Group35M - a new agency

No, I think you’re right on. It’s a totally pretentious attitude. And really in the end (as you know) it’s not the equipment but the person using it that makes a good picture.

I’m sure that attitude pops up elsewhere, but I seemed to run into it more in the Bay Area than elsewhere, like having a Leica automatically made you a great photographer.

HAHAHAHA…I have to laugh, because I am from the Bay Area, and I know that attitude all too well. And it is that exact attitude of some people out there that gets me the oh-so-you’re-from-California look I have learned to recognize now that I live on the other coast.

anyway, do you think Leica would have anything to do with it? Like some sort of “promo” thing (for lack of better words)? I really don’t know much about that kind of stuff, but that’s the first thought that came to mind. Or do you think it’s more like people who are in a car club, like exclusively Corvette drivers for example.

whatever the motivation, it seems quite silly.

All I can say is that in I introduce myself here in Alaska as a “recovering californian” growing up in Los Gatos and then living in Newport Beach for many years. I do not say it to be pretentious..but, realize it is a disease. LOL. Not everyone in California have the disease, but, Alaska seems to be good for my “recovery”. LMAO

Robert, that is awesome. When I was living in South Carolina, it was obvious to EVERYONE that I wasn’t from there, so I had to be from somewhere. At first I would claim my home state, but after realizing I was then put into an “elite” group of unwanted people, I just started claiming AZ as home, because it was where I went to school, and where I lived previous to SC…it seemed to make the rest of the conversation a lot easier….LOL

oh, as much as I can make fun of CA, I really do miss SF and the rolling green hills of the north bay…

“…the superior quality of our printed work (over that of any other agency).” absurdly arrogant comment. There is some fine stuff but they obviously have their heads deep up their own asses to make a claim like that. some of the best photojournalism i’ve seen in the last few years was shot with a little olympus point and shoot. Incidentally if you look under sponsors, ‘Leica Camera’ is listed first. I hope most of that little ditty was Leica’s own ham-handed prose.

“Superior”? Well, not only is it utterly pompous, the work isn’t so hot either. I aspire to owning a Leica M system only as an additional facility for shooting on the street. However, as I struggle to make a living as a photojournalist and have two children, there is no way I can afford such optical artilery (Damn collectors. They force pros out of the market). So I struggle on with my very battered but hugely delicious old fixed lens Hexar. And I can tell you this with total certainty, my exposed film is just as sharp and contrasty as any Leica lens would produce. Besides, the Nikon D100 works very well on the street too. Maybe one day I’ll look again at the Leica when they produce the much anticipated MD (digital). And when and if I do, I’ll tape it up right away. I might even put a few stratches on it.

I wonder if these precious folks at groupM35 wear Leica logo t-shirts and caps when they’re out shooting?

Blaa blaa blaa!

This is fairly off-topic, but you know how they build drivers for golf?…they have a robot that can simulate the perfect swing (angle, speed, impact point, the whole lot). It’s fairly impressive to watch this machine pound a ball 300+ yards every time, and have each ball nearly hit another on the ground.

Now I just bought myself one of these latest and greatest drivers as an early birthday present. A 9.5 degree, firm shaft, Cleveland Launcher 400cc. It’s pretty sweet…and the other day, I shot an 81 using it (my best round ever). Some of the drives were straighter and longer, but some were the same’ole slice. I’m sure that I will be able to shoot in the 70s soon enough (practice makes better). But it’s not because of the driver.

Like I said…a bit off topic, but the underlying thought still applies.

Superior equipment in the hands of an amateur still equals amateur.

