Trip down memory lane: Occupy Wall Street in Chicago, 2011

A few weeks ago I sent some undeveloped rolls of film to the lab (in case you care, it's The Darkroom, in CA), and when I looked at the scans I found a little surprise.

It turns out that in October or November 2011 we spent a weekend in Chicago.  Of course, I took with one of my Leicas, the one that got out the least, a nice M3.  However, I also included (just for the heck of it) my then newly acquired Canon 50mm f1.2.  After a Saturday of sights and meals and visiting Central Camera in Wabash St., my wife and son wanted to take a rest, but I went out for a walk.

This is what I came back with, stored in a roll of Arista II ISO 400.  Of course, the first image is the interior of Central Camera back then (it hasn't changed much, but then, I haven't been there for some time).

Central Camera in Chicago.

Occupy Wall Street protesters in Chicago's LaSalle St.

 

 

Protesters holding signs.

 

Holding out for Free Speech!

Protesters on the ground.

Couple with sign.

Protester with flag

All these folks were congregated around the LaSalle street area, which is still the financial center in the Loop. But their activities were largely pacific; they weren't vociferous or even loud.  Besides, it was late in the evening.  The lens helped, though, and it was interesting to shoot with shutterspeeds as fast as 1/125 wide open. 

Are we back where we started?  Will it get worse?  At this point there have been far more demonstrations (and for different reasons) than after Obama's inauguration in 2008.  The passage of time is very evident now... even in this blog!  But we'll hang in there, because life is too beautiful to ignore it, and photography still offers an outlet when everything else fails.

Just to break the monotony... A Leica typology!

Of course, all this is in jest.

For some reason, one evening it occurred to me that each of the different models of Leica M camera reveals its own psychology.  There's something in the design and consequent modifications that tells us what each body is all about.   Hence, without further ado, let me begin with the very first Leica M model.

The Leica M3.  We're in front of a stoic, stern laborer.  This camera exudes discipline, speaks about duty and work, does the job, and doesn't suffer fools too well.  Its lines are straight and direct, and even if there's a very slight ornamentation around the frontal viewfinder window and the rangefinder small eye (see those diminutive frames), this camera commands respect, speaks with a firm, loud voice, and either it doesn't get jokes or has no sense of humor.  But boy… can it work?  Non-stop, 24-hours per day, 7 days a week and all-year around.  And if the M3 takes a break it won't be for a beer, no siree… It may be for a nice, cold glass of mineral water mit Kohlensaure (although this camera will keep it a secret that it's very fond of a good cognac). 

Then, the Leica M2.  This one requires a comparison.  Let's say that, if the M3 had a military rank , it would be one with command, like a captain or lieutenant or anything all the way to general.  The M2, however, would be a corporal, perhaps a sargent.  This one can have a moderate amount of authority, but it doesn't exude it like the M3; it simply has it… because someone else has granted it to the camera.  It's an efficient soldier, a productive worker, an active community member, a fast runner, somebody effective and useful, but nothing that radiates leadership or command.  It's still serious, but, unlike its predecessor, may kick back ocassionally and have a beer… ready to stand on attention.

Let's move onto the Leica M4 and allow ourselves to wonder… What were the Leitz people thinking?  That silly little rewind crank… Why tilt it?  It simply shows irresponsibility, flirtiness, light-headedness, some very irrational and unjustified joie-de-vivre that doesn't belong in a Leitz product.  But let's reconsider… how bad can that little crank be, even tilted?   Horrific!  It looks like a slanted beret.  Heck, it looks terribly… gallic!!  There it is!  Granted, its lines are clean, pure and straight, it has more framelines that both its predecessors, it's easier to load with film, but then, it has… such a shallow attitude.  It's the camera that says "let's go places and have a ball!"  And, indeed, once in place, it'll grab anything ethylic and get itself pretty happy.  Not thoroughly drunk, mind you, but joyfully sloshed nonetheless, but never (and let's not forget this) compromising the high standards of function and design behind it.  In short, this camera is a tool and a pal.

The liveliness of the Leica M4 (and its followers, the M4-2 and the M4-P) offers a stark contrast with the next in the line-up: the Leica M5.  This camera has all the Leicas wanted to have: its own sense of style, a slick layout, a unique design, flawless performance, and a particular brand of seriousness that also suggest some kind of mischiveous streak.  In short, this camera is… James Bond!  Serious at first, very clever, quite surprising, full of tricks, it has the proverbial stern looks of the perfect instrument, but nicely combined with an idea of enjoyment, of some discreet and wholesome fun… not without pushing the limits whenever possible.  Here's a camera to have next to a nice mixed drink, or cocktail.  Not a silly, pink- or fruity-colored drink, but rather something elegant and classy, like a Martini or an Old-Fashioned. And the Leica M5 will be unobtrusive and quiet, sipping its drink modestly and silently.  Think George Clooney here… and that'll give you an idea.

Enough for now... we'll come back soon with our characterization of the rest of the film M-bodies. In case you feel like, leave a note in the comments (whether you agree, for instance, or want to add to this profiling of the Leica Ms). 

BTW, the M3 photograph's is Ken Rockwell's, the second—Leica M2—came from Vidarphoto from Flickr. The M4 belongs to La Vida Leica and the M5's is my own.

So long!

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!