The Leica as Teacher

Apropos the video we linked the other day, I would just like to throw this out there for what little it's worth...if any young or beginning photographer of real ambition within the sound of my voice would like to radically improve his or her photography quickly and efficiently, I suggest shooting with nothing but a Leica and one lens for a year. Shoot one type of black-and-white film (yes, even if you're completely devoted to color and digital, and hate film and everything it stands for. You don't have to commit to this forever; it's an exercise). Pick a single-focal-length 50mm, or 35mm, or 28mm. It doesn't have to be a "good" lens—anything that appeals to you and that fits the camera will do. Carry the camera with you all day, every day. Shoot at least two films a week. Four or six is better (or shoot more in the spring and fall and less in the dead of summer and winter). The more time you spend shooting, the better. The amount of film you shoot is related but not so important. (Photographing is like jogging: benefit accrues to time spent doing it, not how fast you go or how much ground you cover.)

Proof the rolls of film by contact and file them sequentially in a notebook. Get or make between one and six workprints per roll, however you choose to do it (even if you scan your picks and look at the pictures on a computer screen), and, every five or ten rolls or so, have one nice print made, or make it yourself. Craft well, but don't crop and don't fuss; just take what the camera gives you.

If you don't like this idea, no need to get all scornful or whimpery with me. If there are, say, 30,000 people reading this (approximately our average daily readership, an astounding fact that still mystifies me), a couple of thousand might think this suggestion is a sound one; 50 to 100 might read this and sincerely intend to follow the suggestion; and, maybe, one, two, or three people will actually follow through and do it. So if you're among the other 28,000, no need to bother defending or rationalizing your opposition. You're solidly in the majority as it is.

But I'll say this: A year with a single Leica and a single lens, looking at light and ignoring color, will teach you as much about actually seeing photographs as three years in any photo school, and as much as ten or fifteen years (or more) of mucking about buying and selling and shopping for gear like the average hobbyist.

At the end of your year, sell the Leica and go back to doing whatever you really want to do, whether it's full-frame digital or a digicam and Potatochopping or whatever it is. I guarantee you will be a much better photographer after you finish the year than you were before you started. You just will be. It's a promise.

I'm not trying to be didactic or contrarian or provocative here. What I say is simply true.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Mike adds: In response to many of the comments, no, it doesn't have to be a Leica—except if you want to take my advice, in which case it does have to be. Must be, in fact. There are half a dozen excellent reasons why. I'll try not to get my feelings hurt that people would think I'd specify something like that (in the title of the post no less) without good reason. Of course, no one is under the slightest obligation to take my advice, and many people would want to modify my suggestions to suit their own taste.

Also, contrary to popular belief, Leicas for projects such as this are not costly; they're free. Or very close to it. Although, if you find yourself suddenly interested in buying a Leica from Ebay, I'd suggest waiting a few weeks so you won't be bidding against other people who have also just read this post.

Comments

[Mike Peters]

Say it loud, say it proud! Any fully manual camera, preferably without a built in meter, will do.

[iwert]

I started like this with a pen FT and the standard 38mm lens I bought second hand (just because I found it such a beauty, didn't know anything about cameras, the 72 exposures on one roll were another reason :), and learned a lot. It does not have to be a leica, just a manual film camera rather compact to always carry with you, even a simple isolette would do (that I started using after the FT).

[Don Parsons]

I couldn't agree more Mike. When I started carrying my Pentax MX with me everywhere I went all the time, I started shooting more film. The more film I shot, the more I saw.

You could even let them use 2 lenses, but only carry one out the door.

I also like the 1-film approach. This really teaches you to get the most from your roll. You try stuff that you wouldn't with digital.

I love digital, but while you're in the early stages of learning to make pictures, I feel this approach will work the best.

don

[Mike]

Mike, I fear this will be unpopular but true. It doesn't even need to be a Leica, a Zeiss Ikon or Bessa or anything that's similar would be fine I think - same principle as the lens. Of course, the biggest difficulty isn't just the shopping gene, but the desire to have everything now that we have become inculcated with. We have come to believe that we have a right to be able to buy anything - but like jogging, running or athletics you only get out in proportion to the effort you put in (the constants in the proportionalty are probably talent and making more or less appropriate effort).

I bought a Zorki 4K out of curiosity and that led to a ZI as I liked the way of working but my glasses didn't get on with the Zorki's finder. Since then my dslrs have been quite neglected, only being used where I need to do something the rf can't.

Mike

[Mike]

And another thought - whilst I love the rf, I also used a Ricoh GX100 exclusively for a while and again it made a huge difference to my photography. My modus operandi was simple - set the step zoom to 35mm equivalent using the custom my mode. Iso 100 and stick a great big old russian turret finder in the hotshoe.