Thoughts on California, and the SF bay area in particular. remeber this: there are very few california residents that are from california these days. they come from other states and think they can claim califas. the sure way to smell out a snobby transplant is to say, “oh, your from San Francisco?, what highschool did you got to?”
Don´t front, we wont hate you just because your from Rhode Island or Pittsburg or Idaho. Free to be you and me. And yes, although they have an interesting point regarding the de-evolution of technology, the Leica crew´s mission statement sounds a little snobby. I wonder how many of them went to highschool in San Francisco. My guess is none. There are some nice pictures however, so I´ll think about the images and not the silly self promotion that we all indulge in (many of us under duress remember)
EKH

I went to the group m35 site.
I am a Leica shooter m and R (leicaflex SL: greatest SLR I ever had in my hands, works as a hammer and a camera)
I do think is a little ridiculous the m Leica thing, and greatest thing. But hey many people in the job put in the cv’s: I’m the best for this job take me!
I don’t go in the matter of great photos or not It’s too subjective.
But I do agree with the fact that if you are a film photographer and you want to do long breath reportage for a living you have to find a way to market yourself. This guys are trying a way. A little arrogant perhaps but everybody knows the netter glass of leica It wouldn’t sound the same if they said Tokina. They are trying not to go digital and keep a certain idea of photography alive. A certain way of thinking photography. Shooting m6 and digital ain’t the same. At least I don’t do the same pics with different cameras. They are just different tools that give different results. they aren’t better or worse but different for sure!

Holmes, it is I, the late, great Big JG from Seattle town and I must weigh in on yr post and edify it with my 1st hand rant.

Since I own a piece of Leica neck jewelry myself, I feel especially confident in giving you a big high-five on calling bullshit on this agency. Leica Schmeica. The cameras are rad, lenses great, but it’s the nut loose behind the glass that makes it or breaks it. Typical Leica owners are such douche-bags. Instead of fondling one another’s Noctiluxes, they need to shut up and play their guitars.

I’m surprised Leica endorsed these clowns. The images on the site aren’t impressive by any means. You can be diplomatic about it, I’ll just call it like I see it. Elitism can suck it and Leicas won’t make your pictures better. Exit soapbox.

Maybe I’m looking in the wrong place but I can’t see any mention of what they make these prints with. Are they inkjets, silver-gelatin, c-type or photocopies? No mention of editioning either and they’re asking +$1000 for a 16×20, no-one in their right mind would pay that for an uneditioned print that small that might not even be archival. They should have done their homework better.

blinded by the little red dot…

Giovanni said:

“I am a Leica shooter m and R (leicaflex SL: greatest SLR I ever had in my hands, works as a hammer and a camera)”

Now this is the real test for a piece of equipment. Can you kill a man with it, if necessary? This is how I judge my purchases-to-be.

You know what I like, instead of a Leica? A Kodak Retina IIc (little ’c’). I am so over the Leica “aficionado” mentality that says expensive cameras are the best kind. I think the most I’ve paid for any of my film cameras was $150, and that was for a Rolleiflex.

I’m sure all of us have the same idea that $$$ does not equal greatness.

Now I’m gonna bust some heads with my Canon FT.

WOW. This thread really grew. Or am I still a novice here?
Pompous and arrogant those little Ms.
California rules dude! I get crap like that here in Spain, only cause my accent is somewhat Argentine, and I’m mexican but they dont believe me either way cause I’m white. Then I say, “Que pendejo eres guey.”
Geezus! oh sorry Jesus!

Anyways, I have an FM2, and I’ll block anyone with that, and still get a good print! Not sure if those Cali boys would have the etiquette and balls to do that.

Poor Leica too. Is this what they have to resort bc they are going or are bankrupt?

Well, I guess that groupm35 has had enough of a drubbing here, so I wont add insult to injury. I think too that some of them may be LS members, so I hope they wont be put out by our blunt manner! Everyone is welcome here, even if your agency expresses itself in a high-handed manner.

However, I can attest to the wonderful solidity and reliability of the Leica when put to defensive uses, and as well I heartily recommend the FM2, though the flange on the camera back has never been quite the same since its last contact with the head of one particularly obnoxious drunk.

In my corner of the world, Carlos, we say “pendejo, vete pa la bolita del mundo,” a Dominicanism that only those who have walked a certain stretch of the Malecon late at night will understand.

