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!

Farewell Leica...

vieri

Well-known member
I guess only a dedicated landscape photographer can live with the power up time of the X1D. Was it 17 seconds at launch? What is it now?
Power up is just a few seconds, I will time it precisely for my review but I'd say something between 4-6 perhaps? Definitely not a problem for my work, I take the camera off the bag, turn it on, and by the time I have taken out filter holder & filter bag it's on.

Vieri,
I look forward to your new photographs and appreciate the dignity and sophistication you've added to GetDpi. It's one thing for a photographer to impress, but more significant to inspire. Thank you!
JD, thank you very much indeed for your kind comment, that is truly much appreciated :) :eek:

Excellent.

The sooner anyone ditches their ambassadorship the better. They usually suit one side - the manufacturer. I think the whole ambassador side of business is a joke, marketing gimmickry and not a good thing for a photographer to do if they value their own work.

To be frank, nobody cares what cameras we use in the end. When you tie your work to a commercial entity, you give it and part of yourself way. I think it cheapens the work to be honest and the only person that benefits is the brand.
I sort of agree, but it is not so black and white. A certain amount of exposure comes from being a brand ambassador--no pun intended. If brand did not matter than it would not be such a big influence in camera sales. Whether the partnership has equal reciprocity is a question, but to say it has no value or it cheapens the photographer's work, that would probably not be born out by experience (unless of course you were the ambassador for the Hasselblad Lunar, which even Hasselblad cannot live down). I certainly do not see Vieri's role as a Leica ambassador as a negative, the company does support talented photographers (and it is nice to see cameras companies support their users), and so give some level of respect. Vieri's talent simply reinforces Leica's stated commitment to high-quality photography.

Now, if you want to talk about the commercialization of the arts, the economics of the gig economy, and Neoliberal economics, that is a whole different can of worms that will probably get someone banned (but that won't be me (The mods like me too much :toocool: :angel: :ROTFL:).
I can see both points, actually. Ideally, and personally, I think that an Ambassador relationship should be a two-way relationship, based on mutual trust, ,mutual support, mutual benefit, mutual listening and cooperation at many different levels. Lacking that, I am not interested in titles (and luckily I don't need them), hence my leaving. I think that ideally the relationship should benefit both parties, as Will said; in the real world, it often ends benefiting only one, as DB5 said. In the end, no matter how well designed an Ambassador program is, no matter how good the intentions are on both sides when things start, it all boils down to people's business ethics and professionalism - and, as the bard would say, there's the rub (or, therein lies the rub)...

Best regards,

Vieri
 

DB5

Member
I sort of agree, but it is not so black and white. A certain amount of exposure comes from being a brand ambassador--no pun intended. If brand did not matter than it would not be such a big influence in camera sales. Whether the partnership has equal reciprocity is a question, but to say it has no value or it cheapens the photographer's work, that would probably not be born out by experience (unless of course you were the ambassador for the Hasselblad Lunar, which even Hasselblad cannot live down). I certainly do not see Vieri's role as a Leica ambassador as a negative, the company does support talented photographers (and it is nice to see cameras companies support their users), and so give some level of respect. Vieri's talent simply reinforces Leica's stated commitment to high-quality photography.

Now, if you want to talk about the commercialization of the arts, the economics of the gig economy, and Neoliberal economics, that is a whole different can of worms that will probably get someone banned (but that won't be me (The mods like me too much :toocool: :angel: :ROTFL:).
Well the commercialisation of the arts is sadly inevitable and can not be escaped. Nor would I want it to; that is how I make my living. However the unnecessary commercialisation of our work is not something I find distasteful and actually have found it is to the detriment of our work and often longer term endeavours. But of course there are swings and roundabouts in every situation and I realise there are benefits too - but at what cost and what does it truly bring in the end?

In my opinion, and everyone is free to take their own path and I think it's great that there are lots of paths on offer, but I just think the only real way to gain exposure for your work is through the deeper developing of your work and it's contents. That doesn't come through cameras or exposure to other camera buyers, which in the case of camera manufacturers, that is what it is in the end.

Vieri takes fine pictures and an ambassadorship is not going to make a lick of difference to his career - that is my opinion and also that non-commercial-tied promotion is the best way forward for any artist.
 

vieri

Well-known member
[...]

... I just think the only real way to gain exposure for your work is through the deeper developing of your work and it's contents. [...]
Completely agree. Marketing is necessary though, and while obviously I came to your same conclusion regarding my relationship with Leica Italy, I still think that there is a point in a well-crafted, balanced Ambassador program where both parties benefit from a deeper cooperation, not just Ambassadors going around saying "hey, I use XX camera, buy it" and brand XX compensating Ambassadors for that. This is truly of no interest to me, and while many brands see it that way, there are some that look a bit further than their bottom line of Q1, Q2 etc and understand how such relationships need time and development to bear fruits. At least, I hope there are :D

[...]

non-commercial-tied promotion is the best way forward for any artist.
Most definitely true. Endorsements are tricky, in that they might give the impression that one gives up one's intellectual honesty and artistic freedom in exchange for a bit of exposure. It often is (see above), but I still believe that it might not necessarily be so... As well, i.e. being represented by a gallery or by an agent, isn't that a bit of the same thing? Less so, perhaps, but it still instils the doubt in people that you do some kind of work rather than other because "it sells", and because your manager / agent wants you to, rather than as fruit of your own inspiration. Marketing, no matter which side you look at it, it's easy to give the impression that you "sold your soul" to this and that,- is evil, in a way. Yet, is a necessary evil if you want to have a career. Ambassador programs are part of this evil, and like everything else they might be more or less evil according to whom is sitting on the chair on the other side of the table... ;)

I think that the points we are debating here is crucial to career development, and it's something that needs to be thought about with extreme care during one's career, so thank you very much for sparkling this discussion.

Best regards,

Vieri
 
Top