Red Shirt - Mexico

[Ray]

My first reaction to this shot was, it's a bit banal. Not much going on.

However, on further contemplation, I consider it an interesting study in grey, red and black. Whatever ones' opinion, I think one cannot deny this photo is 'eye-catching' at the very least.

What could be considered as a lack of meaningful content might place the photo in the semi-abstract category. It's an 'impression'.

What also struck me is that this shot was taken with the rather exotic and expensive Leica M9. Can I suggest it would have been just as good if Michael had used a P&S?

Sometimes one does not want shadow detail. Black is sometimes beautiful.

[DarkPenguin]

hate

[Ben Rubinstein]

hate

+1.

[fredjeang]

May I introduce another point of view in form of a question.
Are we interested to show how much DR we get and how great the details are in the shadows?
Or willfully and hoppefully take a different path that could be less is more.
I guess when a photographer (or whatever) reach maturity in his art or craft, he just takes firm decisions according to what he wants to show,
and that also implicates deciding not showing: I agree with Ray "Sometimes one does not want shadow detail. Black is sometimes beautiful".

[Rob C]

If one has to find fault, it's not with the tonality, which can be whatever the photographer chooses (I think we can safely accept that Michael knows how to control that), my only gripe being the plastic shroud hangin' about on the left. Of course, I wouldn't dream of disturbing the cat who owns it either - why risk la muerte when you don't have to so do?

;- )

Rob C

[fredjeang]

Not bad...the composition.
I've always thought that it is THE Michael strengh.
(sorry for using the pic)
[attachment=21535:red_shirt_compo.jpg]

[Philmar]

Having been to San Miguel for 2 short days last October, I have been looking forward to see Michael's photos from there. As I enjoy much of his work I am extremely interesting to see his take on the same subject. I have to say that this is his first photo of the set that I must say I don't get. That said, I do have many similar shots as this. It looks like a shot I'd take in anticipation of something special - only deciding later that it wasn't.
Hope that doesn't sound harsh or pompous. But having never sold a single print in my life I can fathom that he saw/sees something I don't. That's my subjective 2 cents.
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/phil_mari...57622470811739/

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't particularly like this picture. Sometimes we are attached to a picture. In general I like Michael Reichmann's seeing even if I fail the point in this picture. Other viewers may have different reactions.

Regarding if it would be the same if taken with a P&S we would not see any difference on a PS shot and professional gear in web sized pictures, except possibly larger depth of field related to smaller sensor. Anything above 0.5 MPixel is clearly overqualified for the web. For HD content the limit is 2 MPixel. For anything better you need prints, or peeping pixels.

Also, I would say that a picture is either something you like or you don't. Being well composed or well exposed doesn't make for a better picture. Composition rules are just tools of the trade, like recipes for fried chicken.

Poor workmanship can distract from an image. Mastership in execution, like the stuff Ansel Adams did, actually adds to the image. Craftsmanship is always attractive.

Best regards
Erik

My first reaction to this shot was, it's a bit banal. Not much going on.

However, on further contemplation, I consider it an interesting study in grey, red and black. Whatever ones' opinion, I think one cannot deny this photo is 'eye-catching' at the very least.

What could be considered as a lack of meaningful content might place the photo in the semi-abstract category. It's an 'impression'.

What also struck me is that this shot was taken with the rather exotic and expensive Leica M9. Can I suggest it would have been just as good if Michael had used a P&S?

Sometimes one does not want shadow detail. Black is sometimes beautiful.

[Ray]

The problem with reviews and critiques, in my opinion, is a matter of how to be both honest and constructive. Stating one likes a photo or hates it, might be honest, but unless one offers some explanation as to why one likes or hates the image, no-one learns much and the exercise becomes merely a popularity poll.

I like the contrast of the black areas, the light areas and the small red area, but there's a certain raggedness about those shadows which is a bit distracting and unnecessary, to which Rob alluded.

I like the concept, but its implemenation seems flawed. The only solution I see is a lot of Photoshopping (should that be double p?) which Michael may be against on principle.

Even if the image were extensively photoshopped, it might then be criticised for being too much of a cartoon. On the other hand, perhaps that was Michael's intention; to create a cartoon effect.

