Range Finders, Film and Photojournalism

B

biggambi

Vivere!
Local time
4:28 PM
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
134
I am hoping to get some first hand insight from Photojournalists. How do you see the Leica M9 (or any range finder camera) fitting into the world of photojournalism? Leica has such a rich history in photojournalism, and I am interested in knowing if it will continue. Are you seeing it being used in new ways? Are there still those who are looking to it as a primary source for producing images? If you feel it no longer has a place in your profession, can you give the primary reason as to why?

When looking at film and the quality of the images. My question is why did film cease to meet your needs? Is it conveyance of the images to the editor and the printing press (a digital work flow, and the ability to email images etc.)?

Thank you, in advance for those who choose to post.
 
I have several Leicas. But my need professionally is a rugged, versatile system that will handle a broad range of assignments in a given day. The DSLR is the best tool for that. Others who shoot more specific subjects will have a different opinion, of course.
 
PW: Is the rugged aspect mainly possible water infiltration or is it actual durability when being knocked around? If it is durability, did you or someone you know experience failure in the field? Also, if you take the digital work flow out of this equation. Would film still capture everything to meet your image needs? thanks
 
If you didnt know, this year's world press photo winner shot his on a M6/Tri-X... film is alive and well in the photojournalist world if thats not proof I dont know what is.
 
his year's world press photo winner shot his on a M6/Tri-X"

I'm not sure how this indicates film is alive and well in the photojournalist world.
 
we need to define "photojournalism" here.

you can be covering the independence day parade for the Pawtucket Gazette

you can be shooting wire for Mavrix or Bloomberg

you can be working prospectively for AP image banks

you can be shooting long term assignments to pitch after

you can be working with specifics for a mag

you can be doing a bit of everything
 
The rangefinder/M model just isn't going to find a place in the world of daily metro newspapers.
I'm not a PJ, but I do work with a lot of them on staff.
There is a simple fiscal reality that stands in the way of newspaper photographers using Leicas: Newspapers don't have the money to equip staffers with Leicas and the expensive glass that goes with them.
Frankly, it's just silly investment when Nikons and Canons do the job quite well. DSLRs are generally cheaper and definitely more versatile.

But even if they had the money, it wouldn't happen. Given a choice, a newspaper would be much more interested in buying digital cameras that also shoot video than in buying archaic rangefinders.

I wish these things weren't true. But I don't see any other way around it.
 
Industries are on budget and try to save on office coffee, let cameras alone; only enthusiasts invest spare money into gear for pleasure. That is my take.
 
emraphoto said:
we need to define "photojournalism" here.

you can be covering the independence day parade for the Pawtucket Gazette

you can be shooting wire for Mavrix or Bloomberg

you can be working prospectively for AP image banks

you can be shooting long term assignments to pitch after

you can be working with specifics for a mag

you can be doing a bit of everything
Click to expand...

Tru Dat! (Sorry - I've been listening to allot of Hip-Hop music today)

Basically, for some aspects of the industry you can use a rangefinder but for the meat and potatoes of it most folks, for practical and fiscal reasons, use a DSLR. That "D" part is pretty important.
 
emraphoto said:
we need to define "photojournalism" here.

you can be covering the independence day parade for the Pawtucket Gazette

you can be shooting wire for Mavrix or Bloomberg

you can be working prospectively for AP image banks

you can be shooting long term assignments to pitch after

you can be working with specifics for a mag

you can be doing a bit of everything
Click to expand...

I see no sense in pigeonholing it. If it works in one area, but not another area of photojournalism. That is germane to the question at hand. So, within these subcategories, have you found a rangefinder system meets your needs?
 
So far, it would seem that for the daily newspaper reporter. The system no longer works. But, I am getting the sense that it may still be a viable tool when used on long term assignment for magazine publication? Or, as categorized above, long term assignments to pitch afterwards? Are these areas that one supplies their own equipment more often then not?
 
biggambi said:
I see no sense in pigeonholing it. If it works in one area, but not another area of photojournalism. That is germane to the question at hand. So, within these subcategories, have you found a rangefinder system meets your needs?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of ways this discussion can go. Too many to get into really.

My point is, in a nutshell, there are many facets of "photojournalism". Some require different gear than others. I have worked in situations where a big ole Nikon and a 24-70 is not going to cut it. Perhaps even hazordous to ones health.

So, again it depends on what you define as photojournalism. If it's a Jack of all trade then that is going to effect your decision making process. Personally I think the Jack of all trades stringer/freelancer press market is flooded to the point of exhaustion. If you are wishing to compete in that market I wish you luck.

I shoot on rangefinders and have carved out specific look and niche. In that case the rangefinders have worked very well. I rarely have to file within hours (twice in the last year) and depend heavily on magazine sales/comissions, grant money and AP/CP/AFP image banks. In the circumstances I find myself working the rangefinder has proven a valuable tool. Film as well.

Now how does that fit into your idea of "photojournalism"? It could be totally irrelevent and that is my point.

An interesting point. If I absolutely could NOT shoot film I would not stick with the rangefinder system.
 
biggambi said:
So far, it would seem that for the daily newspaper reporter. The system no longer works. But, I am getting the sense that it may still be a viable tool when used on long term assignment for magazine publication? Or, as categorized above, long term assignments to pitch afterwards? Are these areas that one supplies their own equipment more often then not?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes and yes.
 
emraphoto said:
There is a lot of ways this discussion can go. Too many to get into really.

