I’m supine in a pale blue vinyl chair: fists clenched; toes curled and mouth agape. The whine of the dental hygienist’s hypersonic cleaning tool harmonizes with the gurgling rumble of the vacuum tube suctioning saliva from my throat.
The hygienist leans back slightly, exercising her neck to-and-fro before pausing in mid-stretch to fix her gaze upon my camera, which sits atop my jacket on a counter near my feet.
“Don’t you photographers think life would be more interesting if you actually experienced it, rather than watching it through a viewfinder?” she asked in a tone more accusatory than questioning.
I was speechless. Mostly because her hands were jammed into my mouth, but also because I simply don’t know how to answer a question that’s based entirely on the presumption of two falsities.
Falsity #1 is to assume, just because I have a camera, that I’m a photographer. I’m not. And I know this because every time I see an article titled “10 photos every photographer should know how to take,” I quickly ascertain that I have absolutely no desire to take any of them. Plus, I’d be willing to wager a months’ income that I take fewer photos in a year than any iPhone-toting 20-something dental hygienist.
Falsity #2 is that I walk around looking at the world through a video screen or peering through a viewfinder. All totalled, given the paucity of my output and my own shooting habits, I probably spend less than 5 minutes a month looking through a viewfinder. My camera is an accomplice on my journeys, not a portal through which I experience them. The camera is lifted to my eye only in that brief instant that I wish to frame something intriguing within its rigid rectangular cell — incarcerating it; imprisoning it for future study.
So after removing the fabricated presumptions, her real question should be, “does that camera you always carry around diminish your ability to see and experience your surroundings?”
And the answer, of course, is “No. Just the opposite.” Or, as I eventually muttered to my hygienist, “Mo. Muff vah ahm pah feff.”
Carrying a camera liberates you. It sharpens your eye; heightens your senses and increases your spatial awareness. With a camera, I see beyond the mass of humanity on a packed sidewalk in Shibuya — past the throngs to a single individual, who unmasks himself just long enough to take a drag on a cigarette — a delightfully playful “nine lives” sign in the foreground.
The camera helps me understand that the best way to remember the incongruously out-of-place architecture of Harajuku station is not to take a hackneyed shot of the station, but to photograph the effect it has on others who see it.
Cameras teach me to watch the watchers.
If I didn’t carry a camera, would I have noticed that Tokyo’s ubiquitous clear plastic umbrellas glow like lanterns when backlit?
Would I have observed that those same umbrellas are festooned with tiny stars? Or that peering through one is like looking through a magic window that pierces a cloud-covered sky?
Would I be dazzled by the shapes and shadows cast by something as inconsequential as a stairwell?
Or have become as hyper-aware of juxtaposition as I am now?
As attuned to human emotion?
It’s the camera that allows me to truly see — to truly experience all the subtle nuances that surround me each and every day.
Of course, there are times when I witness events that require absolutely no astuteness whatsoever to appreciate. In such instances, carrying a camera might not help me to see, but it sure helps me to take a photograph.
But even in instances such these, one wonders if there isn’t still an instinctual element at work — one in which intuition and subliminal suggestion are allowed into the subconscious? The subject of the previous photo is, indeed, obvious. And I had numerous opportunities to take it — yet I chose exactly this moment to do so. Why? Perhaps the clue lies at the far right edge of the frame… Yes, cameras even teach you to see and respond to subtleties that your conscious mind simply doesn’t have time to rationalize.
So, would life be more interesting without a camera? I can’t answer for others, but for me, the answer is an emphatic “no.”
©2016 grEGORy simpson
ABOUT THE PHOTOS:
All of these photos were taken on a recent trip to Tokyo and represent the tip of a still-uncurrated iceberg of images. Unfortunately, even though I brought only two lenses to use with my Leica M Monochrom (Type 246), I seemed to have been rather lax at recording which lens I used for which shots. For example, “Shopping Spree” was definitely shot with a Leica 21mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar ASPH lens, but the embedded EXIF data says I used my 35mm Summicron. Note that this is not a Leica bug — it’s an Egor bug. Because the majority of my rangefinder lenses are not coded, I disable the camera’s “auto lens detection” mode, and manually enter the lens type each time I mount a different one. At least that’s what I do in theory. Alas, such was not the case in Tokyo. So, even though “Nine Lives,” “The Art of Artistry,” “Stairway, Shinjuku,” “Chicken or Egg?” and “Window Shopping” were also all shot with the Leica M Monochrom (Type 246), I can’t say for certain whether each uses the 21mm Super-Elmar or the 35mm f/2 Summicron (v4) lens — though the racially different perspectives afforded by these two focal lengths does make it fairly easy to make educated guesses.