Yes everyone is welcome! Specially Califronians, even if they use Leicas.

Rock!..that’s it for me

The photos on the "group M35" site are fun to look at even though I’m not a fan of B&W.  Maybe they’re not being pretencious with the discription of their superior Leicas.  Maybe they’re looking to relate to gallery owners and photo collectors who respond to that kind of advertising?

I think this is simply a reaction to being force fed that digital is the ONLY solution.  Look at any photo magazine and you will see that 99% of all advertisements are relating to digital in some fashion.  Several months back one of the major photo magazines was filled with feature articles representing photographers who all shot film, including the cover article, yet every single ad, with one exception, was about digital.  The reality that these folks used film was not mentioned, and in fact was more kept under the table than anything else.   How many articles in the last three years have you read dealing with this line in some way, shape or form, "I am so much more creative now that I use digital," or "Digital has changed my life," or "I could have never done this before without digital." 



Look at moden sponsorships.  Tried to get sponsorship as s film shooter lately? Good luck, most manufactureres are over it and not interested in anyone who is not "on the cutting edge."



I have used digital for ten years, but don’t use it to the extent I did two years ago. After suffering through countless technical issues, incompatibility issues, archiving problems, etc, not to mention the time involved, I realized, for me, for many shoots, film was far more efficient.  Many times, nowadays, when I mention film, the look I get from the digital world is, "Oh, you must not know what you are doing."  I find this attitude strongest from the recent digital covert who has yet to live through the "digital honeymoon" which typically lasts about 1.5 years.  When faced with your first 300 DVD digital migration things begin to look different.



Leica has the history and the attitude, no doubt, but I believe this is more about running scared in a way, as I think many of us are, that the traditional way will vanish prematurely. 



There is no right and wrong in photography, but yet attend any tradeshow and you will hear, "digital is the only solution."  I spoke for Kokak about a year ago at a national, three day tradeshow, and was the ONLY speaker dealing with film.  This industry, like most others, is led by economics and the money for manufacturers is in digital.



As for this new group…some nice work…have liked Ed Grazda’s work for  years, but at least they are trying it.  As for the "superior work" thing.  I thought I was the greatest?  My mom thinks so anyway.



DRM

DRM, 

I use to use the old basement darkroom too.  And about eight years ago when digital was making its pixelated way in to photo magazines I was more than sceptical.  The thing is I’m 27 and for the past 7 years I have been using digital.  Way back to the DCS 460.  I think you’ll find that for a lot of photographers my age, particularly those who are interested in journalism, it’s not a question of film or digital, it’s simply what is being used.

I enjoy making big ass prints in the color lab, but I enjoy riding horses too.

-Mike

Hey Thomas,



I agree.  I did my first assignment with digital in 93, pre-460 even. It was horrible, but it also made sense. For that marketplace (news) digital is the best tool.  What I find odd, in some ways at least, is the push for digital to be the tool for every occassion.  One of my main areas of work is the wedding field, although a busy year for me is around 12 events.  These are direct quotes I have heard from featured speakers in this genre, "If you don’t use digital you are a loser."  "If you don’t use digital you are going to go out of business."  "You can’t be as creative as  you can be without using digital."

Of course this is just one genre, but I see and hear the same trends in my portrait field and even sometimes in the documentary field.

One doesn’t have to follow these people but I hear this type of push more and more and more.  It seems to me they feel it is not enough to introduce this technology, but they also want to  "rid" us of the old ways. 

Again, much of this is driven by manufactures with rising sales numbers and products with short life spans. 



I’m 36 years old and will hopefully be able to continue to use both for a long, long while.



DRM

DRM,

I think you will be set for the future.  Because of digital I foresee film "specialists" being in higher demand.  I’ve talked to a couple wedding shooters here in DC who have made the "switch" to digital, only to turn back to film because it made more sense for editing and production.  

