Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Film Cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

i wish there was a google translator for this ...
Old 01-17-2013   #1
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
i wish there was a google translator for this ...

Awesome new M-Monochrom advert in Brazil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=r_OchTxn4nQ

raytoei
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #2
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
 
dogberryjr's Avatar
 
dogberryjr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Appalachia, USA
Posts: 1,162
It's good.

***SPOILER ALERT***

The best part is that the narrator is a Leica III and it (she) says she's been reborn as an M Monochrom.
__________________
M, LTM, FD, F, Film, Digital, MF . . . Jack of all, master of none.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #3
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
dang...that's awesome ending.
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #4
MP Guy
Just another face in the crowd
 
MP Guy's Avatar
 
MP Guy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,466
Funny you ,mention that. I just added a translator to the gallery on the top menu. its a globe.
__________________
-- JT

www.leicaimages.com
www.ZeissImages.com
www.l-mountimages.com

Developer of the RFF gallery Software and some other cool stuff.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #5
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
from google translator (Portuguese to English)

One day, I was a leica III.
Reincarnated.
Now call me M-Monochrom.
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #6
teleparallel
Registered User
 
teleparallel's Avatar
 
teleparallel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 133
Actually it's like
"One day I was a Leica III
I reincarnated
Now, I am called Leica Monochrome"

I'm Brazilian.

I could translate it all if you like.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #7
teleparallel
Registered User
 
teleparallel's Avatar
 
teleparallel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 133
Here it is. Phrases in parenthesis, are to help the translations, or a more literal one. "/'s" indicates phrases' ends/breaks. The Phrases are in order, so you can watch it!

"I was born in Wetzlar, Germany/
I was the camera of one history's greatest photographers(camera of one of the greatest photographer in the history)
Luck? /
Yes /
As, without it, we could not survive so many battles(Since without it, we...) /
Each journey, luggage(package) was made /
Lenses packed /
We spent months in the front line(battle front) /
The photographer lived with the soldiers /
And like a soldier(as a soldier) /
Registered everything(here it actually means that he saw the war like the soldiers did, I think) /
He always loved photography /
Still loved it when the Kalashnikovs' sounds became unbearable. /
He decided t stop /
He couldn't . /
Beside the promises to never (again) photograph the war /
There we were, fallowing the French convoy(fleet)/
In the middle of the way(here it means actually that, unnoticed by him, there was a mine, not that he was half way to somewhere)/
A land mine /
I'm dead(I died) /
We died(we did) /
One day I was a Leica III /
I reincarnated /
Now I'm called Leica Monochrom "

After this last phrase appears this on the screen:
"Every Leica has a Soul. Leica monochrom is the reincarnation of black and white"

Hoe you like it.

Last edited by teleparallel : 01-17-2013 at 17:49. Reason: Corrections
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #8
rodinal
film user
 
rodinal's Avatar
 
rodinal is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Santiago
Posts: 302
What a scam !!
That commercial clearly alludes Robert Capa story, but he was not a Leica user.
Capa did use a Leica in the beginning of his career, but he soon gave his Leica equipment to Gerda Taro and bought himself a Contax. He used Contax and Rolleiflex cameras through WWII.
The day he died (he stepped on a land mine in Indochina) he was carrying a Contax IIa (B/W) and a Nikon S (w/Kodachrome). No Leicas there.

Otherwise, nice ad.

