Of course the kind of camera used doesn't really indicate the quality of the photography, but here's one photographer who has switched to using Leicas in the past year or so. I've admired his work for several years and thought he deserved a wider audience.

Kenn Lichtenwalter produces some outstanding images. I guess "travel portraiture" and "b&w erotica" are the labels I'd use to describe his work. His site can be a bit slow at times, but it's worth the wait.

http://www.lichtenwalter.net/

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002

Answers

Of course, just after I post this, his server seems to be taking a nap. Please try again later if it's not responding.

And for those interested: I'm fairly sure his main tools are an R6.2 and HP5+.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

Mike,

Worthy link, works fine no waiting here. His nudes are pretty damned charged I must say but I prefer his portraits, outstanding for sure.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), March 13, 2002.

Is this a pisstake? Cunt on the railway tracks, or on the docks? Mike, I'm not a great fan of shots of young women for their own sake anyway, it usually seems a pretty easy sell to me (like a gorilla taking pictures of bananas), but your stuff is a lot better than this crap.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 13, 2002.

Mike - I've been a fan of Kenn's stuff since I discovered it last year, and finding that it may be shot with Leica is a pleasant surprise. Sorry Rob, but I've got to take you to task a bit. I like your stuff, though documentary is not my bag, and in fact shoot mostly nudes, some of which are a little 'hardedged'. Though documentary may not be my cup of tea I would never call someones work crap an such just because I have a different style. One of the reasons I seldom post images on this forum (though those that email me can be directed to my website). Opinion is one thing, but I think your comments are too harsh.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Bob, you may be right about the harshness, but don't you think this kind of thing is so overplayed? Frankly I think it's horrid exploitative photography. I see no difference between this and porn - getting a young woman to spread her legs for the camera. As you know, I like your pictures - but what I like about them is their humanity and affection for their subjects (and playfulness), which is totally lacking here. Nudes as such don't disturb me, just nasty exploitative voyeuristic pictures of young women posing as something better than what they are. They wouldn't disturb me if they were in "Crotch Shots" magazine or whatever - at least that would be honest.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 13, 2002.

Pretty standard porn. Yawn...

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 13, 2002.

*back stretch* *yawn* *scratching crotch*, yep. nice black and white shots of women but er, I've seen more artisitc use of nudes. they kinda lack that creative form and style. I kinda agree with Rob, but a not as harsh. Those Chec girls are quite pretty though..*wolf whistle*

-- summicron (summicron_@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Whether you like or dislike the content, HP5+ is nice film.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Lindsey. Brooklyn, New York shot has creative form and art direction. The rest are erm, lack the art form. Thats JMO.

-- summicron (summicron_@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

I'm an admirerer of Jeanloup Sieff's work. So this one strikes me. I love it a lot. Thanks for sharing. It's defenitely in my bookmarks. Michael

-- michaelwildi (michaelwildi@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Interesting that most of the comments so far are directed only at the erotic work when half the site is portraiture.

What I like about his work is the strong graphic qualities, the directness, and the expression of a personal style. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but there are a few points I'd like to address.

Nudes as such don't disturb me, just nasty exploitative voyeuristic pictures of young women posing as something better than what they are. They wouldn't disturb me if they were in "Crotch Shots" magazine or whatever - at least that would be honest.

Actually, his work would never sell to "Crotch Shots" or "standard porn" sources. I've had conversations with guys who shoot and sell standard porn--most markets specifically do not want high-quality photography. For better or worse, the "fine art" market is where his work fits best. In that context, I think it's a refreshing counterpoint to a lot of work that treats the female body as just another pretty landscape. While women may not like being viewed as nothing more than sex objects, I know many women who are well aware of and comfortable with their sexual nature and who know how to express and exploit what power that gives them. Those are the women I see in Lichtenwalter's photos, not helpless victims of exploitation.

(And Bob T., I'd be interested in seeing your work if you'd email me your site URL.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

Yeah, I'm a admirer of Sieff also. The nudes are a bit on the wild side, but I guess I won't complain too much. I do like his use of the wide angle and the overall look of his B&W prints. I can't quite figure ot what focal lengh his wideangle is. Somewhere between a 28 and a 21mm I guess. What do you guys think? Thanks for the link to Kenn , Mike, and keep up the good work yourself. I love your photography.

-- Ronald Wills (youngdeer@earthlink.net), March 13, 2002.

Thanks, Ronald! I know he uses a 28mm; not sure what other focal lengths he might be using.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

Much of Sieff's work shown in photo magazines over the years has been identified as photographed with a Leica and 21mm lens.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 13, 2002.

I like the NYC stuff particularly. The use of space above the people is excellent.

-- Jay Bee (JBee193@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

Okay, I went back & revisited the site. The portraits are superlative. And re- viewing the nudes, I change my earlier opinion. Not my cup of tea, but in their own methodical way, even these work on the level of extremely strong portraiture. Seeing the portraits first would alter anyone's impressions of the crotch shots that follow. Lichtenwalter is clearly extremely good at what he does, & there's a definite vision at work.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 13, 2002.

Striking stuff and the the shots have very strong visual impact.

