The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Leica M Monochrom

asiafish

Member
Walking around City Center, Las Vegas early Sunday afternoon. Leica M Monochrom, ISO320, Carl Zeiss C Sonnar with yellow filter. Aperture usually at either f/1.5 or f/8. As always, minimal post.

I love the dual nature of this lens. Wide-open it has bokeh like no other. Stopped down, it is every bit as sharp from corner to corner as anything modern.


L1001623-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001640-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001662-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001670-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001683-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001688-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001698-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


L1001700-Edit.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr
 

RVB

Member
Hi Dave,
I have mixed feelings looking at your images, some I like a lot, the last two I dont feel compfortable looking at because I feel like someone peeping into the privacy of people.
Some of them are very sad,and make me realise how luck I am(We are..) to own Leica's etc..

Artistically It's a good set as it offers contrasting emotions and situation's and shows that even people with very tough lives can laugh and smile..
 
Hi Dave,
I have mixed feelings looking at your images, some I like a lot, the last two I dont feel compfortable looking at because I feel like someone peeping into the privacy of people.
I'm afraid you would as well have mixed feelings when visiting collections of pictures in the most reputable museums around the world or having a look at books about the history of photography as an art form, let alone at all those most educational pictures Magnum photographers have provided us with covering a wide variety of places and times and particularly revealing not just sunshine and roses.

I think we have to give big thanks to Dave for sharing those pictures from his country in those really hard times, pictures that give us an authentic impression of the people/children who live there and have to overcome manifold difficulties.
 

element-m

New member
"St Elsewhere" Not sure if this is any good, could be better perhaps. He was staring for a quite a long time and didn't move a muscle. I had time to approach him and take my time focusing. He still didn't take notice of me after I took the shot. But shortly afterwards, so he seems to be okay :)

 

Paratom

Well-known member
I'm afraid you would as well have mixed feelings when visiting collections of pictures in the most reputable museums around the world or having a look at books about the history of photography as an art form, let alone at all those most educational pictures Magnum photographers have provided us with covering a wide variety of places and times and particularly revealing not just sunshine and roses.

I think we have to give big thanks to Dave for sharing those pictures from his country in those really hard times, pictures that give us an authentic impression of the people/children who live there and have to overcome manifold difficulties.
I don't build my opinion and feeling based on the question if images hang in a well reputated museum or if they are posted in the internet.

I like some of Daves images a lot but if I look at the last two I get the feeling that if I was the father of those kids I would not want to have those images spread. I also did not criticize him posting them, I just expressed what I felt when looking at them. If you feel different its your good right, you don't need to be afraid about my feelings by the way.

Its not the fact that I would prefer looking at "sunshine and roses", I just don't like images so much where people are shot" from behind, or when they are sleeping and don't know they are photographed or even when they try to hide their face behind a newspaper. I think you can show social problems without "scratching" (don't know if its the right word) the dignity of the people in the image. That's all.

If those were your kids, would you want the images spread over the internet? (I am only talking about the last two, specially the one where the kid hides the face with the newspaper.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
"I just don't like images so much where people are shot from behind, or when they are sleeping and don't know they are photographed or even when they try to hide their face behind a newspaper. I think you can show social problems without "scratching" (don't know if its the right word) the dignity of the people in the image."

in agreement here, and try for that as well; but this opens a huge debate from photo-journalism to paparazzi, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Weegee, Capa, Erwitt, Strand come to mind, etc.
 
I don't build my opinion and feeling based on the question if images hang in a well reputated museum or if they are posted in the internet.

I like some of Daves images a lot but if I look at the last two I get the feeling that if I was the father of those kids I would not want to have those images spread. I also did not criticize him posting them, I just expressed what I felt when looking at them. If you feel different its your good right, you don't need to be afraid about my feelings by the way.

Its not the fact that I would prefer looking at "sunshine and roses", I just don't like images so much where people are shot" from behind, or when they are sleeping and don't know they are photographed or even when they try to hide their face behind a newspaper. I think you can show social problems without "scratching" (don't know if its the right word) the dignity of the people in the image. That's all.

If those were your kids, would you want the images spread over the internet? (I am only talking about the last two, specially the one where the kid hides the face with the newspaper.
At first: I concede we're debating a serious concern. For me there's one major criterium regarding the matter in question: Are the personal rights of the portrayed subject preserved or are the offended in any respect? And I don't perceive any evidence for the latter, and particularly no indication, that Dave in those two pictures is misusing the visualised situation for his own ends. Indeed, quite on the contrary, his whole work is a striking proof, that he particularly is going to bat for the portrayed people, especially the children. So for my part, I don't share the posted objections at all.

(...)
in agreement here, and try for that as well; but this opens a huge debate from photo-journalism to paparazzi, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Weegee, Capa, Erwitt, Strand come to mind, etc.
Agreed. And not only regarding photo-journalism, but also e.g. the artworks of William Eggleston and other contemporary artists ...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
"Indeed, quite on the contrary, his whole work is a striking proof, that he particularly is going to bat for the portrayed people, particularly the children. "
I have no doubts that this is his intention and again, I really like most of his other images in the thread and think they work well.

It doesnt change my personal feeling about that one image, but thats me and I dont say my feeling has to be the "correct" feeling.

regarding debating of several famous photographers...I am not interested to start a generale debate what is ok and what is not ok in regards of personal rights, dignity etc. of the subject. We could probably debate this for months and years.

All I meant was to say: I like some images from the series very much and 2 not so much for a certain reason. Thats all.
 
Top