Great Article! Leica and B/W!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/mp/index_e.html

Hi, I agree with the article and I also prefer to use my Fuji 69 rangefinders, an enormous negative, with Efke 25.

Cheers.

Oops! Lets give credit where credit is due. The article is by Pete Myers.

I love it. Thanks for pointing out the article, John.

Heresy!

I loved it

I don't get it. He talks about using the Leica because it allows him to shoot without giving thought to technical concerns, then he shows us static, lifeless images of static, lifeless subjects while going on and on about resolution and technical perfection. If that's your subject matter and ultimate resolution and tonality is a major concern, why not use a larger format?

I agree with Mike Dixon, I think the author uses the new Leica and writes about it because many readers will aspire to do the same, whereas fewer people will use Fuji 69 and write about it. Of course, the article also serves well to balance the recent digital God-slot.

Cheers.

The answer is he wants to minimise the load. That's why he says using an MP instead of a DSLR saved him enough weight to bring additional 1.5 liters of water-- something more valuable to him. So of course he can't bring a medium format camera, it'll be too much of a burden in the desert.

...then he goes on about how he scans his negatives and from that point forward it's digital. Nothing at all about darkroom printing technique or the beauty of gelatin silver prints.

A Mamiya 7 and lens weighs about one pound more than an Leica M and lens. If I were as concerned with technical image quality as he seems to be, I'd give up half a liter of water to gain over 300% in image area.

The author should consider a career as a copywriter.

Mr. Myers' choice of gear, film, technique, and final product suits him perfectly. Others may require something more versatile.

I certainly wouldn't argue that he's obliged to use the camera I say he should--they're his pictures, and he's entitled to make them however he wants. He doesn't have to justify anything about his methodology to anyone.

I'm just saying the things he's saying in that article don't really "add up" in a coherent fashion. There's no central thesis that he supports with rational explanations. He just talks about a lot of stuff.

[And some of the stuff his says is kind of funny. For example:

Cost: I remember when film was still in vogue, and the bitter complaint by photographers about Leica was in the cost of the gear. Now we have digital cameras that easily exceed the price of a Leica system; yet, no one complains in a similar fashion about the cost of digital.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a single digital photographer who hasn't complained about the cost of the bodies.]

Off his website; "Pete Myers is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times. His bold vision of the rugged West creates an understanding of the vastness and entrepreneurial spirit that has made the West what it is today."

Humble, huh? Funny I've never heard of him apart from his articles on LL. He mentions in this article that he only produces 8-16 new portfolio images a year. If he is a professional, and supports himself with that few of these static images per year--well miracles do happen it seems, even in photography.

Although the author goes on an on about resolution, lenses etc. I think the real point he's making on the difference between shooting film and digital is ease of use (you can put a good lens on a digital) and simplicity.

Buying the Imacon scanner is not an easy decision and then one's left with a 13 (monochrome) or 40 megapixel (color) image file... How to translate that file to the equivalent of a carefully crafted monochrome FB print (and at what investment and what per print cost) is a question he does not address.

This is a guy who shoots 30 rolls of film a year. Well, he must be a hell of a snapper.

30 rolls "hell of a snapper"? You're kidding, right?

"I'm just saying the things he's saying in that article don't really "add up" in a coherent fashion."

Mike, that's pretty much what I've found reading every article I've seen thus far that attempts to "prove" that film is clearly superior to digital. In that camp there seems to be an urgency bordering on desperation to say something that will stem the tide of digital and turn people back toward film. I have this problem with digital: I like to be able to employ shallow d.o.f. as a pictorial device to isolate or emphasize a person or object, to make a point photographically, and I like to be able to do it with a standard or wide-angle lens so that I can interact with the subject, and I prefer a direct viewfinder so I can see the subject at the moment of exposure. So far I have not found a digital camera I can afford that fills the bill. If the RD-1 was $1200, I'd be there already. Those are my reasons, but I'm not trying to sell them as universal.