“Kabukicho” and “Stargazing” were both photographed under heavy drizzle, so the weather-sealed Olympus OM-D E-M1 was used, along with the Olympus 12mm f/2 lens. Note that the 12mm lens is not, itself, weather sealed — but I’ve never had any issue carrying the camera with the lens pointing down — wiping everything dry now and then with a chamois.
“Room With a View” and “Afternoon Snack” both utilized the little Ricoh GR — which frequently rode shotgun whenever I carried the heavier and bulkier Widelux F7 panoramic film camera.
REMINDER: If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.
I liked all the pictures and hope we are going to get to see more sooner rather than later. Please don’t wait a month, or feel you need to write an entertaining blog to go along with them. (Although I do very much enjoy your style of writing, but it must take significant effort.)
Also, I bought my M type 246, late last year, and am now beginning to get a handle on it. (I have used film Leicas, and the M type 240 up to now). So I wondered what your post processing experience has been like. Could you describe a brief outline? For me, the files seem to require much less work than any previous camera, but perhaps I’m not getting the full capability from it – I like the results though!
Hi Peter:
Thanks for commenting.
I figure there are two types of blogs: 1) Those that are published daily and thus become part of a reader’s daily routine, and 2) those that are published monthly and thus remind readers that it’s time to pay the electric bill. I haven’t yet found the purpose of publishing at any of the tweener frequencies.
But seriously, thanks for the encouragement. Hearing from readers really does inspire me to keep it up — even if my “up” isn’t quite “up” enough.
Congratulations on grabbing an M (246). I realize it’s not the camera for everybody. But for me, because of the extreme importance I place on “timing” and “reacting” to photo opportunities, it’s easily the best digital camera I’ve ever used. It doesn’t hurt that I have zero interest in taking color photos. 🙂
Concerning processing: I just let the picture tell me what it needs. Generally, I think less is more. I dodge a little, burn a little and modify the contrast as needed. I have a “five minute” rule when it comes to post-processing. If I find myself spending more than 5 minutes working on an image, then I stop, begin again, and pursue a different path. The great thing about the M 246 files is that they are so malleable. Curiously, all but 3 of the photos that accompany this article (which contains photos from three different cameras) were processed with Snapseed and/or Filterstorm on an iPad. While in Tokyo, I was publishing a daily travelogue for friends and family and all I had with me was an iPad. My plan was to re-process the photos when I got home, but I ended up growing accustom to seeing them as originally rendered. In the end, I tended to prefer the quick-and-dirty, warts-and-all iPad edits to the more carefully crafted, higher-fidelity edits that I did at home.
Hi Egor,
Thanks for your response. Some things there for me to keep in mind. I agree that the files from the M 246 are very malleable, but they also seem to have a starting point well beyond any other files (perhaps partly due to the lack of any colour distraction).
Well, hello Egor. I tend to prefer quality over quantity, and very very few blogs related to photography provide that. It is your blog, post when you think you have something worthwhile to say and show, add some of your gentle humour, and I will read and look.
Also, your strict preference for b&w is encouraging to me as I can not make up my mind between colour and b&w.
Best/Mattias
Mattias:
That quantity vs. quality balance is a difficult one. I always strive toward the quality side, but have definitely avoided rigid adherence to the goal — otherwise, I’d have published only about a dozen articles and photos in the past eight years… 😉
I find achieving the color vs B&W balance to be much easier. In my particular case, I have no choice but to shoot in black and white, because I’m absolutely horrible at color. This actually works out quite nicely — because if I were to list my 100 favourite photographs of all time, I’m rather certain all 100 would be B&W.
I hope I was clear Egor. I meant to say that the quality of your writing and images is fine to me, higher than most. That’s why I enjoy visiting. Don’t worry about quantity.
I should comment on this particular post as well because it rings true to me. John Sypal over at Tokyo Camera Style and his other blog Valerian, often argues that interesting photos (to him) more often occur when you integrate photography with life, or live life through photography. It obviously requires a camera that is always with you and is being used without too much worry about perfection, whatever that means. I can not say I succeed at this myself, but I sympathise with that position, as well as with your thoughts above.
