather have a Nikon SP.
There is one on in the 35mm Classified Section for $1,850 right now. EX++ condition.
Had my user SP out this weekend. The RF spot is as good as the S3-2000, and the later SP's are brighter than the S3-2000. I believe that the Titanium Foil shutter curtain'd SP's, introduced ~1960, have a brighter finder than the earlier ones. The SP was criticized "in the day" for having a finder not as bright as the M3. All three of the late-version SP's that I have used are brighter than the S3-2000. Pretty good for 45 year old cameras.
Just to add, I would not turn down this limited edition MP. I would probably go for am Mint condition M3 and have it painted Black. And getting it without the pre-view lever is now instilled in my Brain!
Last edited by a moderator: