The Leica M4-2

Street shots only with rangefinders?

2009-09-12T16:44:00.008-05:00

Is there a law about this?

(Chicago, near Art Institute, M6TTL, 35/f2 Hexanon, on Ilford XP2)

How about an SLR for the job?

(Same gear, under the L rails in Wabash Street, Chicago)

Or medium format? Doisneau already showed it, right?

(Stairs up to the L station, Wabash Street, same gear & film as above)

It seems to be counterintuitive, but one of these days I'm going to try it. Either with my Nikon D700 or with my Mamiya C220, with B&W imagery, of course.

In the meanwhile... who takes street shots with anything else but a Leica? Who has? Is there a difference between quality, attitude, and, of course, perception?

Crutchless Photography

2009-08-30T18:16:00.008-05:00

Not long ago, I started playing with meterless Leicas. Especifically, a 1957 DS M3 purchased from National Camera Exchange for something below $500. Highly recommended, by the way...

Back to the issue... that purchase perhaps was not a good idea... Or probably it was, because it helped me start flying without electronic help.

Here come some early efforts with the M3 and Kodak Portra or Ilford XP2.

DeKalb garage, on the way to my office.

Stairs inside a university building.

Who said "no" to landscapes with rangefinder cameras? I did... once, a long time ago, before realizing I had done the one above (the Kishwaukee river flows around my university campus).

Something similar with my M4-2... on BW400CN film and with my Hexanon 35/f2 lens.

Hot dog vendor in campus.

Mimi stalking a chipmunk in the back of the house.

Table and chairs for not so terribly hot days (I'm curious about how they'll look in winter).

I admit having to do a bit of Photoshopping on these images, but mostly an exposure adjustment of maybe one stop. Considering that I tend to overexpose, and that I had to adjust the levels only one bit, it's not too bad.

BTW, these are all Walgreens scans off the film I left with them for developing.

More later!

About a year ago..

2009-08-08T22:43:00.005-05:00

About a year ago I started this blog. On a whim... while awaiting delivery of my newly acquired Leica M4-2 camera.

Lots of things can happen in a year. Little did I know, for instance, that we'd be adding one family member in May 2009. Above is Edmund, our son, just in July this year. Not his first Leica portrait... but the best (I think; I know, the photo needs a bit of editing yet). BTW, it was with my Konica Hexanon lens at 1/30th, f2 on BW400CN Kodak film.

An old favorite from Denver CO, where I took my M4-2 in a type of maiden trip. Done at 1/1000 at f5.6 on Fuji ISO 400 Superia film.

Nice sample of my eye-meter at work: 1/60th at f2.8 on Fuji Superia ISO 400. This is our cat Mimí, doing what she does best: showing her moxie!

Something we'll apparently need in the years to come...

Randomness

2009-06-06T18:04:00.007-05:00

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!

2009-04-25T20:16:00.004-05:00

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?

2009-04-16T19:35:00.006-05:00

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

2009-04-14T23:45:00.004-05:00

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

2009-03-06T14:08:00.002-06:00

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?

2009-02-16T10:52:00.006-06:00

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

2009-02-13T23:07:00.004-06:00

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

2009-01-23T12:00:00.003-06:00

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...

2009-01-18T22:33:00.004-06:00

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!

Mechanical Cameras

2009-01-17T08:18:00.006-06:00

Digital revolution? How many revolutions have to come yet? What will be next? In what way will any revolution change the very basic way in which a photograph is made? Will it do away with aperture? How about shutterspeed? Digital simply replaced the media that captures the image. So far, things are still the same.

However, the change will arrive in the shape of...

A mechanical camera!

Even though I've been chronicling the seasons in this town (because my M4-2 has remained inactive due to its need of a CLA), I still ponder why I use film, and where photography can go after digital. I do not think film will recover its preeminence, but then, it won't go away. Just like LPs, it will stay for a long time yet, because it happens to have that particular "hand-made" quality about it that digital lacks.

Brains instead of computers

Let's all hang onto our film gear. Film isn't gone yet... and there's charm in graininess. Otherwise, how to explain that a print of Lee Friedlander's may sell for thousands of dollars in a Christie's auction? Subject matter (a young, nude Madonna?), or the fact that it's an artifact of the past?

' later!