For those who develop their own, try Elke 25 in Neofin Blue or Rodinal. WOW!! For the "old timers" this film is basically Adox KB14.One hint though: Don't wipe the wet negative too hard. We are talking VERY thin film/emulsion.

30 rolls is enough. Since when is Leica photography (or indeed fine art landscape photography) about volume? This is not fashion or sports or even photojournalism. The old timers used to take large format cameras, shoot one sheet at a time. How many pix do you think they made a year?

"This is a guy who shoots 30 rolls of film a year." Who cares how many rolls he shoots? The most important thing he said, IMO, was: "I have FUN." Strikes me as a guy who truly enjoys what he's doing. That's kinda refreshing. While I'm not overwhelmed by his style of photography, I'm sure there are people who appreciate it. That he can coax that kind of sharpness and tonality out of 35mm is what I think he's excited about.

It is clear [again] that we differ in our likings when it comes to using different photography formats and types. This is good, and let's keep it this way. Some like darkroom, some like digital, some like medium format, some like old cameras, some like Leicas, ... we all seem to like "something".

Those pictures are crap.

I don't like the guy's photos, though that's beside the point. As Mike wrote, the guy wouldn't use a Leica M for such static photos if he was really interested in maximum technical quality. Frankly, this seems like many of the anti-digital posts on this forum in that it relies on a bunch of illogic and touchy-feely nonsense about the "experience" of taking photos that has little connection to final image quality.

He talks a great line, but his pictures are crap. And HYPE is what it's all about, baby.

Please substitute "boring" for "crap" in the above post. Sorry, Tony.

Tough crowd here...

Actually, take a look at this guy's web site. Not exactly my cup of tea... but not bad for that genre.

http://www.petemyers.com/

Hey, you can get a collectors print of that dead cow for $35,000.00!

According to Pete Myers: Pete Myers is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times.

Amazing how full of himself the guy is - especially for having pretty average work.

Dennis, we did take a look at the guy's website...That's how we concluded that his work is uninteresting. But hey, if I ever need a print of a dead cow, I now know where to go.

As I said, his work isn't exactly my cup of tea, although I'm sure there are people who like that genre quite a lot. But his stuff is technically proficient and he is going against the grain by doing some of it in 35mm rather than a larger format... which is interesting. So the guy enjoys shooting this stuff with a Leica and one lens... what's the big deal? Another film versus digital war because someone likes doing it that way?

And sometimes "I want it" is not enough of a reason.

Hey, I bought a Contax G1 just to find out what's so bad about it :-)

As I understand it, the article was offered as a counter-point to this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/like-it-is.shtml

Is that guy full of crap because his images are boring too?

Efke 25 is a fine film, seemingly able to produce worthwhile results no matter what developer you use. I've tried it with FX-39, Rodinal, Ilfosol-S, Microdol-X, and XTOL, and it works equally well with all of those. I currently use it with XTOL, mainly because I also shoot TMX, Delta400, and Maco 820c, and all of those really shine in stock XTOL.

I agree on the Mamiya 7 though. The perfect weight/quality compromise for static subjects! :)

Hey Brad, just remember he's MAKING images, not TAKING images. Um, right.

Anyway I actually do like these pictures if not the Enough Already essay: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml

Dennis, your kindness is admirable, but there's absolutely nothing new or interesting about 35mm photogs trying to emulate larger formats. Remember Panatomic X?

I for one like his photographs - they appear (to me anyway) as works of art, as opposed to images that although interesting, lack a certain "punch".

Most of all, I agree 100% with his point - photography doesn't have to have a computer attached to it, in order to be good. In this day & age it's refreshing it hear from someone like Pete who shares the philosophy of so many us dinosaurs out there - kudos to him (& the Luminous Landscape) for the post!

M.V.

Everybody's pictures are crap to somebody. I don't have a problem with his. As a means to illustrate the article, they work well.