Last edited by rodinal : 01-17-2013 at 18:29. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #9
Vics
Registered User
 
Vics's Avatar
 
Vics is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 3,289
That's all true about Capa, and you're right that Leica keeps trying to keep alive the misconception that he was a Leica shooter. Nice little movie, though.
__________________
Vic
Sony a200

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #10
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
Rodinal,


What they did not do was a D-Day beach landing or use the
Magnum motifs. I would prefer to think of it as capa-inspired
(rice-fields of indochina, parachutes of d-day, wine and women etc)
rather than condemn it as a scam.

raytoei
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #11
rodinal
film user
 
rodinal's Avatar
 
rodinal is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Santiago
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
What they did not do was a D-Day beach landing or use the
Magnum motifs. I would prefer to think of it as capa-inspired
(rice-fields of indochina, parachutes of d-day, wine and women etc)
rather than condemn it as a scam.
In fact, the advertisement DOES recreate at least one of the most famous Capa-Magnum photographs, and possibly more (I watched the video just once). So , it's more than just "inspiration". Didn't you recognize the image ?

As said, nice ad anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #12
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
tough crowd.... sorry i posted.
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #13
teleparallel
Registered User
 
teleparallel's Avatar
 
teleparallel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 133
Don't kill the fun people. So what it's not too accurate? Shame, that the III did not really died, since Capa wasn't carrying it.

Did the translation came out good? Some times my english sounds poor to my ears.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #14
Mungo
Registered User
 
Mungo's Avatar
 
Mungo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Staffordshire.UK
Posts: 13
Thanks for the translation, your English is very good.

Thanks also to the original poster, nice few minutes to dream...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #15
JHP
Registered User
 
JHP is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 424
Not sure Kalashikov's were ever used in WWII either.

Let alone invented yet.

I really like the Ad though.
__________________
MY WEBSITE

MP, M2, 28 ELMARIT V3, 50 LUX V2, 15 VC
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #16
rodinal
film user
 
rodinal's Avatar
 
rodinal is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Santiago
Posts: 302
"The" Kalashnikov (AK-47) was released in 1949, so, not present in WWII, but was there for the Indochina War (1946-1954).
Speaking of models, if Capa had carried a Leica on his last day, model III is the correct one.

PKR, Capa did use a Leica for his work during the civil war in Spain. Many of his famous images belong to this war and it seems that the video you linked shows just this part of his work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #17
pakeha
Registered User
 
pakeha is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjames View Post
I am not sure why people are being negative. Since when did an advertisement have to uphold the same standards as a documentary?

I found it entertaining.
almost as entertaining as replies in this thread -
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013   #18
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Patrick I think if your selling a product and quote instances of that product "making a difference", and wrongly indicate an endorsement from someone who is dead - that can't dispel the endorsement, it's of questionable taste (and maybe a legal issue) to lie so blatantly.

If you honestly buy into this kind of advertising you might want to ask yourself ..
I agree. The following list of people, which is by no means complete, wholeheartedly endorse Apple based on their participation in the "Think Different" Campaign:
Jimi Hendrix
Jim Henson
John Lennon*
Albert Einstein
Alfred Hitchcock
Amelia Earhart
Pablo Picasso
Thomas Edison
Ghandi
Martin Luther King, Jr.
George Gershwin

I never did like that campaign for the very reasons PKR pointed out.

(*John Lennon might not deserve to be on this list because Yoko probably sold him out and could do so legally.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #19
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Yep, stretching things a bit ... clearly an allusion to Capa, it left a bad taste in my mouth too

Still they have form these days, that story about saving Jewish workers on a train, and adding Steve McCurry to the Leica Hall of Fame ... it shows a lack of integrity imo
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #20
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
... the fact you have such low expectations and standards is not a compelling argument for others to adopt them.
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #21
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
... the fact you have such low expectations and standards is not a compelling argument for others to adopt them.
No need to make a personal attack because someone doesn't see the ad as you do. The fact is only the trainspotting element of RF enthusiasts would know that Capa wasn't using Leica for tha latter half of his career, but a Leica inspired Contax.
Most audiences will get the jist of the ad is that Leica is a heritage product and it's latest incarnation is the monochrome. I don't think it a great ad and they probably would have been better not tying it quite so strongly to Capa, but questioning someone's morals because they're not as outraged as you are is ott.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #22
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyrab View Post
No need to make a personal attack because someone doesn't see the ad as you do. The fact is only the trainspotting element of RF enthusiasts would know that Capa wasn't using Leica for tha latter half of his career, but a Leica inspired Contax.
Most audiences will get the jist of the ad is that Leica is a heritage product and it's latest incarnation is the monochrome. I don't think it a great ad and they probably would have been better not tying it quite so strongly to Capa, but questioning someone's morals because they're not as outraged as you are is ott.
I don't make personal attacks, I was commenting on patrickjames stated position and articulating my position in response to them ... what is personal about that?
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #23
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 675
You said he had low standards, how can that not be judgmental?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #24
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyrab View Post
You said he had low standards, how can that not be judgmental?
No Patrick made that point, and I simply responded to it. He said we were taking a "superior stance" he then went on to propose a set of his own standards which by definition therefore must be lower, no?
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #25
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
 