Seasons in DeKalb

2009-01-14T23:24:00.003-06:00

Corner of Sixth St and Lincoln Hwy

Hot Dog Stand during Cornfest

Small Coffee Bar (now gone) in February 2006

Living in DeKalb isn't glamorous, but I like it... probably for that reason. However, that doesn't make our seasons less exciting. The seasons have their way to insert themselves into our lives. Here, two of the shots are from our warm weather, and one "came in from the cold" (can you not tell which one it is?). All were taken with Leicas here in town... and I'm proud of each because, to a certain extent, they show what I've learned. Also, and here I hope, they show a bit of what I like in DeKalb.

Common thread here: they all show people. We'll continue with it next time!

Seasons in Chicago

2008-12-21T23:05:00.004-06:00

What's there with the summer in Chicago?

It's a strange season, in which people really let it all hang out, dress strangely and meander in packs. Look at this family crossing a street in the loop. Only the kid noticed me. The rest? Lost in that summer daze... (M6TTL, Hexanon 35/f2, T-Max ISO 100)

Then comes winter... and the Kris Kindl Markt (aka Christmas Market), with its expensive, fancy trinkets that make Chicagoans feel nostalgic if they've been to Germany, and touristy if they haven't. It's the best moment to watch people... (same gear, but in Scala film).

And then, there's that weird anticlimactic spring: wet, cold and unpredictable. There may be beautiful days followed by others, gray, rainy and cool. Of course, for an adopted DeKalbian, a rainy day in Chicago beats any rainy day in DeKalb (M6TTL, Elmarit 28/f2.8, T-Max ISO 400).

The possibilities are just endless... But, for now, the next one will be the seasons in DeKalb!

Winter

2008-12-19T00:46:00.002-06:00

These are trying circumstances. What to do with winter?

However trite it may sound... the best is to open one's eyes to it, face it and take it. Speaking of "taking things," I was very tempted to ditch the slide above until my wife told me it looked like the University of Iowa football symbol: an eagle. I had not seen an eagle here... but it saved the slide (Canonet G-III QL17 and Ektachrome 100).

Now, I did go out on a night like this, looking an image like the one above. Luckily, it made it to an exhibit assembled later that year (M6TTL, Hexanon 35, T-Max ISO 100).

Not the place and time to abandon your bycicle (M6TTL, Summicron 50, Scala ISO 200).

Winter should make us think, reconsider and ponder. Instead, the wonderful light and the quirky weather (I'm being nice here) force us out, and so we walk, shake, complain and guess exposures in the bitter cold, instead of doing other things. Why? Any idea?

Challenges (again, Denver)

2008-12-15T15:52:00.002-06:00

How to make the ordinary look extraordinary?

With long lenses... (Windows in Larimer Square, Denver, M4-2, Summicron 90/f2, Superia ISO 400)

Moving fast... (Hotdog vendor in 6th Street, M4-2, Hexanon 35/f2, Superia ISO 400)

Acting quickly... (a view of Michigan Avenue, south of the river in Chicago, M3, Summicron 50, Ektachrome ISO 200)

Looking for the weird... (Performing Arts Center in Denver, M4-2, Hexanon 35/f2, Superia ISO 400)

Some time ago, a photographer let me in his secret for succesful street photographs: visualize your shots. Sounds easy... until one leaves the familiar environment. That was my lesson (one of them, the other was that meters don't have it all with them) to take to Denver, CO, with my M4-2. In Chicago, it is relatively easy for me to determine what is ordinary and common as opposed to what is not. I can easily decide what details to pick and photograph and which ones to leave as done and overdone by other photographers. However, Denver didn't offer me that choice... simply because I don't know what is usual to photograph there. The challenge I faced, just like I do when in Chicago, was to render the familiar unfamiliar. Otherwise, why bother photographing?

Here are some of my results. My window shot, done with a Summicron 90, takes the windows and their awnings away from their surroundings. They're no longer a "Denver sight" but rather a line of windows with a conforting routine about them. Then, the hotdog vendor is so common and ordinary that he couldn't be any commoner. Yet, the people around him steal his protagonism from the photograph. My view of Michigan doesn't look any different from any other shot, except for the fact that it was done at dusk. My favorite here is the yuxtaposition of a bear (apparently a begging one) and a nice VW Beetle (weren't they known as "Bugs"?), in a photograph that screams "postmodern" to me: irony, clashing categories (urban vs wild, or idealized view of nature vis-a-vis the equally idealized urban life in the VW). I don`t know, but the VW in the forefront, and the bear in the background look so incongruent that I should frame the shot.