[Ray]

Hi,

I don't particularly like this picture. Sometimes we are attached to a picture. In general I like Michael Reichmann's seeing even if I fail the point in this picture. Other viewers may have different reactions.

Regarding if it would be the same if taken with a P&S we would not see any difference on a PS shot and professional gear in web sized pictures, except possibly larger depth of field related to smaller sensor. Anything above 0.5 MPixel is clearly overqualified for the web. For HD content the limit is 2 MPixel. For anything better you need prints, or peeping pixels.

Also, I would say that a picture is either something you like or you don't. Being well composed or well exposed doesn't make for a better picture. Composition rules are just tools of the trade, like recipes for fried chicken.

Poor workmanship can distract from an image. Mastership in execution, like the stuff Ansel Adams did, actually adds to the image. Craftsmanship is always attractive.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
Most of this image consists of either very black shadows or very well-lit areas in sunshine. A P&S camera would handle this very well whether at small jpeg size on screen, or A3+ print. The M9 is not MF.

[ErikKaffehr]

Ray,

I have only one PS-type of camera an 8MP Canon Elph. I'm not really sure it can match a DSLR for A3+ prints, not that I ever tried. My DSLRs just seem to have better image quality, pixel for pixel. Now I know about the experiment Michael Reichmann did with his Canon G10 against his P45 back, so don't need to reiterate ;-) The G10 is not exactly what I would call a P&S camera. Heck even, my Sony Alpha 900 is a Point&Shoot, I can certainly point and certainly shoot and may even get pictures ;-)

The way I see it you never know when you happen to have a great opportunity to make a great picture. So having the best equipment that's convenient to carry is in view generally a good idea.

It is clear that the M9 is not MF, but it certainly has a much larger sensor than any P&S, well except my Sony Alpha 900 :-), and it also has world class lenses. Michael is quite firm on the M9 having better sharpness than the Alpha 900, but also less image quality than this P65. My Alpha 900 with a 24-70/2.8 is about 2.2 kg, I'd presume that you can fit a Leica M9 and three lenses in half of that weight.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
Most of this image consists of either very black shadows or very well-lit areas in sunshine. A P&S camera would handle this very well whether at small jpeg size on screen, or A3+ print. The M9 is not MF.

[michael]

I can see the issue.

I really shouldn't have taken this photograph with an M9. A $300 point and shoot would have been adequate.

I guess owning an expensive camera isn't making me a better photographer after all.  

Michael

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I can see the issue.

I really shouldn't have taken this photograph with an M9. A $300 point and shoot would have been adequate.

I guess owning an expensive camera isn't making me a better photographer after all.  

Michael

You really should buy 20-40 additional cameras of various quality types to match the intended image properly each time.
Of course you are obliged to carry these around with the according lenses as well ...
And when spending this money you could also buy around 60 or 70 new cars of different size, quality and - of course color
to match the various purposes, like driving to the shop, holidays, parking in front of your door ....
You could also hire an elephant with a guide to carry all this stuff around with you ...

Really!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Whats wrong with the M9 as a Point and Shoot? Should we carry a camera for the "great award winning pictures", another one for the "pictures that are not really there" and a third camera for the pictures that don't belong to the first two categories.

Than we ask the subject, 'Sorry, please can you keep your position until I pull out the right camera for taking this picture, don't move, don't fall and do ignore gravity, please!" so we can pull out the equipment qualified for the job and take the picture. Or would we carry some piece of equipment that works decently for all three categories and just click away.

I have four cameras.

A Pentax 67 sitting on the shelf
A Sony Alpha 900 which is my primary camera
A Sony Alpha 700 which acts as backup for the 900, but which I may also take for a walk when I don't want to carry the Alpha and and six lenses.
A Canon Digital Elph, which I use seldom but can have in my pockets

The Alpha 700 using a 16-80 zoom is definitively more convenient for street shooting that the Alpha 900 with its 24-70/2.8 lens. Size matters a lot.


Best regards
Erik

I can see the issue.

I really shouldn't have taken this photograph with an M9. A $300 point and shoot would have been adequate.

I guess owning an expensive camera isn't making me a better photographer after all.  

Michael

[stamper]

What also struck me is that this shot was taken with the rather exotic and expensive Leica M9. Can I suggest it would have been just as good if Michael had used a P&S?