Take Care,

Mike

Thomas,

My switch back to film for weddings happened about two years ago, for many reasons, but one of which was it was suddenly viewed as being "unique"’ again.  People book me now because I shoot film.   I can’t tell you have many times I hear from clients, "everyone looks the same."  And, when I show fiber prints they say, "are these new?"

But, at the same time, I love digital for my portraits, quick, efficient, etc. 

I like having the balance, doing what I feel like doing and fitting the equipment to the job.



DRM

People doing things differently,with a particular brand of camera,would be borring if we were all the same,would it not?



Everyone has their own opion,and style,god luck to them,and all of use with our photography.

It appears that they have heard the negative comments; their ‘About’ page is empty.



I’ve been a photojournalist for 26 years and have always had a couple of Leica’s about. They are good for specific jobs but to build an agency, with the hope of making money, around a brand of camera seems like a foolish biz plan. After all, a camera is but a tool — nothing more.



As a photo editor, I purchase hundreds of images a month. Not once has the brand of camera influenced my choice. I’ve never even thought to ask the shooter what gear they were using.

Completely pretentious… its the photographer, not the camera. I’ve seen what some people do with dipsosable camera’s, and I’ve decided that I dont need the expensive gear…

hello everybody

I think they had many good advice from this page. they are nothing neither without Leica nor leica.

my question is that I like to have a look photo agencies’ website however some agencies ask your camera brand when you want to apply for submissions some thing like taht.

What kind of f—-ing question is it? why do photo agencies ask your gear? they ask your name,age story bla bla but why gear? What about picture results? Does it matter how do you shoot? Can’t I cover the any event or long-term project without expensive camera or hummer?

All the best

I say just because you are cuban, and play the drums, doesn’t mean you are a master drummer, just because you are a Brazilian, and play soccer, doesn’t make you Pele, just because you’re from New Orleans, and cook, doesn’t make you Paul Prudhomme, and just because you use a Leica, and like to take pictures, doesn’t make you Cartier-Bresson. It’s an image thing. The concept might be a smart move since a lot of art buyers and the public like to buy into an image. I personally feel it’s a bit pretentious but if they’re making a buck, more power to em’.

Curiouser and curiouser …



Group M35? There’s an agency in Australia called “M33” that actually has sponsorship thru Leica.



http://www.m33photoagency.com

Maybe there are 33 other such agencies we havent heard of yet ? Maybe it’s Leica’s plan to TAKE OVER THE WORLD MWAHAHHAHAH.

Or, maybe not.

As for the debate about photo agencies asking you what kind of equipment you have, maybe it’s a digital thing to surreptitiously coax you into revealing the megapixel count of your camera in case they need large images ? Apparently a lot of agencies require more than 10mp now dont they ? Dont really know much about this yet unfortunately, it’s an aspect of photography I’m trying to find out about.

I suggest people go take pictures rather than wondering if the group is “pretentious” or not. I personally could care less . . . this is all very much amateur talk. . .

I would have to agree with Davin. I actually once thought I was going to be a member of groupm35 until they refused to put my name and work on their website until they thought my work was"ready". You should relax because what the agency set out to do was once again raise the bar in a way that magnum or vii or even vu had once done before. can you call that pretentious in a world of getty and corbis? I do not think it matters what matters is that they are trying to promote good photography. Aren’t we all? They do not do spot news and most photographers are working on long term DOCUMENTARY projects. 

back in the day I read Zen and the Art of Archery and wished i had a leica. i wish there was an agency for Nikkormats.

I agree that Magnum, VII and Vu did and still do but they never said that you needed a specific camera brand or model in order to be part of them. They don’t turn portfolios away because you did not use an “X” camera brand or model. Raisin the bar is one thing, and that bar should be measure by your emotion, perspective and philosophy as a photographer NOT by the lens or lenses you use. You don’t need a specific camera to promote good photography.