If you don't agree... just let me know!

More Denver citiscapes & signs

2008-12-08T12:06:00.004-06:00

More images with the M4-2... Can these be public art?

Nice coffee shop near our hotel.

An example of public art (sign of life).

Thinking girl near the library.

Let me brag... I metered these shots. With my eyes, only.

Well... I also had some help from my meter. Every time I had my doubts about lighting, I pulled out my faithful black Leica M4 meter and checked the lighting. However, most of the time my guesstimate fell in the correct area, so for situations like the ones above, I relied on my memorized settings (applicable with ISO 400 film). Proof that photographers in the past were guys with good memory!

That, or I'm going to be a tough candidate for Alzheimer's.

Back to Denver: Signs

2008-11-28T23:43:00.004-06:00

When in Denver... read the signs!

This is part of a street that ends in Sixth. Nobody complains about lack of information here.

The name of the place is just a hoot... and Brits probably crack up when they read it.

Now, to think Silver Plume was a booming town and now it's reduced to a few houses (inhabited by very friendly people, I should add).

Need I to say that these photographs were all taken with my M4-2 and my Hexanon? I must except the first one, for which I used my Summicron 90mm. The film? Fuji Superia ISO 400, indeed.

The thing with signs is that they're silent witnesses of other times. Like in the first photograph, they reveal what at some point existed in the world, things we needed to be aware of. Otherwise, they show what was in the collective mind of a generation or a group. Finally, like cemeteries, they indicate where something now lies.

I like photographing signs. Not all are necessarily fun, but many have that particular trait of working as silent voices, testament of last and lost wills, or very late reivindications (or indictments). In cities, while I look for them, not always do I photograph them unless something evidently obvious or funny leads me to immortalize them in film. Whatever the case, the signs I have photographed, however trivial, have always told me something beyond their initial intentional message. And that's just the beginning of the fun!

More signs later!

Monochrome

2008-11-27T00:05:00.005-06:00

Who shoots black-and-white these days?

Old photographers, perhaps (M3, Agfa APX ISO 400, Summicron 50)

Adventurous individuals (same)?

Lonely souls?

How about all of the above?

The truth is that B&W ain't easy. In short, it's not for wimps. Not for chimps either. And not for every one. As a particular thing, the scene matters more, there are less distractions and more things to see in a B&W image.

How does one do that?

My approach is that the image has to be relatively strong, or anchored in a good element, or else the viewer will not "see" it. The best way to create something that catches the eye is to place an element that leads to the image, something that indicates perspective and tells us where to look. When this added element is absent, the image gets watered down. It simply fails to emerge from the gray.

Now, this is not a rule, as I can think of many photos in which it is simply impossible to add perspective. In these moments, the two-thirds rule comes to save the day. At least to me. Besides, in B&W, if the composition isn't strong, the photograph has nothing else to "grab" our attention and enter our memory.

This is perhaps a simplistic trick, but it's worked for me ever since I came up with it.

In any event, something I keep in mind all the time, when I carry my Leicas loaded with Agfa or Ilford stuff: color allows us to enjoy life, while monochrome film makes us think about it. What could we say about all the photographs above? They were shot in Thayer St, in Providence, RI, during a conference in Brown University in which I took my recently refurbished Leica M3 and the faithful Summicron 50 collapsible.

For the next, we're going back to Denver.

Color

2008-11-21T17:34:00.007-06:00

Some time ago, a good friend of mine and very old-school photographer said to me that "color came to wreck everything"...

I think I agreed with him... out of courtesy. Color, as the photograph above shows, didn't wreck much... provided that there was something to wreck in the first place. These chatty girls (M6TTL, Hexanon, Ektachrome ISO 400) wouldn't look good in monochrome. Try it yourself...

I can see where color works and where monochrome looks better, but I don't see them as direct opposites or, worse yet, mutually exclusive. However, I must admit that I have a different attitude when I shoot color and when I load monochrome. In the shot above, both ways would work well... but I like it in color as it adds a bit of familiarity to the scene (Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, with an M3, Summicron 50 and Ektachrome 200). In monochrome... the observer probably would do a double take before figuring out what the image shows.

And here we have a case for color: these chairs in a now defunct store from Esmond, IL, really had to be photographed in color (with my M6TTL and trusty Hexanon 35mm). The wood under the light and the general cast are pleasing... at least to me, and the effect (hanging chairs, kind of a weird image) would get lost in monochrome.