Unquote

What about one camera in one hand and the other in the other hand. That would have been the right way to do a comparison? What I have just stated is silly..... just as the quote is. As to the merits of Michael's image I feel that he is at the photographic stage in his career when he has just about done everything that is "normal"and he now wants to do something unusual and different and he really isn't worried about what others really think? A nice stage to get to after having "proven" yourself consistently over the years?

[Ray]

What about one camera in one hand and the other in the other hand. That would have been the right way to do a comparison? What I have just stated is silly..... just as the quote is. As to the merits of Michael's image I feel that he is at the photographic stage in his career when he has just about done everything that is "normal"and he now wants to do something unusual and different and he really isn't worried about what others really think? A nice stage to get to after having "proven" yourself consistently over the years?

I can't see what the fuss is about here. If someone takes the trouble to mention which camera was used to take a particular photo that is displayed to the public, as Michael has done with this current photo, then it's surely quite in order for someone to comment on that fact. Such a comment might be, "Wow! That Leica M9 sure is a fine camera. Superb dynamic range etc etc".

However, my comment was about the contrast between the apparent technical demands of the image and the technical quality of the camera. It was merely an observation that I thought was worth making because I suspect that increasingly, as cameras get better, a greater percentage of one's images will result from a camera which was unnecessarily bulky, unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily inflexible in its handling.

I made no recommendation that one should lumber oneself with various types of cameras to suit each occasion. It's obviously better to use a camera that's more than adequate for the job than one that's less than adequate for the job. The ideal camera for most occasions would be a P&S camera which is capable of the image quality of a current MFDB. Maybe we'll get there one day.

As regards your comment,

'What about one camera in one hand and the other in the other hand'

now that really would be silly. It's difficult and impractical to operate a camera with one hand, especially with the left hand if one is right handed. But carrying two cameras, one over each shoulder, and/or a P&S in one's pocket when walking around in a busy and interesting place looking for an interesting event or composition, sometimes of an unexpected nature, is not a foolish idea, especially if one of the cameras has the limitations of a rangefinder, such as the M9.

As I understand, there's often a problem in seeing what you get with a rangefinder camera. The viewfinder can give a different impression to what passes through the lens. There's no sense of DoF. With a telephoto lens the image in the viewfinder becomes very small, and with a wide-angle lens you need to clip on a separate, extra-wide viewfinder. This doesn't seem at all ideal to me.

As to the merits of Michael's image I feel that he is at the photographic stage in his career when he has just about done everything that is "normal"and he now wants to do something unusual and different and he really isn't worried about what others really think? A nice stage to get to after having "proven" yourself consistently over the years?

That's a very patronising comment, don't you think? I suspect Michael has been doing exactly what he wants in photography for a good many years now. I don't see this current image as being a break-through in style, but I do wonder if he saw, through that Leica viewfinder, exactly what he was getting when he pressed the shutter.

[stamper]

There is an old adage that goes something like this .... When in a hole stop digging. Your last post indicates you are using a very large shovel.

Quote

I don't see this current image as being a break-through in style, but I do wonder if he saw, through that Leica viewfinder, exactly what he was getting when he pressed the shutter.

Unquote

That is DEFINITELY patronising.

Quote

However, my comment was about the contrast between the apparent technical demands of the image and the technical quality of the camera. It was merely an observation that I thought was worth making because I suspect that increasingly, as cameras get better, a greater percentage of one's images will result from a camera which was unnecessarily bulky, unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily inflexible in its handling.

Unquote

I guess that  DSLR's aren't necessary after all. I will need to look out my 1 mega pixel camera that is almost 10 years old and start using it again?

Quote

As I understand, there's often a problem in seeing what you get with a rangefinder camera. The viewfinder can give a different impression to what passes through the lens. There's no sense of DoF. With a telephoto lens the image in the viewfinder becomes very small, and with a wide-angle lens you need to clip on a separate, extra-wide viewfinder. This doesn't seem at all ideal to me.

Unquote

Michael will you be binning your Leica M9?

Quote

I made no recommendation that one should lumber oneself with various types of cameras to suit each occasion. It's obviously better to use a camera that's more than adequate for the job than one that's less than adequate for the job. The ideal camera for most occasions would be a P&S camera which is capable of the image quality of a current MFDB. Maybe we'll get there one day.

