Blog powered by Typepad

google analytics

« moving. | Main | integrity? »

16 August 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Yes, I'm capitalizing." Yeah, something was different, but I could not quite pin point it :P

Thorsten Overgaard

You are right. I will give you the data. The website had 79337 page views in July 2010 and 30963 unique visitors.


Landscape photography isn't so bad. It's better to go out and photograph the world than to sit around on forums wanking about gear you'll never own, or excusing your purchase of cheap crap with MTF charts and shots of test patterns.

/shut up and shoot

Max Herrgard

Thanks for taking your time writing this up. I've felt lately that there's nothing good out there on the 'net anymore. I'm so bored of worthless forums gear talk I could throw up.

But now I found some nice pages to read. Great!


That was a long read... and no photos, even. But very insightful.


Hi Chris
thanks for the rundown of sites you visit, could you recommend any for photographic content, i.e. Great photos, either classic or cutting edge, instead of the tech geek review sites?

I also wish that more working photographers would have a blog. I'm glad at least you get to update it and Sev from time to time.

Interesting read!
Take care!

Jonathan Taillefer

I almost pissed myself when I read the line about 'unboxing videos'! It's unbelievable how many of those things are out there. WTF! lol



Opinions abound... some good, some bad. Since the art of photography (aesthetics) is seemingly subjective, one can't help but get lost in it all. Thanks for the constructive criticism, albeit indirect. Just tryin' to satiate an itchy trigger finger! Hehe.

Clancycoop (Tyson Call)

I think that when one is looking to buy a new camera the gear-centric sites can be really helpful. However, many people get stuck in gear mode and they are continually searching even after they make their purchase; their end becomes gear acquisition instead of making photos.

Like I said, gear sites and their "test photos" are fine, but people post M9 cat shots daily like there is still a question as to whether it is up to snuff, and people laud them with "Oh so sharp!" and "Beautiful work mate!" like learning basic operation of a rangefinder is a commendable feat. Shooting the windowsill from your computer desk is not photography.

C Weeks

@coletassoft: that would have been it. not that i'm gonna capitalize replys. ;)

C Weeks

@thorsten: hmm ... not bad, man. so you're more popular than rangefinder forum and you don't even have a forum? hmm...

C Weeks

@Jhavard: i guess so. in fact, i used to enjoy it once in a while but ... shooting and being good at shooting people is a much different world.

C Weeks

@Max Herrgard: there's some good stuff out there. ya' know how there are like 500 cable/sat channels and sometimes "there's nothing good to watch," well ... same thing on the internet.

forum mongers should go shoot the equipment they so love.

C Weeks

@Matt: i like exceptional work there. also check out very nice stuff. thanks for the comment!

C Weeks

@ Rpolom: hey man! hope all's well in montreal! ya' know even if they do post, they're canon explorers of light or whatever nikon's pro endorsement program is ... can you really trust that????

1.5 posts per month. ;) i think that's about all we do sev or i.

Ashwin Rao

Fascinating commentary, Chris. Interesting reflections of our little Leica world. Thanks for boiling it down and putting things into perspective....good to hear that Steve's site's doing quite well, as well.

C Weeks

@ Jonathan Taillefer: the reason they're out there is that people watch them. they like ANY distraction for whatever's going on. that said ... it doesn't make them any less lame! :)

C Weeks

@ Rlampano: indirect? scratch that itchy trigger finger by triggering! :)

C Weeks

@Clancycoop (Tyson Call): there are probably some good people in forums giving good opinions for sure.

cat photos with the m9? really???? had no idea! makes sense, though.

C Weeks

@Ashwin Rao: comparatively ... yes ... the leica world is very small.

happy for steve as well!

Filippo M.

Even though (or maybe because of that) I agree with most of the opinions espressed in this post, I'm quite startled and puzzled by the harsh commentary over TOP. Everyone is entitled to like it or not, more or less, as everything else on the web but I find the core of the criticism unfair.
Michael Johnston is not presenting himself as a working photographer but as a photography writer and editor and this is exactly what he does (quite well in my opinion)on his blog. If he happens to have been also an amateur photographer and photography teacher, so much the better. Nevertheless why on earth should he be supposed to show his personal work to be somewhat entitled when he doesn't claim to be a professional photographer, instead a writer/editor? Is maybe a critic supposed to show particular skill in the specific subject to be entitled? Then likely we wouldn't have any art critic at all :)The words and the content provided by the critic's activity build his reputation and show his competence. I would like to have seen any opinion about the quality of the content TOP offers but unfortunately I couldn't; that's why I consider the whole thing oddly unfair and more like a personal antipathy.

I beg your pardon for my impefect English.

Per Nicolaisen

I've never cared about if you are a pro or a amateur. Chris Weeks is not the best Leica street shooter I've seen.

Baba Suhai

You missed "Tao of Leica"

G. Martin

I agree with Filippo M. You can criticize TOP for a number of things, but your specific criticism is very misplaced. Mike Johnston has offered some of the best writing on photography on the net in recent years. He is not a working pro, but he is very knowledgeable and insightful about a broad range of topics in photography, from esthetics to history to business to gear. While I wish that talented working photographers would blog and share their insights, the really good ones are just too busy, and Mike is a much better writer than most working photographers. And he certainly doesn't need to "style" his writing with profanity and no-capitalization. Steve Huff is not a working pro either, but it seems that if someone reeeeallly likes Leica, you like *them*. Steve Huff's site occasionally provides something instructive, but so much of his writing is breathless gear fanaticism, and it doesn't hold a candle to Mike Johnston's style or range or wisdom. Steve has an endless supply of exclamations and superlatives for everything Leica. When reviewing anything from Leica, we can always predict that he will be absolutely insanely mystically ecstatic about it.

The comments to this entry are closed.