Manifestos appear to me to be an attempt to separate yourself from the pack as well as draw attention to oneself or the group. The reasoning behind why a group chooses to separate itself doesn’t necessarily have to be aesthetic, perspective, or philosophical to achieve its goal. It’s still very odd but we seem to be paying attention…and there is no bad publicity. I religiously shoot 4×5 film…anyone want to start a “Group Crown Graphic”?

I used to shoot a lot with Leica rangefinders (mainly M6) and yes, there seems to be a certain style that’s very prolific among M shooters. However, recently I switched back to humble Nikon SLRs (D70 and now D200) and have absolutely no problem shooting in the same way I did with the Leicas (see my Mexico pics).  But then, as a previous poster said, it’s all about differentiating themselves from the rest.

My understanding of group35m is that the founder had an existing relationship with Leica.  The agency may not be "sponsored" per se, but from what I saw, they’re not a group of gearheads sitting around feeling snooty.  Though yes, their old about page was charming.

Just have to say that I think its pretty unfair and against the Lightstalkers ethos of support and mutual aid the way most people here have totally ripped these guys apart. While I agree that their comment may have sounded pretentious (I didn’t see it, I think they probably responded to this feedback and took it down), the fact of the matter is that many agencies engage in sponsorship programs and endorse lines of gear- look at VII’s full color glossy posters with them all sitting in a Paris cafe with Canons around their necks in their advertising campaign that they did for Canon. The fact of the matter is that it would probably be a dream for most struggling photographers to be sponsored by a company and get free gear. And pretentiuousness/arrogance in photograhers? Never heard of it! Come on. The fact of the matter is that these guys are trying to do something different and to keep a certain tradition alive, and we all know that in todays market it is exteremely difficult to keep doing in depth documentary work. These guys are at least trying to do that and are trying to come up with innovative/creative ways to continue doing their work. I met with their founder and he is committed to finding new ways to get this work out there and to find creative ways to finance work like this, and I applaud anyone who puts themselves out there in pursuit of this- we all know how hard it can be. I also think that we have probably alientated them from the Lightstalkers community with these comments and this is sad- they are a new agency and could use support from a community like this. And beyond that what matters is the work- and some of the stuff on their site is very good and very moving. Take a look at Ryan Spencer Reed’s “Hands of a Displaced Sudan” or Edward Grazda’s “The Mujahideen.” I also like c.w.d.‘s work in Turkey where he follows the path of HIV/AIDS among migrant workers in Turkey. They also have created some quicktime movies with the photos and with the music some of them are very powerful. There are at least two of their members who are Lightstalkers members- what I would like to hear is if there is anyone out there who has dealt with them and can offer more insightful feedback as to what they are doing beyond focussing on this one line on their site that isn’t even there anymore. I love the Lightstalkers community, and want to see it continue to be a place where we draw support from one another and help each other to do what we all want to do: make good pictures.

aaah, vii canon ads…

Andrew, supporting people in a delusional and idiotic discourse (the camera is what counts, we’re better because we use brand X) is probably less supportive and mutually aiding than roughing them up a bit and getting them to face the idiocy of focusing their difference on what camera they use, when they’re doing and showing some truly great stuff : i’m not quite sure Bill Burke’s I Want To Take Picture (amongst other things, Blenkinsop 10 years before Blenkinsop, truly awesome, groundbreaking work) which is up on their site right now can be summarized as “This is interesting because i use Polaroid film with negative”. Actually, i’m quite sure that it’s not, and i’m reasonably sure Burke would be quite pissed off if you started blurting out that kind of nonsense about his work.