Sadly that camera now 'belongs' to my wife... but the same impact from working with only one restricted approach.

Mike

[Barb]

I don't think it has to be a Leica. And thank goodness for that - I can't afford to look at a Leica, let alone the lens that goes on it. But using any camera with a single lens for weeks or months at a time is an excellent exercise.

[rolleimike]

A very interesting idea. However, I cannot afford a Leica, so I'm going to have to make do with a Rollei 3.5F. Heck, it's my favorite camera anyway. I hope at the end of the year I'll have something to show you.

[steven House]

I'd like to read some reasoning behind this idea. Why Leica? Why film? The film I can perhaps understand as you probablt mean to slow shooting down and make it more thoughtful, but the Leica thing I don't get. I've never owned one or even tried one.

[Michael]

What you are saying is absolutely true. I have been shooting large format film for a bit over a year and what a difference it has made. I went from mostly color to almost entirely B&W and the quality of the photographs has risen dramatically. For most of the time I shot with a single 210mm lens.

[Charly]

A 35mm 2.5 has kept me happy for 2 years as my only camera - and I couldn't agree more. charlyburnett.com for some examples and I'll upload some more soon I promise!

[Brian]

I bought a Leica M3 last year for exactly this reason. Black and White, no meter. I don't know whether I'm a better photographer because of it, but I sure know a heck of a lot more than I did before about light and how a camera reacts to it.

[psu]

Using a Leica for this seems like an expensive way to go. There are other instruments that would work perfectly well for the same purpose. Using a D40 and generating black and white jpegs will teach you as much as using a Leica and Tri-X. Maybe more.

The point is to follow the discipline, not to use particular tools in particular ways. IMHO.

[Jon Bloom]

That's pretty much how I started except shooting Kodachrome instead of black-and-white, using a Leica (IIIf, I think) I inherited from my grandfather. The grounding I got in the technical principles and, to a lesser degree, artistic principles from that approach still benefits me some 40 years later. ("A lesser degree" because I was pretty much groping with composition and light -- and still am.)

[Martin Doonan]

I'm sure I've read that advice here before...

While I'm probably too old to be young and about 20 years past a beginner, I'd say it worked for me.

Bought my Zeiss Ikon about a year ago & a 40mm. rather than daily, I use it in bursts - about 4 rolls in a week once a month. I probably see more photographs quicker than ever before with any camera and enjoy the act of going out photographing more than ever.

[Dennis]

Does it have to be a Leica? =P

I've been tossing around the idea of buying a OM-2N and 35/2.8 and learning how to develop black and white film instead of buying a LX-3/G10/m43/whatever.

[Mike Owen]

"shooting with nothing but a Leica and one lens for a year"

Perhaps your readership is a lot more well-heeled than I am, but a Leica is expensive and so are the lenses. They are WAY beyond the budget of the average "young" photographer (keeping in mind there will always be be rich young amateurs, but they are the exception). Not to mention, encouraging young photographers that a particular brand of camera will help their photography is garbage. Why not a Voigtlander? A Contax? How about saying "a rangefinder." Or, what about a Nikon FM? Who cares what brand/model/type? Why not just say "I encourage you to minimize the gear you are using, and perhaps try one lens, one film, and one camera?"

[Stan B.]

Only "quarrel" is that even a used Leica can be expensive- any used, manual 35mm body with some decent glass will do...

[Spiny Norman]

This is true. Or it was for me, anyway.

For me it happened later, and it was Kodachrome 64, nothing but. I had up to that point shot almost entirely black and white film; I wanted to learn color, and I wanted to do it with a film that was not forgiving of poor exposure. But I learned a hell of a lot that way.

[Sean Murphy]

Deja Vu and very true!

I had that teacher years back, packed into a summer course in college, B&W only (but about a roll a day), process your own, yep contact em, bring 4 clean workpints a week to a critique, did nothing but photography full time for 16 weeks...

The prof was kind of a martinet (well I thought an ass at the time) no zooms, no switching lenses, no cropping. He's pull a print down off the wall in critique, "That's a picture of a lens!" if it used a zoom or different lens than your other work. The darkroom attendant though (called himself The Cosmic Viper) had a great eye and a lot of patience for teaching printing.

But the point of this memory digression is that such concentration with "limitation" will improve your photographic eye, and I'd only add to show your work to others as well. Feedback can be valuable.

[Michal Daniel]

Been there, done that, for way more than a year. What you just handed out for free is indeed the best advice anyone could buy! Nothing taught me more than that Leica with one lens, Tri-X, proofs and work prints. Golden, golden advice! Everyone who does this will thank you!!