First time I've gone to Luminous Landscape to read anything in months. It's nice to see some enthusiasm for film in digiland.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume the pictures are crap because they look uninteresting on-screen. Keep in mind that paper looks very different, since the brightest white you're going to get is paper white; and this isn't nearly as bright as a screen, especially with fine-art papers without optical brighteners (like say Moab Entrada Natural). What may looks harsh and unappealing on-screen will soften greatly on unbrightened rag and may simply assume a graphic quality and character that's impossible to communicate on-line.

Also, scale makes a huge different, those images clearly weren't shot for web viewing since they lack a single, clear, frame-filling subject. (Often the same type of image that looks boring and amateurish in print, with ultraglossy papers and gaudy coloring in an attempt to make paper and ink mimic the screen impression.) One needs to take the intended output medium in mind when evaluating images.

I hardly ever post images online anymore for this reason, most readers simply don't have the experience or interest in trying to translate what they see on-screen to what it might look like in print. And the "700-pixel web image" medium simply isn't interesting to me. But places like this are great for "shop talk"!

Jan: If I give a roll of EFKE to a commercial lab, what would be most likely their B&W developer? Would all commercial developers work well with this film? I stopped B&W developing years ago.

"Efke 25 is a fine film, seemingly able to produce worthwhile results no matter what developer you use. I've tried it with FX-39, Rodinal, Ilfosol-S, Microdol-X, and XTOL, and it works equally well with all of those. I currently use it with XTOL, mainly because I also shoot TMX, Delta400, and Maco 820c, and all of those really shine in stock XTOL. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan, I agree with your observations. A fine print is a different animal entirely from a scanned image viewed on the internet. I've tried to make similar points here before... but not nearly as well as you did.

I want to send my film off to a dlab 7 because they have the skills and soup to proccess Tech-Pan and Efke 25. I plan to buy Efke 25 and use it as much as I can afford to. I will see what dlab 7 or similar outfits charge. Other than that I would like to start a darkroom.

Cheers.

I think most here agree with Jan and have already taken that into consideration. His work isn't crap, just very average.

It's his Pete Myers is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times at the top of his web page and his "essay" that sets him up for ridicule.

"His work isn't crap....."

Don't go all fluffy on us Brad.

And he's probably laughing---all the way to the bank!

I like the images on his website. I think he is talented.

Wow, what a polite and socially pleasant conversation. Where's the fire and brimstone that usually accompanies opinions? :)

Jan: If I give a roll of EFKE to a commercial lab, what would be most likely their B&W developer?

My guess would be XTOL, since Kodak sells and supports it for volume processing and it works well for machine agitation. But I'd ask. Most commercial labs tend to overdevelop for my taste, so you may need to go a few rounds to find times that give you what you're looking for. Make sure they let you specify what time you want. If results look high contrast, reduce time by say 30% and try again.

Personally I like developing B&W film myself. XTOL and TF-4 fix, just a water rinse for stop and the Ilford water saver technique for wash. A PhotoFlo dunk before hanging. Kind of therapeutic. :)

> Jamie J. , jul 26, 2005; 03:45 p.m. > Hey, you can get a collectors print of that dead cow for $35,000.00!

I thought you were joking, until I saw the pricing page.

Well, my pictures really are boring and crap and quite possibly deserve additional denegration from those so inclinded to express an opinion.

Therefore, in the interests of Fine Art Photography and competitive pricing strategies, I am prepared to offer copies of my images for only $30,000 per 60" print.

Peter

p.s. Peter Bilitch is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times. His bold vision of a ragged Western Europe creates an understanding of the vastness and entrepreneurial spirit that has made Western Europe what it is today. [ There, that should do it. No more working-nine-to-five just-to-keep-alive for me... Yes! ]

And he's probably laughing---all the way to the bank!

Popular fine art stuff like this rings the bells dudes for the guys and girls back home.

The dollar speaks in all languages.