when the fuck, brothers and sisters, are we going to transcend this idiocy. If Group35M defines themselves as an agency of photographers
defined by their cameras, than that’s their problem: of course, its deluded, pretentious and just plain sophmoric. Excuse my language, but
i hope im never defined by the size/cut/girth/color/manufacturer(god or godless) of that other shooting appendage….BUT
LightStalker Brother and Sisters, when as a group, when as photographers are we going to get over all this superficial shit:
concern about what equipment others use. I hate that photogs think Leica is the only real deal on the planet (that is a disease that seems to inflict, particularly acutely
photojournalists/street photogs), or that photogs continually muse CanonvsNikon, or think if your digi ‘got to carry one of those big guns…or that others give a bleed themselves weary
over trix or agfa, digital or film. Let’s face it: whatever choice one makes is, like a life-born appendages,
what is best suited. Remember: camera is a tool: a tool is a tunnel, a tunnel, is well, a tunnel i guess ;))>.Yea, of course, I feel sad for these guys, but frankly, i feel sad that photographers waste so much of their short time
chasing light discussing/worrying/arguing and yes, even belittling (guess that’s what Im doing ;)) ) others ofter their choices: good or bad…

camera/film choice is critical, but the fact that for photographers its a nearly existential-political gesture, is what tires me:

funny: photographers arguing about how abysmall all this corporatization of the web, of agencies, of galleries, and fuck, we’re still
worried about brands…

groupM35: hell, its their life, their superficiality…and also, seems silly for us too, to give a fuck, frankly ;)) let’s these guys live and shoot with their cameras if that’s their deal: i could care less, just as i dont care if a photographer uses a leica, nikon, hassel., mamiya, kontak, holga, or milkcarton pin-hole: its all good, its all about the same: telling stories with light….

:))
Friday, come with me for a whiskey or beer (no brand names ;))) )
:))
cheers,
bob

beer at f:8. be there.

matthias: u got it mate! :)))…b

I´ll be there for the beer, but no Molson’s — I drank that skunk piss for years when I was up in the North Country. No more. Ha!

I thought the original statement was a misfire, certainly, though I liked the idea of these people coming together and creating an agency around a specific kind of shooting (while at the same time I am not sure that gambit can work these days). I thought they meant it more as a symbolic gesture than a literal gambit, but I could be wrong. That they have taken the statement down in response to LS cavils about it may in fact be a good thing because I for one would not want my friends and colleagues to make fools of themselves, even if we were maybe a bit too harsh (one reason I decided to run the editor’s survey and thus spare some newbies the painful mistakes we have all made). If we were irritated by the statement, you can imagine how people were reacting in editorial circles. But I certainly hope we havent alienated any of them. I welcome them to LS and I sincerely hope their endeavor prospers. I agree with you Andrew, the ethos here of cooperation and support is really precious, unusual, and needs to be maintained. But there is room for the grumpy somewhat misanthropic comment from time to time, and a bit of vinegar blood and piss too. we have had worse spats and LS is unharmed. But I dont want to see it become like other boards with sock puppets, trolls, and constant idiotic and abusive commentary.

I myself would never want to limit my camera choices to one. They are just tools. I like variety in ALL things ;)

I agree with Jon above- that if the comments here were taken by them as constructive feedback and they then chose to take the statement down this is a good thing. I would certainly want to be called on it if I made a statement publicly that was offensive to people. I was simply reacting to how harsh all these comments seemed and pointing out that they seem to have some hardworking photographers in the group and not to write them off completely for a silly comment.

I’ll meet y’all for a beer too- but seems like it might be hard to meet with peeps who are simultaneously in Portugal, Switzerland and the DR!

:)) just a point of clarity about my too-silly and overly flippant (foul language too) words. I meant no disprect to the agency or to
their photographers. I find, frankly, any agency or photographer who has as their mandate the exclusive use of anything, or for inclusion
in a group the exclusive definition of a person (what he/she is or is not/does or does not use) as perfectly idiotic. However, I also
find all those attacks against them equally idiotic. If a photographer/agency believes that Leica (or any other equipment) makes them
a better photographer, hell, that’s their small thinking, but I also dont think we should care or worry or call the agency idiotic, for
we’re doing the same. I was trying to point out (with I hope funny language, even if vulgar) the absurdity of both points of view:
the agency’s exclusivity for defining itself (if this is infact what they do) and OUR COLLECTIVE obsession as photographers about what
is and isnt important (this camera is good, this agency is bad because of their thinking): both points of view strike me as superficial:
in other words: HUMAN! :)…just like me: pretentious, silly, insecure and hell, we’re all the same are we not?

thus: my choice: let’s drink up to all our fuckin’ small-mindedness: our humanity! ;)))..