The women are unusually "graphic" for arty shots. But I think on balance it works very well. A very strong draught of erotica, but none the worse for that. But I wouldn't want some on my wall, but I agree with Mike's description - I do not see any "victims" here. Mind you if he did the same with male nudes -- would we feel the same?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

For, I think the first time, I thoroughly and whole heartedly agree with Rob Appleby. That one on the tracks is hysterical... here she is: everyone on board!

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 13, 2002.

Mike - good thought to share the link to Kenn's work here. Of course, Kenn is not a real Leica photographer, because he shoots an R. ;-) (Just joking, R users.)

I agree that Kenn's work, both his portraits and his nudes, is strong, yet connected and sensitive stuff. I can't see any sort of connection between this work and newsstand porn mags, either. Tastes vary, but I'm always surprised at how emphatic some of the emotional reactions are - even moreso when those reactions are from within the photographic community.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 13, 2002.

This guy gets a more positive reception around here than William Gedney. Go figure. . . .

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Robert,

No shit. Peter Hughes (yawn) especially slagged Gedney's work.

And Mike your thoughts on Kenn's work were my impressions as well, he's very graphic and I like his style, and the woman do have a powerful sexuality and are not afraid of it, nor victims because of it (like much of the porn crap). But as stated eariler I do prefer the non nude stuff.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouthlessspam@cox.net), March 13, 2002.

what did you do? go to thailand and hire a prostitute to pose nude for him? that's certainly the impression he gives.

it's a cheap sell out to push off porn in the guise of an art photograph. the photos in my opinion would be better if they did not reveal everything and left some things to the imagination, focusing on the beauty of the female form, rather than her vagina.

-- tim (emulsion71@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

sorry, i meant to type, "what did he do?"

-- tim (emulsion71@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

what did [he] do? go to thailand and hire a prostitute to pose nude for him?

Maybe he just showed her the Leica logo on his camera, and she was so impressed she got nekkid for free. ; ) And last time a checked, the vagina was part of the female form . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

"And last time a checked, the vagina was part of the female form . . . "

Gee, you're a smart boy. You figure that out all by yourself

-- hank jameson (hank@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

and even if some people might regard this as porn, so what? if you dont like my fire, then don't come around (ben harper)! i think most of these pictures are extremely nice, both the nudes and the portraits. you can really see that this guy has a personal style, independant of the subject he's photographing.

why are so many people afraid of the female genitalia? i must admit that i try to avoid showing parts of the reproductive system in my own attempts to photograph nudes, but there are many examples that proove, that it can be done in a highly esthetic way, like JONVELLE, RALPH GIBSON, ABE FRAJNDLICH and many more

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

Stefan, I'm not afraid of female genitalia - I _like_ them! But... it's a bit like saying, what's wrong with having black servants or toilet cleaners, after all, it's a free jobs market. It's true to some extent, sure, but the context is everything here. There's a long history of women displaying their crotches for money, and I don't think it's a positive thing. Plus, as I said earlier, it's just too damn easy, IMO (I'm sure I'll get jumped on for that, though!).

"Woman is the nigger of the world... think about it... do something about it..."

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 14, 2002.

Again Rob - one mans cup of tea. You don't like explicit nudes. Reminds me of the people who phone in to radio talk shows complaining about the graphic sexuality on a TV show the night before. "I was just dumbfounded at how for a whole hour they showed nothing but naked flesh! Disgusting!!" Did they forget how to change the channel? You also mention how 'easy' nudes are - overdone. I for one would rather look at Kenns stuff than yet another hacker with his 4X5 emulating Ansel Adams for the millionth time. Realizing Rob that all this is meant in fun - but none of my models 'pay' me. A few are friends but most approach me through my website - offering to pose in exchange for prints and a model release that allows me to use their photos in any gallery/book projects. These days I think a lot of young women (and some not so young) are doing this to prove that they in fact have control over thier bodies. As one recent model said who had agreed to pose because she wanted a couple of photos for her husbands birthday - "I realized on the drive over here that I wanted these for myself - not my husband." It's a changing world where not only men are allowed to be sexual creatures. Now was that a rant or what? ;-)

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

bob: i totally agree.

how much is the model in control and also responsible for the final output? i think usually for posed nudes very much. someone mentioned hiring a prostitute to make her pose. that is ridiculous! anyone who has ever tried to shoot nudes will tell you that without the cooperation AND the input from the model it is nearly impossible to be successful.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

This guy is not the first to have taken crotch-shots in B&W. Why all the hoohah?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 14, 2002.

Interesting that the positive comments on this work have all complimented his style, which for me is the worst aspect. I don't dislike the pictures at all - even, heaven help us, the erotica - but when viewed as a whole I found myself asking why he doesn't try more new ideas.

So many of the portraits seem to come out of the same mould. I always believed the subject should influence the composition, rather than the photographer imposing his "style" on eve

-- Paul Hardy Carter (carterph@wanadoo.es), March 14, 2002.

That's "on everyone", seeing as how my gremlin has struck again and delelted the last few letters of my message. Does anyone else have this proiblem? Is the something I can do to solve it?

-- Paul (carterph@wanadoo.es), March 14, 2002.