DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Experience with the MP

Wilson, Vinicino,
Ofcourse you can touch-up painted camera's. Better than Humbrol are the touch-up pencils from Motip, Germany, actually for cars (dupli-color). Dilute with thinner and apply with a very fine retouching brush. The surface on which you apply the stuff must be thinner-proof. Black laquer or paint surfaces on Leicas are always thinner-proof. You can remove the retouching easely with thinner, so don't worry about the collecting value. I removed this way once a complete layer of repaint on a black 1932 Leica II, restoring it this way to its original finish wich was in a surprisingly fine condition with only minor brassing. Available from Micro-tools is a wonderful stuff called 'brass-black'. This is a chemical oxydizer great for surpressing shiny bright brass marks on your paint on brass camera's. First clean thoroughly with thinner the spot you want to do, then apply brass-black, let it dry and then buff it up with silicon oil from a spray can.

But neither Humbrol nor Motip will hold for a long time on a black chrome Leica. Brass-black won't help either.

Regards,

Erik.
 
Hello everyone!

Here's a question that has kept me busy for a lomg time: is photography an art or a craft? And: can we create art by using a Leica MP? Are M-Leica's more 'artistic' than other camera's?

Just think about it!

Erik.
 
Erik

I thought about it.

Obviously it can be both. There can be a craft element in art, but not necessarily. Photographs may be finely crafted but many not have significant art value or perhaps none at all. That’s is for the photographer and others in the art world to decide. Art as it is defined today is more about concepts than craftsmanship. To my mind good art should also have a fairly high degree of craft behind it. As a visual medium art requires some syntax to communicate the concept effectively. A concept without form is more philosophy than art. But that is only my personal point of view, which is contoversial in some circles

And finally the MP is just like any other paintbrush. Some like myself like to think of the MP as fine sable, the Winsor & Newton series 7 of cameras if you will. Whether the brush work, no matter how finely crafted, is art another issue.
 
And finally the MP is just like any other paintbrush. Some like myself like to think of the MP as fine sable, the Winsor & Newton series 7 of cameras if you will...

And then there are those of us who will produce work that looks like it was done with a mop (regardless of the "brush")..but the quality of the camera keeps us motivated to try harder for that "expert" shot...
jeff in colorado
 
<font color="aa00aa">hmm.

Craft enables form, and form carries content. The greater your fluency of craft, the more you may be able to express content with profundity.

But, content is also culture-based, so this leads into tricky ground. Some aspects of life are more universal than others, a lot less so. Content has different meaning to everyone, as our culture is bother infinitely varied, as well as overlapping.

I look at the Leica as being like a fine violin. Very zen, a minimalism of mechanical functions. For the type of photography I like to do, it is appropriate. A friend of mine has a Holga with a Polaroid back. He has created some very authentic and profound statements with these. I would not discount his voice.

An interesting aside: I've been living with Larry Towel's book on the Mennonites for sometime. it's all wide angle work. 24- 21mm lenses. In the back of the book he gives credit to Leica and Canon. I'm assuming Leica M and Canon autofocus (EOS?) It's hard for me to tell what image was taken with which. So, I think we need to also remember our humility. It's fine for us to adore using our Leicas, and maybe that's enough for most folks. But when we are more concerned with the art, and the message on what we want to say about life, we start looking for the appropriate tool as a prioriti. Most viewers don't say, "oh, this was taken with a Leica Rangefinder!". But they do react to profound images.

peace,
garth
happy.gif
 
Craig, Jeff and Garth,
Yes, I do agree to a large extend. To me, art has to do with fantasy, it creates a fictional reality. At first I thought photography only recorded reality, and had thus nothing to do with fantasy. But now I see that a great photographer 'previews' in a way a photograph (so fantasies about it; he creates it in his fantasy seconds before he actually takes it) and then tries to realize it with tools and materials. A Leica-M viewfinder gives only the reality (with frames), so the photographer has to fantasy how the finished picture will look like. So it is more 'artistic' than a SLR in my view. Very important esthetic parameters of a photograph are its composition and the moment on which it was taken. A M-Leica has no time lag between pressing the release button and the run-off of the shutter, so also from that point of view it's more artistic then most other camera's. Does anyone understand what I am saying?

regards,

Erik
 
Oh, yes. I understand.

