Grenache wrote:
It would be difficult to describe how little interest I have in editing on a phone or tablet. This is another very annoying aspect of Leica’s approach here.
While some of the interface aspects for Phocus mobile look very user friendly, at least Hasselblad made a Mac version. It takes a little getting used to, but it is actually a very nice editor.
I'd like to see some sort of Leica Looks presets that could be applied to DNGs. The would give us all a lot more editing possibilities to include desktop.
LBJ2 wrote:
I'd like to see some sort of Leica Looks presets that could be applied to DNGs. The would give us all a lot more editing possibilities to include desktop.
Grenache wrote:
It would be difficult to describe how little interest I have in editing on a phone or tablet. This is another very annoying aspect of Leica’s approach here.
While some of the interface aspects for Phocus mobile look very user friendly, at least Hasselblad made a Mac version. It takes a little getting used to, but it is actually a very nice editor.
Why not use Adobe or C1 on desktop? There is obviously a demand to edit on the phone or tablet, either with Lightroom or Leica Fotos.
I do not understand the moral outrage here. The McCurry look is simply a new preset that had some input from Steve McCurry. Would it have been "acceptable" if it were labeled Modern05?
Just leave Steve alone, he is not the agent here. He's become a cultural icon, a culture hero. ;-)
Seriously, he's brought a lot of the South Asian world to people who would not otherwise have come across it.
SrMi wrote:
I do not understand the moral outrage here. The McCurry look is simply a new preset that had some input from Steve McCurry. Would it have been "acceptable" if it were labeled Modern05?
This. Countless photographers try to push their LR presets and whatever with their name...they'd go nuts if Leica asked them to do one.
Right. To help everyone cool down, relax, and feel good, here is a little treat from the Leica marketing department. It is balm for the artistic soul that dwells within every "Leicanese" the moment he acquires the necessary tool and activated the right Leica Look.😊
?is=ZL975mkBjmd8MG--
zhangyue wrote:
Another wrong step, Leica. Gimmick after gimmick, What is wrong with Leica. Sorry, I am brutal honest on this one.
Looks like HCB look is next?
Edit to make it proper to the point.
I think the majority of Leica's history has been in the film era where you had to commit to a look by selecting the film roll (especially if you didn't do your own darkroom work), each color film produced somewhat stylized results which is probably where McCurry's look is coming from to a large extent as well.
This approach is still quite popular and people choose from digital "looks" in apps that implement them and many people do not like to spend a lot of time editing the photos manually on a computer. In my opinion, photography has been to an extent ruined by having too much freedom to modify the image in post, leading to a disconnect between reality and the image, and also it has lead to a situation where an outdoor activity turned into hours and hours, almost whole lives spent at a computer mucking about with too many unmemorable images trying to convert them into something "better" by editing. The value of photography has been lost because it no longer has a direct, easy-to-understand connection to something that actually happened in the real world, and because it is no longer a healthy outdoor activity of exploring the world and looking at it carefully to find something interesting.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
In my opinion, photography has been to an extent ruined by having too much freedom to modify the image in post, leading to a disconnect between reality and the image, and also it has lead to a situation where an outdoor activity turned into hours and hours, almost whole lives spent at a computer mucking about with too many unmemorable images trying to convert them into something "better" by editing. The value of photography has been lost because it no longer has a direct, easy-to-understand connection to something that actually happened in the real world, and because it is no longer a healthy outdoor activity of exploring the world and looking at it carefully to find something interesting....Show more →
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. In the days of analog, for instance, virtually every truly great black-and-white print was preceded by skillful darkroom work. And as for the healthy outdoor activity of exploring the world and looking at it carefully to find something interesting, there isn't the slightest difference between analog and digital. And I say this as someone who loves analog photography and will never really warm up to digital.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. In the days of analog, for instance, virtually every truly great black-and-white print was preceded by skillful darkroom work. And as for the healthy outdoor activity of exploring the world and looking at it carefully to find something interesting, there isn't the slightest difference between analog and digital. And I say this as someone who loves analog photography and will never really warm up to digital.
McCurry and other magazine photographers shot color slide film which definitely had a film-specific look. Yes, in black and white photography, there is a lot of freedom to editing in the darkroom, but in this case we're talking about a photographer who mainly did his work in color.
An hour of digital photography can easily result in 5-10 hours of editing work in the digital workflow, whereas when shooting color slide film, there was no editing done by the photographer, only image selection. Thus the ratio of indoor and outdoor activities was totally different. Yes, again you can muck about infinitely in the darkroom with black and white work, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
McCurry and other magazine photographers shot color slide film which definitely had a film-specific look. Yes, in black and white photography, there is a lot of freedom to editing in the darkroom, but in this case we're talking about a photographer who mainly did his work in color.