I hope that helps clarify my first, toilet-room post: hell, it is friday ;)))

cheers peeps!
bob

‘because in theory, the style of people who shoot rangefinders is different. ’
Is it really??? I don’t know. Everybody’s ‘style of shooting’ is different when you get down to it. Good luck to them anyway, good maketing tool, considering the lenght of this discussion.

i think there is a good reason why their styles are similiar.rangefinders are little buggers to focus!(framing is a bit iffy as well)so you inevitably end up using wide or wide ish lenses and shooting at f8 or higher.as for those 35m boys,if they want to restrict themselves so severely then thats their choice.personally i agree with jon,variety is the spice of life.i don’t object to them having a site devoted to leicas,but i would like to see them using them a little more creatively.they do seem to worship at the altar of cartier-bresson,which is not a bad altar to worship at but i am sure the great man himself would rather see them moving his vision along,not just preserving it in aspic.by the way,i have never owned a leica but i have had a minolta cle for 20 years and i still love and use it in certain situations.the reason i bought it?basically its a leica with a light meter!leicas are technically and opticaly the dogs bollocks but even 20 years ago a camera without a meter was a dinosaur,and look what happened to them.(although i have heard they are going to “make” a woolly mammoth from frozen dna.)

i think there is a good reason why their styles are similiar.rangefinders are little buggers to focus!(framing is a bit iffy as well)so you inevitably end up using wide or wide ish lenses and shooting at f8 or higher.as for those 35m boys,if they want to restrict themselves so severely then thats their choice.personally i agree with jon,variety is the spice of life.i don’t object to them having a site devoted to leicas,but i would like to see them using them a little more creatively.they do seem to worship at the altar of cartier-bresson,which is not a bad altar to worship at but i am sure the great man himself would rather see them moving his vision along,not just preserving it in aspic.by the way,i have never owned a leica but i have had a minolta cle for 20 years and i still love and use it in certain situations.the reason i bought it?basically its a leica with a light meter!leicas are technically and opticaly the dogs bollocks but even 20 years ago a camera without a meter was a dinosaur,and look what happened to them.(although i have heard they are going to “make” a woolly mammoth from frozen dna.)

I’ve just entered the site after longtime and bad news come from it; take a read:
http://www.openorigins.com/photography-notes/the-disappearance-of-group-m35/

anybody knows more indepth?

Wow!

damn, it sounds like they stepped in the cow flop right up to their knees. you dont say something as potentially libelous as dishonest and fraudulent unless you’ve got the goods to back it up. I wonder what happened there.

hehehe, Michal…

The agency is not new, it came out about 3-4 years ago and in the beginning you had to own a Leica as one of the requirements to join the agency. The founder is a person who is sponsored by Leica and very, very AROGANT…He somehow thinks that Leica shooters are better photographers.

“Photography is more than art…It is knowledge”
-Alfred Morse
Life Photographer

I suppose that it’s about time I put my two cents in on this one. I won’t address everything said here, because quite frankly a good portion of it is just ludicrous. As to my credibility, you can take it or leave it. The fact is that I lived and worked with Clark for many years, and Group M35 was started in my living room.

First and foremost, shooting Leica cameras was never a requirement to be a part of this group. Those of us who originally started the group just happened to shoot with Leicas. Period, end of story. It was a common philosophical approach to photography that we shared regardless of what gear we carried.

More important is the issue of one Charles Clark, who also uses several aliases including Doyle Clark, Sean Clark, C.W.D. Clark, William Clark, Charles William, Charles Doyle and a slew of others.

After a series of rather strange events internally at Group M35 in New York, several members, including myself, became increasingly suspicious of the activities of Charles Clark and the running of Group M35. After a little investigating, it became apparent that the entire thing was nothing more than elaborate con.

