Randomness

Pottery near window in a Colombian store (2006).  We ended up buying a nice, blue creamer there.

Brazilian musicians playing at Bembo Haus, in Nuremberg, during the Blaue Nacht, an event in which all museums stay open until late, with free admission and hosting musical events.  Done with an M6TTL, Summilux 35mm and Provia ISO 400 pushed at 1600.

Silly scene in Providence, RI.  This is near the main drag in town.  Done with my M3, Summicron 50mm (collapsible and unfiltered), on Agfa ISO 400 film (developed in T-Max).  

Random shots have the value of the unexpected, the common and ordinary that turns into a strange thing once it's recorded in film.  

Let's see if I can find more for later; right now, I'm busy with a newborn at home...  Of course, he's a handful, and he's keeping us busy.  So far, he was already photographed with my M3 and my Elmar 90mm lens, but since it's color film, I won't develop it.  Later on, once I have it, I'll see to post it (provided it's reasonably exposed). 

New Toy!

Here it is!  One more Leica lens... 

A nice Elmar 90mm f4 lens, with caps, recently came home.  It is now part of my M3 classic system, as you can see...

Of course, pretty much immediately, I loaded film it into my M3 and proceeded to burn it.  I went without a meter here, so I recall that the exposure of all the images was about the same I use with my Summicron 50mm collapsible, but with a tad of an opening to compensate for the lens's length.  So, the one above was shot at f5.6, 1/1000 on B400CN film. 

And so was this one above!

Now... where would I be without PSE6?  See... in the end, I did overexpose most of these shots, so I had to resort to the shadow/highlight sliders. 

The lens works well; the turning of the rings, both aperture and focus, is nice and dampened.  The only concern I may have is a slight squeak close to the infinity, that I hear every time I turn the focusing ring a bit fast, from the closest to the farthest distance.  However, it's been relatively quiet for a while. 

Later I will post either more shots with this one, or more with any of my other long Leica lenses.  Who said that rangefinders are not efficient with telephotos?  We'll see soon.  Meanwhile, dust off your big guns!

Composition Heaven or Nightmare?

Welcome to a metering and composition nightmare! The parallel lines at Red Rock Auditorium near Denver, CO.

Making lines and subject work?  Hmmm... easier said than done!  Take a peek at the following shots.  First, above these lines, some runners up the seats.  Below, a graceful young lady who was lending moral support to someone in the crowd (M3, 50mm 'cron, Agfa APX ISO 400, at 1/1000 sec. and aperture between f8 and f11; the second: same shutterspeed, but at f5.6, most likely).

What's your take?  What do the lines do for the subjects? 

And finally, by the stage, an exhausted athlete (same gear and film, but aperture between f5.6 and f8; I like to use my lenses as open as possible, hence the f-stop).

When I was taking these photographs, I was in hog-heaven... or whatever the expression be to say I was in a high...  In the zone, going Zen...  Through the viewfinder, all these shots looked like a million bucks. 

Not so much later.

While I like the one on the top (it has a nice, eerie look to it, and the men look like wild animals climbing the steps), when I was getting ready to scan the negative the lighting, the metering and the grain (something I'm becoming a stranger to) posed a series of challenges.   I won't add that I had to contend with some Newton rings, so there's a few negatives that will need to be re-scanned.  However, these ones looked good only after a second examination (not pixel-peeping).  Now... I like them, but I'd like to hear about your experiences using lines in the composition. 

If the first has a nice, lyric air, what do you make of the second?  Does it need cropping?  Is the human element getting small and buried in the geometry?  How about the tired runner in the bottom photograph?  I perhaps should add that it's the one I like the best in terms of contrast, sharpness and lighting. 

Anyway, I'd like to know about your reactions.  

BTW, I did print these images... and Ansel Adams's famous dictum came to mind: "the negative is the score, the print is the performance."  My negs don't look too good, but the prints have a nice sharpness about them...  I must be a decent conductor. 

Thanks!

Travel Photography

Why does it happen...

That most of our best shots...

Happen when we travel?

Any ideas?

BTW, and before I forget, these are all Leica shots, ranging from Bogotá (Colombia), where I captured the girl talking to her dad about the dog who won't budge; to Barcelona, where my rarely used Summicron 50mm yielded a scene in Plaza del Pí; to Chicago, which I still consider a travel destination because it's not the town where I live. 