[Christopher Perez]

Right on! Excellent advice.

At middle age and after three decades of shooting 4x5, 8x10, 11x17, 12x20, and a ton of Rollei TLR, I'd made little to no progress that I could be proud of. In my case, instead of a Leica, I started with a Canon Point and Shoot digital shot the entire time on its widest focal length. I shot easily 1000 images a month for two years. Each self imposed "assignment" was carefully reviewed and shared with others for gathering feedback. I caught up on the state of the art in image tools. I learned to ignore the camera and pay attention to the light (and composition).

I'm now well into my fifth decade on this planet and I suddenly have found myself sharing my work in Minor White's old CamerWork gallery, published in LensWork (Extended #78), and have one of my portfolios accepted by the Center for Fine Art Photography in Ft. Collins, CO for their third annual book (along with 14 other artists this year).

In short, Mike, your approach works! And it works BRILLIANTLY, regardless of where one is in photographic life.

[V.I. Voltz]

I did this in response to Mike suggesting it back in the mid 1990s. I never changed. More than a decade has passed. 90% of what I do is still done with a Leica and a 50 mm lens and Fuji Neopan 400 or Tri-X. I did change from a 50/2 Summicron to a 50/2 Hexanon because I liked the latter lens better, but that was a minor modification.

I now have an M8 and a few more lenses, but one thing that working for a long time with one camera and one lens taught me was that the times when I really need a different lens or approach are few.

Voltz

[Will]

What you say is indeed true, but certainly not financially viable for most people, like it or not. Thus, I offer this sub-$1000 recession time compromise plan:

Buy a body-only Nikon D60 ($499 at B&H; sure you could get the D40 with a kit zoom for the same price, but then you'd just be tempted to use that zoom. Plus, the extra megapixels aren't a bad thing to have) and the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX prime ($199 when it is back in stock). Add a 4gb card and an extra battery, and for less than $800 before shipping or tax, you've got a nice kit that's small enough to take everywhere, is versatile, and that you can shoot endlessly with no additional costs. It could also work well (better?) with a K2000d, K200d or K20d and the 21, 35, or 40mm DA Limited. There are certainly Canon and Sony equivalents as well, though without primes that are as well-suited to the job.

Shoot JPEG set to black and white to really follow the spirit of Mike's (entirely sound) suggestion, to keep you looking at light. Shoot only in manual, and manually focus as much as you can.

This plan requires a bit more in the way of self-control, but costs less than the Leica without any lens and before film costs (which, over a year, would be substantial). It isn't as good a plan by any means, but times are tough, and it gets you most of the way there.

[Jacob Tarr]

Ok I'm game! Unfortunately I'm going to have to substitute the Leica for a Voigtländer with my trusty 40mm. In truth I started this exercise around a year ago when I first got into black and white analogue printing, and It really has done wonders for the way I see photography. Such a simple step as limiting myself to one focal length has enabled me to see potential images everywhere, with a good idea of framing before the camera even reaches my eye. Just wish I could afford that lovely ikon you're always on about!

Regards,
Jacob

[Damon Schreiber]

It is a good idea (which I won't do). This is probably the purest way to discover photography and improve ones skills. Other cameras besides a Leica would work just as well. A Spotmatic or K100 would do the trick also.

Many other photo exercises will also work to improve one's skills. If Mike's idea is too daunting, try just a simple photoblog, a photo per day for one year. Your best work every day. I don't guarantee results, but it can't hurt.

[Jack Nelson]

Mike,

Good advice. I did it... sort of... not a Leica or rangefinder, but I shot many years years doing black and white on a manual SLR with only on one prime lens (out of economic necessity more than anything else). I shoot digital now and have for years. Mostly in color but for the last year or two in b&w and I'll vouch for the fact that shooting b&w is good for your "eye" and shooting with a prime I think is good to develop your composition skills.

[William]

Dear Mike, glad you brought this up because I am actually on a kick similar to this except that instead of a Leica I have a Pentax LX and I am saving for a 43 Limited. This camera lens combo is small, so I can carry it with me without hassle, it is high quality; by the way the manual focus feel on the 43 is the best of all the Pentax limiteds that I had a chance to play with in the camera shop, and the LX offers aperture priority AE, a feature that I feel doesn't hinder the learning process as long as one understands the limitations of their cameras meter. I have a box of Diafine waiting to be mixed up and will use it to process Tri-X in my bathroom. These supplies are cheap and easy to use (I used this combo for a very short time several years ago when I had a Nikon FE and 50). And the frames I want to have a better look at I can have scanned cheaply and look at them on my computer. Furthermore, I am in a great position for this exercise as I moved from Seattle to Tokyo for a 2 year study program, so I have endless subjects and availability of supplies (except that Diafine is not sold here, I brought mine from Seattle).