An hour of digital photography can easily result in 5-10 hours of editing work in the digital workflow, whereas when shooting color slide film, there was no editing done by the photographer, only image selection. Thus the ratio of indoor and outdoor activities was totally different. Yes, again you can muck about infinitely in the darkroom with black and white work, but that's not what I'm talking about here....Show more →
The reason it was not done in color is because it was too
hard. Once color image processing became accessible, processing color images became even more elaborate than B&W processing.
For me, developing my best images isn’t a chore—it is an essential part of the creative process.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
McCurry and other magazine photographers shot color slide film which definitely had a film-specific look. Yes, in black and white photography, there is a lot of freedom to editing in the darkroom, but in this case we're talking about a photographer who mainly did his work in color.
An hour of digital photography can easily result in 5-10 hours of editing work in the digital workflow, whereas when shooting color slide film, there was no editing done by the photographer, only image selection. Thus the ratio of indoor and outdoor activities was totally different. Yes, again you can muck about infinitely in the darkroom with black and white work, but that's not what I'm talking about here....Show more →
Well, for one thing, you made a very general statement comparing analog and digital; for another, nothing stops anyone from setting his digital camera to JPEG, snapping a shot, and having the finished result ready to go immediately, without any detours. It’s faster and more direct than shooting with slide film.
LBJ2 wrote:
Have you had a chance to try the Q3 plugin with files from the SL3 and compare to any of the genuine Leica Looks?
The Q3 plugin works only with Q3 files, though I could try the presets with SL3 by manually assigning them.
Inspired by that plugin, I wrote my own using Claude. It works with all Leica cameras that support Looks and uses Cobalt Leica Looks profiles.
I believe that the author of Q3 plugin is working on an SL3 plugin but, since he does not own an SL3, he needs some help with SL3 example images to create the customized presets.
The Q3 plugin works only with Q3 files, though I could try the presets with SL3 by manually assigning them.
Inspired by that plugin, I wrote my own using Claude. It works with all Leica cameras that support Looks and uses Cobalt Leica Looks profiles.
I believe that the author of Q3 plugin is working on an SL3 plugin but, since he does not own an SL3, he needs some help with SL3 example images to create the customized presets.
I've experimented with using the FOTOS app on the iPhone to process DNG/RAWs from the SL2 and Sony cameras with Leica Looks which seems to work resulting in a jpeg.
Probably more than a few of us have asked Leica to create official Leica Looks presets for DNGs. Maybe one day.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
McCurry and other magazine photographers shot color slide film which definitely had a film-specific look. Yes, in black and white photography, there is a lot of freedom to editing in the darkroom, but in this case we're talking about a photographer who mainly did his work in color.
An hour of digital photography can easily result in 5-10 hours of editing work in the digital workflow, whereas when shooting color slide film, there was no editing done by the photographer, only image selection. Thus the ratio of indoor and outdoor activities was totally different. Yes, again you can muck about infinitely in the darkroom with black and white work, but that's not what I'm talking about here....Show more →
stgrove wrote:
Profiles, profiles. profiles.
Just go out and shoot and then adjust the image to YOUR liking not someone else's.
+1. I had the same initial thought when reading the original post. But on the other hand I am not surprised to see it coming from Leica - they more and more justify the brand on traditional photography and style taken by better known photographers who used Leica gear at least part of their time. Even modern photos selected by Leica in the online Leica Gallery Mastershots most often focus on the same matter: majority street photography and some portraits. Most often taken with newer Leica camera and lens gear obviously, too.
Personally I always found it limiting myself by just looking at other established photographers work. I am not saying that looking at their photos isn't interesting - of course it is. But creativity comes finding your own style - doing photography over many years I have found my style/interest, and it actually does not align what Leica tends to showcase: I am not at all into people/street photography and will never be. Instead I like architecture, still life and scenery a lot - where often DSLRs or MLCs are considered the better tools. But having the limitation of rangefinder made me become better even in architecture photography without relying on more sophisticated tools like tilt/shift lenses for example. It just works for me. But yes, I am definitely not fitting what Leica sells as image where their gear can be used best.
retrofocus wrote:
True - but: we have to admit that Leica is quite profitable especially after they changed to the luxury brand marketing. The facts prove that this strategy worked successfully for them - at least until now. Does the regular user of Leica camera gear like to work with continuously rising prices for gear both new and used? Of course no. But we need to realize that the regular user is not the main focus for Leica even marketing pretends that it is. Focus is on Leica brand focused enthusiasts and collectors. This brings in the real money and keeps the company afloat.
This said, all my Leica M digital cameras I am using have no capability to have photos transferred wirelessly nor being compatible with the Leica Photo app. And I am fine with this. ...Show more →
I'm pretty sure Leica started luxury brand marketing quite a while ago. Here are a couple ads from the 60's and 70's.
johnvanr wrote:
Didn’t he use Nikon most of his career?
All of his iconic work was done with Nikons more or less. I think he moved on to Leica for a while now. As an interesting exercise, have a look at his website, most of the images under "selected works" are from the film era.