I only wish to add that for me, my photograph presents my vision. If I see a scene that is interesting, it is because of my height and position relative to the subject. I have found that if I do not take a picture at my eye level or at the height that I found it interesting, the vision is lost and the picture is dull.

I was walking the streets with my 21 year old daughter, who is a graphics design major. She saw a hawker cooking chestnuts with smoke and steam billowing out. She asked me to take the photograph but I told her she should take it herself, at her own height. But she insisted that I take it. So I did. And sure enough, it came out totally uninteresting. So I asked her to take it herself, and Wow! What a difference! (We were uisng a digital).

Now she takes all photographs herself.


Sung Nee
 
I'm not sure that I agree with much of what has been said in the later postings of this thread. It all seems rather airy-fairy! With regard to Erik's comment, I'm quite sure that I'm not such a good photographer that a few millisecond's extra delay between pressing the button and the shutter firing is of any significance. There is possibly a more immediate connection with the scene with a viewfinder camera than with an SLR, but to take this to its logical conclusion, would two empty wire frames (as used in some vintage cameras) give an even more direct connection than that? With regard to Sung Nee, I'm not sure that the height of his daughter has as much effect as that of her major in Graphic Design. Perhaps getting higher or lower would improve the pictures, instead of waiting until an interesting picture happens to appear at eye level. I'm a teacher, and one of the boys' projects I set is to photograph dandelions. They get great pictures as soon as they go to ground level.
I agree with Garth. I have two Leicas, and love them, but it is the quality of the picture which matters, no matter what it was taken with. I would rather be Cartier-Bresson or Salgado with a point and shoot than myself with a Leica. What the Leica does is to suggest a certain genre of photography, and I find myself looking for different types of picture than when I'm using another camera. A glance through the Photo Gallery on LeicaInfo reveals a lot of Cartier-Bresson type images, a considerable number of which are black and white. Nothing wrong with that, and I would have been delighted to have taken many of them, but the type of photography is directed by the camera and possibly the photo-historical knowledge and appreciation of the photographer.
 
Andrew,
Happily there is some airy-fairy left in me! Beware if not. But I ment to say that, in a SLR the photographer looks at a screen on which there is projected an image (by a lens), he simply waits until he likes that image and then presses the button, hoping that the final picture will be anything like the image he saw on the screen. But with a viewfinder camera one tends more to anticipate on an event, which is likely to happen, and then on the very right moment taking the picture, after having placed oneself in the very right position to obtain the best possible composition.
Ofcourse other qualities of the camera are equally important. Holding a MP is one great invitation to work with it.

Regards,

Erik.
 
Hello all,
maybe I don't understand all of you who are defending, protecting the work with a viewfinder.
I work with both, viewfinder and reflex camera. I like to work with the Leica M6, that I use a lot when I travel or when I work in theatre. I use the Xpan too, that have a better view and resizing of the image when you change from the 45mm to 90mm.
I like to use it, but I can't say that it is the best kind of view of the reality. You don't see the exact expression of your image. You don't see the difference when you use a tele (135mm 2.8) or a wide angle (21mm). Through your viewfinder you see the same image, the same size. Try to use the same lens with one reflex camera. You don't see the same image and composition. Try to take architectural pictures with your viewfinder camera, it is not like you were seeing it, never you can have a good symmetrical view. It is not done for this. You need a reflex view.
What is positive is that you can carry it, and it is not heavy, it is small. You can be a reporter, and for a lot of people it is not a camera, it is like a one shot camera, not for professional, it looks old, and it is not professional, for some people. You are not dangerous, in some countries like URSS, or other where it is better to don't take pictures, or to don't have professional equipement. I like this kind of aspect. In theatre you can take pictures and you don't disturb people who are listening the sound or the silence, but you can take pictures. I like this oportunity.
But When you take portraiture, what do you see in your viewfinder.? you don't see what you will have on your negative, I'm sorry.! You don't see what is on focus and not. You only have to imagine it. The reflex will help you more.
What help a lot of people, too, is that you have a larger view of the scenery, so you can anticipate your composition. It can help us. But is it enough to say that it is the best kind of view.?. not for me.
But what is important is to take pictures that we feel. Because what is important is to give a message, to other people. And wich kind of equipement we use is only one technical choice.
Photography is not the camera that we use.
Photography is the language that we can use to send messages to other people.
Best regards
Laurent
 
Back
Top