Mattias
Hi Egor!
Are you shooting any film any more (besides the Widelux)? Or is the Monochrom so good that it has replaced your film Leicas?
I ask this as I am currently feeling the pull of film again, and can’t quite decide if I want to spend my money slowly (film costs, etc) or just very quickly (Monochrom) and be done with it.
Great photos, as usual!
Hi Hank
Regarding the slow vs. fast flushing of capital: as you might expect, you won’t get any good advice from me… If you told me I had to relinquish every camera except for one, I’d definitely keep the new Monochrom M (246). I can guarantee I’ll take more “good” photos with this camera over the next several years than with all my other cameras combined. But if you told me that the camera I kept had to last for the rest of my life, I’d have to reconsider. Will it still work in 10 years? Will it still be supported? Hence one of the allures of film…
And, to answer your first question, “yes, I’m still shooting film.” In fact, I’ve shot film to the complete exclusion of digital for the past two months (it’s curious how “new” film cameras keep finding their way into ULTRAsomething HQ). I tend to go through mood swings. When I get ensconced in shooting digital, I think “why would I ever bother shooting film again?” And when I get ensconced in shooting film, I think the opposite. I used to worry about such things. Now I just sort of swing with the pendulum.
“Plus, I’d be willing to wager a months’ income that I take fewer photos in a year than any iPhone-toting 20-something dental hygienist.”
…I laughed out loud when I read that. You hit the nail on the head. Most people aren’t noticing much of anything with their gadget glued to their face, texting or taking a million instagram photos a day. As well as they aren’t actually communicating in person to one another because of that same gadget.
There’s no way anyone would have ever noticed those little stars on that umbrella unless they were actually ‘experiencing’ what was going on around them. You did. Little miss dentist probably would NOT have 😛
Thanks for sharing.
Oh, man! Give her a break: actually she cleaned Egor’s teeth using her eyes (and brain) only. So maybe she’s probably not so bad in spotting details of the world around her.
Hi Egor
Great photos and article! I’m interested to learn how to put photos from the MM 246 onto an iPad? Did you load raw or jpegs onto your iPad?
Thanks.
Rosie
Hi Rosie. Thanks for commenting.
The problem, as you well know, is that Leica does not embed a JPG preview larger than a thumbnail into its RAW files. This means, of course, that you need to find a decent work-around if you want to view images straight from the SD card on your iPad. The two most common ways are 1) to shoot RAW+JPG and 2) to use a RAW converter app on the iPad.
The method I use depends upon my needs for that particular project. In the case of Japan, I only needed to process a few photos a day for my travelogue, so I shot RAW only (no JPG) and used an iPad app called “PhotoRaw” to convert only those images I thought might be of interest. In general, I’ve never enjoyed hassling with the added workflow complexities of shooting RAW+JPG, since my real work is always done on the Mac back home. However, should I have need to actually see and evaluate ALL my shots while traveling, then I bite the bullet and shoot RAW+JPG — that way I can easily view every image shot with a digital M on an iPad… or I bite the bullet even harder, and just drag along a MacBook Pro… 🙂
Hi Egor
Thanks for the info. Can I ask you about the MacBook? I thought Photos crashed when importing from MM246?
At the moment I am shooting RAW + JPEG whilst I learn about the camera and only the RAW imports into Lightroom with the JPEG on the hard drive. I haven’t used LR on my Macbook yet although I know I can download LR6 onto my Macbook. I find that I sometimes manage a good shot although its a bit hit and miss at the moment!
Regards
Rosie
Rosie:
Apple fixed the M (246) import bug nearly a year ago (about two weeks after the camera was released), so that is no longer an issue — though it does highlight the ever-annoying problem of trying to figure out which parts of articles posted on the internet are still relevant upon future reading…
Regarding Lightroom: There are several preferences available that enable you to define how Lightroom deals with RAW+JPG imports. Some preferences allow you to import both, but display only the JPG. Others let you import both and display them as two separate files. I only ever shoot RAW, so it’s not an issue for me. But in those rare instances that I do need to shoot RAW+JPG, I have Lightroom configured to display BOTH versions, as if they were two separate photos.
And finally, regarding the “hit and miss” nature of photography — well, that’s what makes it FUN, isn’t it? 🙂
Reading this, I think that you have your answer to why you take photos.