Is it perhaps because of the distances we need to cover to get these shots?

Is it maybe because we always assume that the greener pastures are beyond our horizon?

Or just because these are to us unfamiliar sights?

It annoys me... because, for one reason or another, some of my best shots are, indeed, from far away locations. 

Makes me feel glad I had a Leica back then.  

Flash and the Leica

Which of these two photographs was taken with a flash?

I'll reveal only that this one was done with my Elmarit 28mm f2.8.  I cannot recall what film it was, but I'm pretty sure it was Kodachrome.  For the next one, I used my Konica Hexanon 35mm f2, and the film was (true, very true!) Velvia ISO 50. 

Considering that I believe that flash photographs should NOT look as if they were taken with a flash, I must concede to being extremely proud of one of these two. 

Please, excuse the poor scanning and lousy exposure.  So far, I've been uploading scans from labs, but if I dig deep enough in the past, I find my own clumsy scans only.  They're not too bad in print, I should add, but nobody would believe it from looking at them online. 

Did you guess which one was the flash one?

I should add that I do believe in the power of flash.  It's portable light, it's useful, it's progress, and to use it, one must exercise the intellect, and guess where the light will strike.  It's not easy, so I think that most of the Leica users who bemoan about flash are actually the ones who do not know how to use it, or, worse yet, don't want to learn.  

At some point in my life, I too believed that flash photographs were only for parties and for indoors, but later, much later I learned that a flash works like salt in a meal: just a little bit of it goes a pretty long way.  In short, we must handle it with care, while enjoying the results. 

Why is that others simply reject the use of flash?  It's not like some photographs don't need it. 

Oh, well... I consider it useful, good and a blessing. Long live flash!

BTW, it's the second photo.  I used my Leica SF-20, with one full stop dialed up for underexposure (to tame the output).  Also, the shutterspeed, a typical Leica quirk, went down to 1/4th of a second.  However, instead of a well-lit cat and a dark background, I got a nicely illuminated domestic scene, in which Ben shows that he'll defend his owner's peace at any cost. 

Take care and hope to return soon! 

Who Else Uses Leicas?

Who else uses Leicas? How about a Leica M4-2?

I'd like to know...



Mostly, because this blog got started right when I got my own, first Leica M4-2. 

To some, it may seem a weird decision...  Why bother getting a meterless camera body, when there are so many advanced camera systems out there? 

At some point, the control-freak inside a photographer shows up.  And starts longing for a camera that gives you a lot of control (that is to say, forces you to make decisions) over your the way you photograph.  

Besides, one starts needing a number of lenses that are not only reliable, but also fast, small and unobtrusive.  Hence, the longing for a camera like the Leica.

Now, by the time I got my first Leicas (which should have been subject for a separate blog... and I may do it one day), I was already relatively bored with SLR bodies.  Granted, they are versatile, flexible and easy to use, but people see you coming a mile away and, more often than not, they assume you know something or other about photography.  I've been taken for a professional more times with my Nikon gear than with any other cameras.  

So, my Leica decision was, rather, a move towards the new.  I could have gone with medium format, or even digital, but I'd have the same conspicuousness problem.  So, rangefinders were there.  I went for the metered bodies because my short experience with an unmetered medium format body didn't really satisfy me.  Probably, I wasn't ready to learn the little traps about taking a reading with a meter instead of using a camera.  

Why a rangefinder camera?  What was the draw to a metered or unmetered body?  What did you do it?  Was it the B-and-W look?  Was it the brilliance of the color?  

Let me know!

(FWIW, Street carolers in Hinsdale, IL, M6TTL, Summilux 35mm on Agfa ISO 400 at ISO 1600, Nov 2007; Brazilian musicians at the Bembo Haus, Nuremberg, same rig, but with Provia ISO 400 pushed three stops, 2008.) 

The Problem With Leicas

The problem with Leicas is...

That they have to be so darn good... The photograph above was taken in a store near Bogotá, Colombia, with a Leica.  Spur of the moment, light hitting the right spot, or maybe simple boredom, but the camera (and the `cron 50mm) came to the rescue.  Mind you, I'm not a fan of this focal length, but then, I force myself to use it, as it was the first Leica lens I got, and the one and only purchased new (hard to believe!!).  Now, the photograph below is, as it turns out, somewhat random.  Taken with my very M4-2 and Hexanon lens, I did not take a reading; just set the camera at f2.8 and 1/60, overexposing one bit on Provia ISO 400 (yes, I dared use slide film).  The result is a fairly pleasant photograph of a colleague in his office at the university where I work.  He liked the shot himself, it seems.  