Within three years Charles Clark had run up bad debts all over New York City. He failed to pay the basic operating expenses of the agency and sold large numbers of prints without informing or paying the photographers. After investigating what little financial records were kept, it seems that the bulk of the agencies funds, both from revenue generated and from investors, was spent by Clark on personal items including a vast collection of photography books, designer clothes, motorcycles, and lavish meals at expensive restaurants for him and whomever he was trying to impress. This was just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s just say that Clark was living very, very well in Manhattan.

When confronted with all of these issues by the group, Charles of course denied everything. Two days later he skipped town, and few have heard from him since. The ones who have heard from him, say that he will not disclose his location.

In the months since everything fell apart, a great deal has come to light about Clark’s history. Charles Clark is not, nor has he ever been, a photographer. None of the agencies he claims to have worked for have ever heard of him. None of the work he claims as his own can be verified, as the negatives seem to have conveniently disappeared. In addition several photographers, including Chris Morris, have stated that Clark stole material from them and later claimed it as his own. It seems that he has been conning people his entire life. He has bankrupted at least 4 wives and 3 assistants. During his time in San Francisco he ripped off every camera store in the city, and I do mean every single one. He has been accused of stealing motorcycles, clothes, watches, jewelry, cameras, photographs and just about anything else he can get his hands on.

There is so much more to this story, I’m afraid I could fill a book. Just know this, Charles Clark is a man with a disease. He is a pathological liar, and a sociopath. He is ill, in every sense of the word. What’s more, he is not to be trusted. My goal in writing this is not to discredit Charles Clark, he has done that on his own. My goal is to save the next photographer he gets his hands on. I am told there will be an article in PDN about the group, possibly in the November issue. I can only hope this will get the word out in the photographic world.

Regardless of my personal involvement in this fiasco, it is a shame what happened to such a wonderful group of photographers. As I’ve said before, my apologies to all those involved. I really do believe we had a good thing going.

Questions? Feel free to contact me.

Joseph Szymanski –
Former Member / Webmaster, Group M35 –
origin (at) openorigins.com

Sounds like you just can’t trust a guy on a motorcycle (still sorry I sold mine, but the proceeds brought me some nice equipment)! :-)

“Our members are all Leica photographers, which is the most obvious explanation for the superior quality of our printed work (over that of any other agency).�

Michael,

“leica photography” and “we leica photographers” is something very common in the leica forum, strange but real.

regards Stefan

There is so much more to this story, I’m afraid I could fill a book.

Joseph Szymanski

Why don’t you write one then, I would read it.

Shit, and I thought it was the photographer that made a great picture?

@Joseph Szymanski:
Reading all of this now and just having my first awareness of the agency by reading its obituary, I applaud your openness.

There are people like this out there. Embezzelers, scammers, liars and charismatic thieves who find people willing to put forth a bit of trust and then milk every available cent from their victims.

Your transparency is what will save your reputation.

Take heart in knowing that someone like this guy is far more likely to wind up putting a pistol on his mouth when he eventually paints himself inextricably into a corner.

@ Jim O’Connell, thank you for your comments.

@ Mark Seager on writing a book, frankly I am not a writer, nor is this something I wish to re-live in print.

@ Michael Daniel, I find it absurb that you would make such a statement. This fiasco has ruined more than a few lives and cost several investors and members some rather large sums of money. To make light of it by asking who “wrote the idiotic statement below” is incredibly disrespectful.

Why everyone seems so fixated with the whole “Leica Photographer” idea is beyond me. However, I will address it one final time…

Shooting Leica cameras was never a requirement of the group. Period. The statement about “Our members are all Leica photographers” was part of an internal memo circulated through the group, and contributed to by many people both within and outside the agency. The document was never intended to be released publicly.

I implore all of you to make this the last time I have to speak to this Leica issue.

Last but not least, you wanted a picture, here is the photograph from his agency credential…