Unquote

An oxymoronic  statement? On one hand you make no recommendations then come up with a description for the ideal camera. Obviously Michael - I am not sucking up to him BTW - used the camera that he thought was "ideal" when he took the image?

[Ray]

There is an old adage that goes something like this .... When in a hole stop digging. Your last post indicates you are using a very large shovel.

Quote

I don't see this current image as being a break-through in style, but I do wonder if he saw, through that Leica viewfinder, exactly what he was getting when he pressed the shutter.

Unquote

That is DEFINITELY patronising.

Quote

However, my comment was about the contrast between the apparent technical demands of the image and the technical quality of the camera. It was merely an observation that I thought was worth making because I suspect that increasingly, as cameras get better, a greater percentage of one's images will result from a camera which was unnecessarily bulky, unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily inflexible in its handling.

Unquote

I guess that  DSLR's aren't necessary after all. I will need to look out my 1 mega pixel camera that is almost 10 years old and start using it again?

Quote

As I understand, there's often a problem in seeing what you get with a rangefinder camera. The viewfinder can give a different impression to what passes through the lens. There's no sense of DoF. With a telephoto lens the image in the viewfinder becomes very small, and with a wide-angle lens you need to clip on a separate, extra-wide viewfinder. This doesn't seem at all ideal to me.

Unquote

Michael will you be binning your Leica M9?

Quote

I made no recommendation that one should lumber oneself with various types of cameras to suit each occasion. It's obviously better to use a camera that's more than adequate for the job than one that's less than adequate for the job. The ideal camera for most occasions would be a P&S camera which is capable of the image quality of a current MFDB. Maybe we'll get there one day.

Unquote

An oxymoronic  statement? On one hand you make no recommendations then come up with a description for the ideal camera. Obviously Michael - I am not sucking up to him BTW - used the camera that he thought was "ideal" when he took the image?

I'm sorry! This thread is about Michael's image, Red shirt in Mexico. I could answer your points, one by one, and we could get into endless debates of one-upmanship.

I'm trying to deconstruct Michael's image to understand it more clearly. I don't hate it, as some have said, but I'm a bit puzzled by the import (meaning).

The rangefinder Leica has disadvantages but also advantages, the principal advantage being the ability to see 'around' the composition and press the shutter at the precise moment a figure moves into place within the composition (provided the lens is right); a reason also why Cartier Bresson used a Leica rangefinder camera.

[stamper]

I'm sorry! This thread is about Michael's image, Red shirt in Mexico. I could answer your points, one by one, and we could get into endless debates of one-upmanship.

I'm trying to deconstruct Michael's image to understand it more clearly. I don't hate it, as some have said, but I'm a bit puzzled by the import (meaning).

The rangefinder Leica has disadvantages but also advantages, the principal advantage being the ability to see 'around' the composition and press the shutter at the precise moment a figure moves into place within the composition (provided the lens is right); a reason also why Cartier Bresson used a Leica rangefinder camera.

Quote

What also struck me is that this shot was taken with the rather exotic and expensive Leica M9. Can I suggest it would have been just as good if Michael had used a P&S?

Unquote

Was this about deconstructing  Michael's image? The "problem" the first poster has in a thread is that he sets the agenda and tone for the thread. What happens afterwards is that posters then reply to it and often it deteriorates - as this one has - into a bit of a mess. You started the ball rolling with the above statement which in truth had little to do with deconstructing the image?

[Ray]

Quote

What also struck me is that this shot was taken with the rather exotic and expensive Leica M9. Can I suggest it would have been just as good if Michael had used a P&S?

Unquote

Was this about deconstructing  Michael's image? The "problem" the first poster has in a thread is that he sets the agenda and tone for the thread. What happens afterwards is that posters then reply to it and often it deteriorates - as this one has - into a bit of a mess. You started the ball rolling with the above statement which in truth had little to do with deconstructing the image?

Absolutely! You got it! This is I believe the clue, the fact that Michael used an M9 rangefinder camera to capture a moving guy in a red shirt at the precise moment for a good composition.

Unfortunately, the moving guy in the red shirt is not a particularly interesting subject, but the general composition leaves one (okay, leaves me) with the impression that there's something right about this image, something that 'clicks into place'.

Unfortunately, I can find no associations beyond that.