Ultimately to do the project properly like you explain one would want to have at least a couple thousand dollars to get the leica body + lens you describe and have access to a dark room to make contact and proof prints. Ideally I would love to do that but it is not an option for me. But I am pretty sure the LX+43+Tri-X+Diafine+scanning will give me similar educational benefits.

Anyway, I DO see the point behind this kind of exercise and appreciate seeing you recommend it. Especially amid all of the obsessing over the latest digital technology (I obsess plenty myself), and how much that detracts from doing photography.

Thanks for your great blog!
~William

[fallon]

Mike,

Great idea. Started out doing "serious" photography with a OM-1 and a 50mm lens this way. Got away from photography. Now ready to get back to it....perhaps a Leica? So tempting.

...or perhaps that wonderful OM-1 and quality Zuiko glass...squirreled away in the basement!

[Martin Q.]

For those of us with less change jangling in our pockets, would a compact all-manual film SLR (like the OM-1 or the K1000) do? I like the notion of this experiment and hope that the real benefit of it is in learning how to "see" with a consistent and reliable manually-controlled instrument, which hopefully is not limited to multi-kilobuck camera/lens combinations.

[Terry Manning]

A manual body. One lens. I don't even know experienced photographers brave enough to take that challenge!

[Dave Brown]

Mike,

This is good, sound advice for any photographer, whether beginning or experienced. And while I can't see myself going out and buying a Leica, even the choice of camera is a good one; a used Leica, sold a year later, would show little if any depreciation.

[AC]

You don't need to waste money on a Leica for that. I can guarantee the same thing if you get the cheapest digital P&S with a 16MB memory card. Anyone spending a whole year doing that much shooting will become a better photographer. Will the one using a Leica be better than the one using a cheapo P&S? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to see you guarantee that though. The bulk of learning is using the camera that much for a year, not specifically using a Leica film camera.

[John Krill]

I look forward to reading this blog every day. That said I usually agree with about 25% of what is said. That's why I like this place. Boring is something you agree with 100%. TOP is rarely boring.

That said I not only agree with you on basic training idea and I have been saying almost the same thing for 50 years. I got the same instruction from some long forgotten Pop. Photo. magazine article.

You're right in only 1, 2, or 3 will really do it. And they will be forever glad they did.

[Alastair Bird]

Absolutely. I did it with an M2 and a 50mm Collapsible lens. My work is much stronger because of it.

[Ender]

Sounds like fun! I think I will follow your suggestion and do it but I sure as hell can't afford a Leica. A Nikon FM2 with a 28mm 2.8 would have to do.

[Charles Starrett]

This is a very tempting challenge. I have two questions:

(1) I assume making contact sheets means you expect the photographer to have a home-darkroom too, right? How involved is that?

(2) Could you elaborate on why a *Leica* in particular? I understand why film, and why a single lens, but why not a fixed-lens compact rangefinder (like a Canonet or similar) or even a manual-focus film SLR like the venerable K1000? Is frustrating film-loading an essential character-building part of the exercise? ;-)

Thanks for the challenge and all the thought-provoking words you put up on TOP. I'm sure you already realize you have the best photography blog on all the Internets!

~~Charles

[Grant Kench]

But why a Leica Mike?
When I have stale period I wack the 50mm on my usual camera, currently Canon 5D2, and do what you say. Works every time.
Grant
http://tasmaniaphotoart.blogspot.com/

[E Schneider]

Mike,

That approach will certainly work. I'm not sure the leica is terribly necessary, but it doesn't really matter.

I'd say that the important thing is working steadily at one's photography, reviewing the results and deciding how you want to improve/change things the next time out.

One lens/one film, well, that just limits the variables and lets one concentrate on the fundementals. That's a good thing.

Personally, I found it a bit easier to do the one camera/one lens exercise with a simple digital camera a few years back, mostly because the shutter and aperture info embedded in the jpegs made it easy for me to look at the results I got and see what I'd done to get them. (I know, notebook for the film camera, but I never managed to remember that when I was younger. :)

Also, those bad learning pictures are free with the digital camera, which is liberating in a way.

But absolutely, pick a simple tool, get good with it. Understand how you can make it do what you want. It's a good foundation for sure.

[Steve S]

I'd rather do this with my Canonet or Minolta X-700. The Leica doesn't add much beyond cost and the need for an external meter.

