JDThomas: Worthless drivel.
What makes photography by hipsters any worse than photography by a soccer mom at the neighborhood block party? Or a hip-hop kid with a camera at a house party? Or a sorority girl with a camera at a soiree? Or a geek with Google glasses at an internerd convention? Or anybody in any of the hundreds of different subcultures with a camera?
Somehow hipsters taking bad photos is worse than the millions of crappy photographers on flickr doing the same exact thing?
Sounds like the dude that wrote this is somehow jealous of the hipster culture. Maybe he aspires to be one, but was shunned?
I think you're entirely misjudging the tone of the article. I found nothing in it disparaging to these photographers.
ConanFuji: I don't understand how this is photography on the so called photographer's part.
More like graphic tweaker.
As applies to commercial images sure. But that's simply a very old fashioned way of thinking about art images.
I can see the Chicago Sun-Times issuing these to all of their reporters.
Ultimately, I find this series difficult to relate to as this individual clearly has a lifestyle that few of us will ever share; however, that's sort of the beauty of mobile photography and social sharing--we get insight into other people's lifestyles. So the fact that this guy is young and has an attractive girlfriend and flies all around the world isn't really what bothers me about these. Rather, I'm bothered by the way in which these photos reduce his girlfriend to a sexual object leading him towards fantastical adventures. We get no sense of who she is, of whether she's enjoying herself (she probably is, I know I'd like to go to those places, excepting maybe IKEA), or even what her face looks like; she quite simply has no identity beyond the shape of her backside. Of course the possibility lies that dpreview chose an unrepresentative selection of photos, and in that case the fault lies with them, but I'm not inspired to pursue this fellow's instagram feed by what I've seen here.
iau: I would very much like a Leica M camera, but I wish it had AF and was more suited for wildlife and general hiking photography (meaning weather sealed).
I'm not into taking pictures of strangers on the street, which seems to be the main object for Leica shooters.
I always take my M8 hiking with me and it's been to quite a few fairly nasty places, including to the top of a couple 14-ers in Colorado and overnight camping at around 11,000ft without any troubles. I don't let it soak in the rain of course, but so far no worries...I do also keep it insured.
Greg Gebhardt: While I would never sell my M9 and all of my Leica glass, I have to say that I have missed more images with the M9 or any rangefinder than I want to think about. If the most important thing is GETTING the image, think twice about a camera like Leica's which is likely the highest quality hardware on earth but very restrictive in it's ability!
You know, I'd agree with you in saying that I've missed more images with my M8 than I would have with my SLRs; however, the images that I've actually gotten are far better than anything I used to get, and that certainly makes the whole experience much more satisfying.
In many years of being included in--and to be honest, excluded from--juried shows, I'm often struck by the...um...tastes of many jurors. I don't take it as a slight on my work's quality, it simply wasn't what people were looking for. But thanks for your support.