Lastly, we go back to Denver.  In a place called Red Rock there's a huge auditorium carved in the rock that, when it's not busy with famous bands (the Beatles offered their first concert in Denver at this place), turns out to be just as useful and the steps of the Philadelphia Art Museum were for Rocky Balboa.  Here's the proof! 

Need I add that this one was taken with my M4-2?  

About RF shots

Granted, you can do these things with an SLR

(Chicago, Art Institute, hip shot with M3)

(Denver, park near the library and Art Museum, with my M4-2)

(Café tables near Sixth St, in Denver, with my M4-2 again)

Sure, an SLR could handle these shots just as well.  But then, there's the little aspect of conspicuousness, discretion and creativity.  I was able to walk by all these places, take the photographs without any more fussing than making sure they were in focus, and keep going my way.  Granted, I also had to think about the exposure, and either pre-meter or guess.  Fortunately, the fac that C-41 film is so forgiving also helps.  Not to mention that the little voice in my mind was reassuring me all the time with the famous mantra "This can be fixed with PS later."

In short, while SLRs allow the same (and more) technical possibilities as the rangefinder camera, the latter is better for your brains.  They pose challenges that the SLRs never met: wider frames to compose in (compare a 135mm top image area to what an SLR can do... up to 600mm!), use of the brain, and ease (no need to do a lot of camera adjustments on the spot).  Besides, they're a lot quieter!

It seems, then, that the best way to avoid Alzheimer's is to use a Leica.  

Going to the deep end...

Or, to put it differently, playing around the limitations of a rangefinder camera... 

The image above was done with an SLR and a very conventional, standard kit zoom.  The place is Cartagena, Colombia, where I also brought my Canonet (that was loooong before buying my Leicas; also, after that trip, even my wife admired my work, so I told myself I deserved a Leica afterwards).  However, on one or two occasions, I took my Nikon F80 with its 28-80 f4.5-5.6 (eew... that's slow) zoom, and that's when I snapped this photo of a statue by Fernando Botero in the popular Plaza Santo Domingo.  Distinctive aspects anyone?

I'll do it.

To me, it's only two definite markers that show this image was taken with an SLR.  First: long lens used here.  Second, relative closeness to the subject (this nice figure whose butt was always patted).  Then, the fact that I took it and remember it seals the deal.  In the end, I just have the head of a statue.  It may look "good" in a print... but only to those who know what it is and where it's placed and what it symbolizes (to many, Cartagena, but not to the entire world). 

Then, the one above, and the other below, were both taken with a Leica camera and a 50mm lens (my unfavored Summicron 50; I just don't use it enough).  The color photograph is from San Juan PR, a fancy store...  The one below is a store in the "new" section of Dresden, on Scala film. 

The difference are, I believe, pretty obvious and clear, but the consequences of those differences are what matter here.  In short, even if these mannequins had some distinctive feature of any kind, the cameras used didn't really allow for a close-up with as much detail as the image at the top.  I had to work around the images.  My interest, in both cases, was their clothes: the way mannequins inevitably draw attention to the clothes they wear because they suggest a human shape underneath.  And yet, these two were pretty flawed in that the clothes didn't sit, say, in a natural way.  

I had to include the environment here.  And, of course, with that inclusion, the whole image changes in the end.  The lens limitation simply forced me to rethink the image... and I believe the results are at least more informative.  As opposed as a lonely detail of a statue, like the top, I wound up with two images that say something about the place in which they are, and the clothes and moment.  The PR dress speaks about a fancy, yet shallow store.  Not necessarily good, but not bad either.  The Dresden shot belies it was done behind a window, and it is, in a funky way, the anti-mannequin: the buttons are undone, suggesting that it's hiding something: the exposed skin.  Like someone trying to avoid ridicule or embarassment, the mannequin, leaning against the window, makes me think about the effort to conceal something that everybody already knows.  How worse can it get?

I don't know, but it's good to be able to spin this much text about three photographs, huh?

I'll continue with this idea later!