dogberryjr's Avatar
 
dogberryjr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Appalachia, USA
Posts: 1,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
tough crowd.... sorry i posted.
You can't be a cool kid if you don't piss on everything.
__________________
M, LTM, FD, F, Film, Digital, MF . . . Jack of all, master of none.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #26
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
No Patrick made that point, and I simply responded to it. He said we were taking a "superior stance" he then went on to propose a set of his own standards which by definition therefore must be lower, no?
Except that you didn't just say his standards are "lower", as your quoted argument suggests. You said his standards are "low". I really don't care either way, but let's at least not attempt misdirection or obfuscation of fact in an attempt to win an argument.

By definition, if someone has a "superior stance" and someone else's standards must be lower, no inference can be made as to whether that someone else's standards are normal, low or still superior and just lower than ours.

There is a world of difference between me saying "somebody has lower standards than me" (which could pretty much encompass anything), and saying "somebody has low standards" (which definitely means I perceive their standards as being lower than the average person's).
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #27
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,105
Ray, thanks for posting that. It is a superb ad, questions of historical accuracy aside. (It is an AD for Chrisake!)

By MY Leica III says, "I'm not dead yet!"

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #28
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
Except that you didn't just say his standards are "lower", as your quoted argument suggests. You said his standards are "low". I really don't care either way, but let's at least not attempt misdirection or obfuscation of fact in an attempt to win an argument.

By definition, if someone has a "superior stance" and someone else's standards must be lower, no inference can be made as to whether that someone else's standards are normal, low or still superior and just lower than ours.

There is a world of difference between me saying "somebody has lower standards than me" (which could pretty much encompass anything), and saying "somebody has low standards" (which definitely means I perceive their standards as being lower than the average person's).
... I don't really need this, and I accept your analysis, however ... I claimed no moral supremacy, I stated and still believe the ad fell shot of the truth. It misrepresented Capa's life story to Leica's advantage to the point where it would be illegal if aired here in the UK. I would assume you would accept taking the law as a datum? ...
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #29
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
tough crowd.... sorry i posted.
Thanks for sharing this interesting PR video.
Obviously it is very polarizing from dishonest via blatant lie to KITSCH....
PR is about getting talked about, getting attention.
You do not get attention with something that has been edited to withstand toughest scrutinizing, that's for sure.

I'm not sure how much attention they grabbed with their target audience in Brazil but anyway, I find it astounding that Leica is back from the brink of death that they were facing 5 or 6 years back when they hadn't picked up a foothold in the digital world. M9, Monochrom and supposedly M have/will change that.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #30
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 412
My analysis was entirely unrelated to the ad itself. I therefore won't take the law of one country, or all countries, into account at this point in time - purely because I am making no representations as to the validity of the ad., or as to the validity of your feelings about the ad, or as to the validity of patrickjames' feelings about the ad.