Did I settle the controversy? Of course not! However, if color came and stayed, why fight it? It does help... or else, what would life be like without it?

Next time, monochrome.

Need to photograph

2008-11-19T22:52:00.004-06:00

Do you feel too the absolute need to photograph things? Just to hear the shutter go off and know that you have an image in the roll of film?

I do. Not just occasionally. Often.

This shot was part of a "challenge" in the Rangefinderforum some time ago. It was the month of February, and we were supposed to find "Shadows" around us. Shadows? In February? I found them, and photographed them with one of my M6TTL bodies and my Hexanon 35mm. Of course, the end result is a crop; from what I recall, the frame was quite larger. And the film was the nice Kodak chromogenic BW400CN... or was other type?

One of my early rolls of Scala yielded this image of one of my neighbors's street lamp. Since I was mortally afraid of pushing it, I had to contend with the ISO 200 rating of the film and shot this image in the bitter cold of December, early in the evening, with one M6TTL and a Summicron 50mm.

This image is something I like coming back to ever since I photographed it first in Ilford SFX and my M6TTL with the trusty Hexanon. Once in B&W, I needed it in color. Once in color, I needed it under a different light. I've been shooting the same image for so long that I could make a history of that corner at this point. This version was shot in Velvia, shortly after a snowstorm, probably in 2005. Scanning it was a pain, because I couldn't help getting those blue tones on the snow. However, after examining the slide... yes, those corners ARE blue in the original slide.

Is it normal to have the compulsion of taking a photo just because? Probably not, but then, who would object to it when it does give you nice shots more often than not?

Something nice about film

2008-11-17T15:33:00.004-06:00

There's something very nice about film...

Snowy house in DeKalb

Peeking at the menu in Barcelona

Leading an intense inner life (Barcelona too)

I get to make all the decisions!!

For instance, which photos I will scan (and potentially print), how I want them to look, what size I want them to be (and resolution). Granted, these same things come up with a digital camera, although I don't think I have much of a say in some areas. Of course, there are settings to arrange, but what if I want certan photos for certain purpose?

On the other hand, I'm just quibbling with myself.

These photographs (all made with film Leicas) have nothing in common. I simply felt like posting them because some of them have never been seen elsewhere, and others, even if seen, didn't seem to attract much attention. For instance, my snowy house was completely unknown. Will it merit a comment here? I certainly hope so. The Barcelona shots, on the other hand, were admired by friends. Does DeKalb stand up to Barcelona? Easy to find out; check my other photographs.

Be back soon!

Random Harvest

2008-11-13T17:00:00.004-06:00

Today, I feel like posting Leica shots for the heck of it.

For instance, above is the town's supermarket (M6TTL, Elmarit 28, Scala). It used to be the only one in town... but now it has to compete with another that sells upscale stuff. I went there one night to get some bread, the lights looked cool... and I snapped this shot.

Shortly after Thanksgiving, the stores in the town of Hinsdale throw their doors open to the people who feel like a little tingle in the air... and offer free stuff! This lady works at an insurance company, but also gives popcorn away on these days (M6TTL, Summilux 35mm, Agfa APX pushed at ISO 1600).

On our trip to Denver we stopped briefly at the public library, to take a look at the place... and use "the facilities." I was a little bored and about to finish a roll, so here's the result (M4-2, Superia ISO 400, Hexanon 35mm).

Change of direction?

2008-11-07T11:18:00.003-06:00

Christmas time in Geneva, IL

(M6TTL, Summilux 35mm, color film)

Chicagoans crossing the street

(M6TTL, Hexanon 35, T-Max ISO 400)

Aurora Literary Festival: a young participant

(M6TTL, Summicron 50, Scala)

For a while, I've been longing for a digital camera.

On November 6th, 2008, I just ordered it. It may not have been a bargain, but it wasn't too bad in price either. It is a Nikon D700, full frame body, to use with all my wide-angle and long telephoto lenses.

Will this mean I'll abandon my film gear?

Surely not. Even though I like computers, mostly they are tools for a job, not entertainment gizmos. Granted, I like them, but that's an added benefit. Spending hours tweaking photographs is not my cup of tea... but then, shooting grainless images is something of a dream. That, and not having to scan my photographs. I'm not good at scanning.

However, how about the shots posted above? Reactions?

Will keep you posted!