A few from Charleston with the Leica Q

D

dalethorn

Guest
A few new samples with the Leica Q: I really like shooting art galleries from the outside looking in, since there's so much going on in the limited space. This one is inside of a hotel's retail area, replacing a Brookstone store, and I doubt it will last out the year. The bridge is a favorite of mine, looking toward the loading docks on the North side of Charleston (not North Charleston). The park scene was just a test, although I like the lights on the trees ... I don't generally get good results with high ISO photos at night with any camera shooting JPEG only, but this one isn't bad if you don't look too close.

Leica Q, f5.6, 1/25 handheld, ISO 200.
Bw_Charleston_Art_Gallery01_s.jpg


Leica Q, f2.8, 1/3 sec. braced, ISO 200.
Bw_Charleston_Bridge03_s.jpg


Leica Q, f5.6, 1/15 handheld, ISO 1600.
Mtpleasant_Park19_s.jpg
 
A few new samples with the Leica Q: I really like shooting art galleries from the outside looking in, since there's so much going on in the limited space. This one is inside of a hotel's retail area, replacing a Brookstone store, and I doubt it will last out the year. The bridge is a favorite of mine, looking toward the loading docks on the North side of Charleston (not North Charleston). The park scene was just a test, although I like the lights on the trees ... I don't generally get good results with high ISO photos at night with any camera shooting JPEG only, but this one isn't bad if you don't look too close.

Leica Q, f5.6, 1/25 handheld, ISO 200.
Bw_Charleston_Art_Gallery01_s.jpg


Leica Q, f2.8, 1/3 sec. braced, ISO 200.
Bw_Charleston_Bridge03_s.jpg


Leica Q, f5.6, 1/15 handheld, ISO 1600.
Mtpleasant_Park19_s.jpg
I see nothing special here...
 
Yes, that bridge shot is very nice.

Also, I too would like a better explanation of "I see nothing special here".

i was raised on the philosophy that if you have nothing good to say, maybe you should just move on. on the other hand, when we are public with our work, i do understand the concept of constructive criticism. unfortunately in the 'i see nothing special here' post, we get neither common courtesy nor intellectual critique. perhaps the author is not capable of either? if so, we should encourage him to refrain from speaking.
 
i was raised on the philosophy that if you have nothing good to say, maybe you should just move on. on the other hand, when we are public with our work, i do understand the concept of constructive criticism. unfortunately in the 'i see nothing special here' post, we get neither common courtesy nor intellectual critique. perhaps the author is not capable of either? if so, we should encourage him to refrain from speaking.

It's a common thing on some forums, so no surprise to see on occasion here. Worded differently, it might just say "Could you explain what you were aiming for..." or something like that. I should have assumed that myself.
 
I'm genuinely interested in what that person thinks, if it not just be a drive by slam. Maybe they do have something constructive to say, but with that kind of nebulous response, how can we learn? It might be a legitimate perspective that we can learn from.

If not, we'll get to know that the response was done in malice for some reason.

Either way, it is back on the responder now to clarify which. Otherwise, I can let my imagination run wild and draw my own opinion. I'm sure they do not want that. :)
 
Last edited:
My guess, and it's ONLY a guess, is that Doug was talking more about not seeing anything special in the camera's IQ rather than commenting on the quality of the photographs. He's not a frequent poster, but he's been around a while and I've never seen any malice from the guy at all. Who knows - maybe he's thinking about a Q and trying to talk himself out of buying one.... That would a phenomenon I'm not at all unfamiliar with!

-Ray
 
My guess, and it's ONLY a guess, is that Doug was talking more about not seeing anything special in the camera's IQ rather than commenting on the quality of the photographs. He's not a frequent poster, but he's been around a while and I've never seen any malice from the guy at all. Who knows - maybe he's thinking about a Q and trying to talk himself out of buying one.... That would a phenomenon I'm not at all unfamiliar with!
-Ray

Could be - makes me think I shoulda asked the question instead of just reacting.
 
this thread needs more photos and less talk about the unnecessary blast. And I don't have any idea WHY, but I really dig the first one. It has a smoothness to it that I like (whatever that means).

The first (the art gallery) was one of those 'instinct' things. Normally I have the camera set to color, but when I got the idea to capture this one, the layout, the lighting .... whatever it was, said "black and white". So I shot it that way. I see that a lot of photographers who shoot in color will do black and white conversions in software, presumably to get better tonal gradations? Anyway, I set it to Monochrome and set the contrast to low, and the images provide pretty good flexibility in adjustments.
 
I have been debating purchasing this camera.....

It's a good combination of ultra simplicity and very high quality. It really reminds me of my Leica M6 film camera, or Rollei 35 (although the Rollei was smaller) - those were my favorites for film, and for digital this 'Q' is growing on me...
 
Back
Top