However, if I was forced to offer a view on the validity of the ad, I actually agree with BOTH of you. I believe ads SHOULD be entirely accurate in their claims (with some leeway offered - I don't REALLY think a breath-mint will allow me to fly for example, so may not view this as a serious "misrepresentation"), but also realise that this is so often not the case, that the legislation which covers this is too limited in compass or policed inadequately, and that I should therefore "lighten up" for my own sanity as much as anything else. As you can already see by my sheer pedantry, this "lightening up" is an ongoing (and largely unsuccessful) process for me.

It would interest me to see the response to the ad were it to air in the UK. I wonder what the reaction would be ? Here in Australia I suspect that it would continue to be aired, even if it were technically considered to contravene advertising legislation: such a contravention would have to be MARKEDLY egregious (complete with public complaints) for anything to happen. The only way to truly protect your own sanity is to not care, or to not watch ads at all.

Of course, we all know that were anybody to complain about the ad, Leica would say, "Cappa who ? This is a fictional work presenting - at most - an amalgamation of minor aspects of a vast array of historical figures. Any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental". I always used to laugh when movies purporting to be "biographical" or "The True Story" contained this legal rider. The ad would almost certainly keep running. I guess that's why I have a frozen look of acceptance on my face, but a defeatist feeling in my heart, and a dead look in my eyes ...
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #31
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 4,302
I share your low expectations for advertisements, but disagree w/your take on Capa's morals & integrity. Of course he wasn't a saint, but do have any proof to support allegations of "[f]aked pictures, setups, . . ., appropriated images"? He obviously changed his name, but that was just a successful marketing gambit, hardly a major sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjames View Post
As far as referencing Capa, he is dead anyway, so I doubt he cares..... He wasn't the only war photographer either. Why does everyone assume it was Capa the piece was referencing? I would suggest it was more of a mythological idea of what photographers used to be like in the "good old days". Most of it untrue. Hell, most of the legends about Capa are untrue. The truth isn't so pretty. Faked pictures, setups, name changes, appropriated images..... From a moral standpoint, I wouldn't put him on a high horse.

Anyway, it is just a dumb ad piece. Nothing to get too excited about.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #32
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
My analysis was entirely unrelated to the ad itself. I therefore won't take the law of one country, or all countries, into account at this point in time - purely because I am making no representations as to the validity of the ad., or as to the validity of your feelings about the ad, or as to the validity of patrickjames' feelings about the ad.

However, if I was forced to offer a view on the validity of the ad, I actually agree with BOTH of you. I believe ads SHOULD be entirely accurate in their claims (with some leeway offered - I don't REALLY think a breath-mint will allow me to fly for example, so may not view this as a serious "misrepresentation"), but also realise that this is so often not the case, that the legislation which covers this is too limited in compass or policed inadequately, and that I should therefore "lighten up" for my own sanity as much as anything else. As you can already see by my sheer pedantry, this "lightening up" is an ongoing (and largely unsuccessful) process for me.

It would interest me to see the response to the ad were it to air in the UK. I wonder what the reaction would be ? Here in Australia I suspect that it would continue to be aired, even if it were technically considered to contravene advertising legislation: such a contravention would have to be MARKEDLY egregious (complete with public complaints) for anything to happen. The only way to truly protect your own sanity is to not care, or to not watch ads at all.

Of course, we all know that were anybody to complain about the ad, Leica would say, "Cappa who ? This is a fictional work presenting - at most - an amalgamation of minor aspects of a vast array of historical figures. Any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental". I always used to laugh when movies purporting to be "biographical" or "The True Story" contained this legal rider. The ad would almost certainly keep running. I guess that's why I have a frozen look of acceptance on my face, but a defeatist feeling in my heart, and a dead look in my eyes ...
... then we would have to take a view as to where the acceptable standard lay between the Aussie and the UK's Advertising Standards Authorities, and having watched many of your beer ads I suspect we hold that particular high ground.