[Craig]

I'd have to agree with this, even as a hobbyist. When I took a break from digital and went back to film, I spent almost 3 months using nothing but a 50mm, and produced some great images. To this day I always have a body with one lens in my bag, though I have a few more choices, but I can't help but think that the more I'm tempted to try and 'round out' my collection of glass, the less content I am.

It's easy to pick if you only have one choice, but the need (or novelty) of other focal lengths is a siren call that must be explored, even if/when I return back to the ever-useful 35 or 50mm for a day-to-day companion, which is proving to be the case.

I find that the experience gained from using only one lens for a considerable amount of time allows you to sublimate the task of metering and composition, instead leading your thoughts to the nature and quality of the light in the scene, and how (or if) it should be handled.

[Dwig]

Excellent idea, though I don't think the camera needs to be a Leica, it just needs to be "Leica-esque", a quality "simple" camera as per your "Simplicity" essay (5 controls + ISO setting). Also, developing and printing needs to be similarily constrained, one developer each, film and paper, and one paper. Also, all proofing should be done at the same exposure for every roll all year, the minimum exposure that produces a max black from the "clear" film between frames. The selected prints for each week can be adjusted for exposure as necessary.

In my early learning days (late Elementary School through early High School) there were two periods where I was under a similar, though note as severe, photographic diet. The first was the one sales clerk in the one camera store in the town where I grew up. He wouldn't let me buy any paper other than Kodak Polycontrast F, SW, or any developer other than D-76 and Dektol until I could bring in a set of prints of high enough quality that he felt I was good enough in the darkroom to warrant considering other materials. I owe a lot to C. K.

The second was a little later when I became "addicted" to 16mm sub-minature cameras that I could carry with me every day. It was difficult to get decent images from the little negs. Study and polishing my skills (tight temp controls, precise timing, ...) led me to some decent images. When in early High School I returned to 35mm with my first SLR I relized how much the "16mm diet" improved my work, both the technical quality, after fighting the sub-minature negs, and my photographic eye, after the couple of years of daily shooting and weekly "publishing" (fellow students expected me to have a new set of pix of the previous weeks events at the beginning of each week).

[Chaf]

Hey Mike -

As someone who's been shooting exclusively an M3 with a 50mm for the last two years (but not at the volume you suggest, alas), I can see the value of your suggestion. But... Tell us please why a Leica, specifically? What does it bring to the learning process that one won't get from a Spotmatic, or an FE, or a Canonet?

My hypothesis: If you're gunning the Leica, then you simply can't bust out the old "that picture would have been great if I'd had a better camera" excuse. Is that it?

[Ben]

I agree that what you suggest is probably a good method for improving one's photography, but is there something in particular about a Leica that makes it more suitable for this purpose?

Seems to me that a small SLR/rangefinder such as the Olympus OM series, one of the Nikon FE/FM series or any small, fixed-lens rangefinder with full manual control might be equally suitable.

[Mark Crabtree]

I love the idea and hope at least a few people will take you up on this suggestion, and maybe even report back in a year. It is hard for me to imagine that the benefit to anyone who did this wouldn't be far greater than from whatever workshop or equipment purchase they've been dreaming about. It would probably end up being a heck of a lot more fun too.

I remember a piece someone else (Bill Jay, Jim Hughes?) wrote on the theme of advice to an aspiring photographer. He emphasized taking pictures of something you are actually interested in. That might be worth thinking about for this project too. The idea seems so absolutely obvious, but also so often seems to be the element missing in photographs.

I love cameras and taking pictures, but lately the drone of non-stop equipment, technique, and "IQ" chatter seems to overwhelm interest in actually making photographs of something.

[Janne]

Nice idea. I'd just suggest perhaps getting a Voigtländer Bessa RF camera instead of the Leica. Same lenses and same film (so the same results), but a much, much lower cost of entry. And since it costs less, there's less worry about the camera, so you end up bringing it and using it more often.

[Joe The Wizard]

Are you proposing to finance this year of Leica-only photography?

Seriously though, it's a good idea. There's nothing like limits to force you to be creative with what you've got. It's one of the things I like about shooting with primes.

Perhaps I should find a less expensive rangefinder + b&w film combo....

[John Henry]

There is, however, the danger [or possibility] that you might not want to sell the Leica or even return to the world of menus, tiny buttons and funny ikons.

[Greg McConnell]

Great suggestion Mike, but why a Leica specifically? Wouldn't my trusty old Nikon FM and Nikkor 50mm 1.8 do the trick?

[Mani Sitaraman]

Agreed.

[Rod]

Bravo, Mike!

I sense a definite trend in your thinking this last week...

Best regards,
Rod S.