My point is, in a nutshell, there are many facets of "photojournalism". Some require different gear than others. I have worked in situations where a big ole Nikon and a 24-70 is not going to cut it. Perhaps even hazordous to ones health.

So, again it depends on what you define as photojournalism. If it's a Jack of all trade then that is going to effect your decision making process. Personally I think the Jack of all trades stringer/freelancer press market is flooded to the point of exhaustion. If you are wishing to compete in that market I wish you luck.

I shoot on rangefinders and have carved out specific look and niche. In that case the rangefinders have worked very well. I rarely have to file within hours (twice in the last year) and depend heavily on magazine sales/comissions, grant money and AP/CP/AFP image banks. In the circumstances I find myself working the rangefinder has proven a valuable tool. Film as well.

Now how does that fit into your idea of "photojournalism"? It could be totally irrelevent and that is my point.

An interesting point. If I absolutely could NOT shoot film I would not stick with the rangefinder system.
Click to expand...

This is what I have heard from other serious photojournalists, including one with numerous press awards won using Leicas.

But this is a religious argument: Faith vs. Works. You are not going to persuade amateurs who are suffering from severe hardening of the categories.

Cheers,

R.
 
Now we have a broader sense of where the rangefinder does still fit. The hole purpose of this post, was to make an inquiry beyond conjecture. I can easily assume the reasons why it does not work in certain aspects of photojournalism. The "video" was the one surprise for me, as I had not taken it into account. I understand the system would not work for sports, and daily news reportage. But, I could not understand, how it would not work at all in the field of photojournalism. This is why I refused to narrow the definition. It just seemed to broad of a field. Yet, I have read many posts in this forum that would lead one to believe this is the case. That Leica rangefinders have no place in the professional photojournalists workplace. So, if you want answers ask those who work in the field.

My conclusion to this point, is that the rangefinder still has a place in photojournalism. It just appears to be not as broad of a place. Therefore, we need to be careful when speaking in absolutes when using such wide definitions.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Would film still capture everything to meet your image needs?

Photojournalism? What is that?

FYI, I have called myself a PJ from the very beginning (don't ask!), and my take on the loose definition of this vogueish teminology then was that it applied to anyone who was professionally engaged in telling a story with photographs, that a certain intellect was also required which enabled PJs to at least write a meaningful caption with some literacy - and all this simply to differentiate between the remit of a 'photographer' (them what apparently can't string six words together for a caption, according to an old and now retired AP stringer.)

PJs might also be required to write the longer story, to provide some interesting (or otherwise) text support for the images to be published. Then again, PJs could also write and produce books of their imagery.

Now we get to the tools.

Does the Leica rangefinder have a place in today's photojournalism?

You might as well ask, do the sable hair brushes an artist has used for a lifetime have a place on his easel today.

What car do you drive? Why? What hammer do you use to bang the nail in the wall with?

Some photographers have favourite tools. I own a string of different format gear. It all has a purpose; some of it has not been off the shelf for years, but I'll know when a shot comes along that really needs it. Some of my best work has been done with rangefinders; why? 'Cos I like the way they feel in the hand and I know how to use them. So for this PJ it's not a question of 'do they have a place?'. It's automatic, they go with me. I know I'm gonna need'em. And the film too.

:)

Jonathan

www.ajaxnetphoto.com
http://archive.ajaxnetphoto.com/main.php
 
In the end, it's all about the image (and, even moreso, the photographer's ability to get the right image to the right publication in the right timeline). I did newspaper feature photography thorugh the 1990s, preferred rangefinders but carried SLRs about half the time, and it didn't really make a difference as to the quality of the image because of the other variables in photojournalism.

Newspapers always have been notorious for treating photojournalism as a commodity. Spend hours crafting, editing and fact-checking a written article, then spend about 11 seconds slapping on a wire image or grabbing one of the staff photog's shots. This isn't universal - there always are good photo editors out there and editors who appreciate photography. But for speed, convenience and cost, newspapers used Speed Graphics during the rangefinder era, went SLR in the 1960s and digital SLR by the early 2000s. I've seen books from the 1950s that draw a sharp distinction between photojournalism (telling a story with photographs) and newspaper photography (getting a single image that tells the story).

By and large the customer (editor of newspaper, magazine, wire photo desk, picture agency) doesn't care about the technology so much as the image itself. This is especially true in the post-darkroom era. SLRs have dominated the photo business since 1960s. But there always are photographers who win major awards or get major audiences using rangefinders and other non mainstream equipment. (There's an award winning combat photographer who uses consumer small-chip non-interchangeable-lens digitals; there also a few years back was a DC photojournalist who took magazine pictures of the president, congressional hearings and other news events using a Speed Graphic.

And a few passionate photographers always have won awards and business with rangefinders, film or digital. The kinds of photographers who are fully dedicated to both the craft and ethics of photojournalism are the ones who win awards and get recognition from their peers. Sometimes, but not always, these are the people who care enough about their mental and physical relationship with the camera itself that they gravitate to Leicas or some other specialty camera. On the other hand, these same people often care so much about the image process, about the human interaction that goes into getting such images, that the camera they're using is largely irrelevant. They would take masterful, memorable photographs with Speed Graphics, Canon G10s, Leicas, or their niece's $34.99 pink Barbie digicam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top