Either way, I still think the ad falls short of the truth and that Patrick's defence of it as normal is unreasonable.
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #33
rodinal
film user
 
rodinal's Avatar
 
rodinal is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Santiago
Posts: 302
Interesting discussion.
For anyone who knows a bit of Capa's history is evident that the ad clearly alludes him and no other.
The ad is misrepresenting the virtues of the brand, as Leica clearly was NOT the choice of Robert Capa. He did use it for the first 1/5 of his career because he was given one. As soon as he was able to choose and buy his own equipment, he chose Contax (more expensive than Leica at that time).
Implying facts that are not true maybe not liable, but is dishonest.
A lie, even if beautifully told, remains a lie.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #34
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
In defense of WOZ this was the work of Jobs,
Woz ended his active involvement a decade earlier. Jobs had little to do with the campaign. In fact, he didn't parts of it for different reasons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #35
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickjames View Post
Truth in advertising is dead. Hate to say it but it is true. Most advertising these days is a straight lie. Does anyone seriously believe any of it? When was the last time your Whopper looked like the one on TV? You spritzed some cologne and thousands of women chased you? Hence I said, I was entertained.
Good point. I don't wear cologne and yet I always have to put up with that!

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #36
lcpr
Registered User
 
lcpr is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 213
There's nothing wrong with using other products to produce an advert for a company - most companies outsource their marketing to ad agencies who will use their own equipment. I recall there being a uproar regarding Sony and how their product shots were done with a Canon... people conveniently failed to recognise that Sony didn't actually produce the ad in house. I suspect the same with the Leica ad, they probably used a Sony videocam or a Canon one to shoot it, if they did use the M there'd be a much larger fanfare about it. As for the Capa connection, I think they were focusing more on the romanticised version of war photography, of which Capa is a part of. I like the sentiment behind the ad (that cameras witness more than the photos they take), but placing it within a war photography context just rubs me the wrong way, I doubt many war photographers today would choose an MM for their assignments! It's all about the D4/1DX/5D3/D800 these days.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #37
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,980
A little more background as for who has produced this ad :
Acc. to :
http://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/latest/34482195
The agency is Saatchi & Saatchi, so not a newcomer to the business and it should be very reasonable to assume that made sure the work does not trigger any lawsuits. Triggering whatever reaction (positive or neagtive) is ususally the very purpose of such a campaign. The more the better.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2013   #38
PatrickONeill
Registered User
 
PatrickONeill's Avatar
 
PatrickONeill is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Weatherford, Tx
Age: 38
Posts: 361
I bet they made this to troll Leicaphiles.
__________________
flickr | tumblr | twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2013   #39
ZlatkoBatistich
Registered User
 
ZlatkoBatistich's Avatar
 
ZlatkoBatistich is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinal View Post
Interesting discussion.
For anyone who knows a bit of Capa's history is evident that the ad clearly alludes him and no other.
The ad is misrepresenting the virtues of the brand, as Leica clearly was NOT the choice of Robert Capa. He did use it for the first 1/5 of his career because he was given one. As soon as he was able to choose and buy his own equipment, he chose Contax (more expensive than Leica at that time).
Implying facts that are not true maybe not liable, but is dishonest.
A lie, even if beautifully told, remains a lie.
Well said. The ad is very specifically about him — there are so many visual references to his life and work. It is "well made" in the sense that it is very dramatic, but it is in very poor taste and based on a big falsehood.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2013   #40
Heru Anggono
Registered User
 
Heru Anggono is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinal View Post
"The" Kalashnikov (AK-47) was released in 1949, so, not present in WWII, but was there for the Indochina War (1946-1954).
Speaking of models, if Capa had carried a Leica on his last day, model III is the correct one.

PKR, Capa did use a Leica for his work during the civil war in Spain. Many of his famous images belong to this war and it seems that the video you linked shows just this part of his work.
Perhaps she was refering to Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44), German sub-machine gun which later revised by Russian to become AK-47 Kalashnikov.

StG 44 was first issued to Waffen-SS in October 1943, and to 93rd Infantry Division on Eastern Front.

Full link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.