Forum Replies Created
- April 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm #2246
Doug A;2143 wrote: Most of the time I use HP5+. I occasionally use Tri-X, FP4+ or Delta 3200. Most of the time I develop with Ilfotec DD-X. I occasionally use HC-110 or Rodinal.
My scanner is an Epson V700. I do low resolution batch scans with the standard Epson negative holders. I then do high resolution scans of the “keepers” with Better Scanning anti-newton ring glass inserts to hold the negatives really flat. This helps with all of the films but it is essential with 35mm Tri-X which curls badly in the standard holder.
I would never scan conventional B&W film. Too grainy.
- April 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm #2241
hmarkweidman;2132 wrote: I have a question for Leica M users. Many years ago I shot Leica M film cameras but eventually sold them off, including four beautiful lenses. I recently came back into the Leica fold, with a new M9P and four lenses. The angle of coverage of three of the lenses does not line up accurately with the frame lines in the viewfinder. All three lenses (28, 50, 90) cover a significantly larger area than that indicated in the viewfinder. I sent the camera and all four lenses into Leica USA and they purportedly fixed this issue. The gear came back and the same exact problem exists. Go to the URL below to see photos that clearly illustrates this problem. Can any of you tell me if this is “normal”, or, should the viewfinder framing lines, line up precisely with what the lenses actually “see”.
Thanks for your input on this.
This is standard practice with rangefinders and should be cause for objection. So long as you get at least what you see, why worry? SLRs for years have displayed about 96% of what is recorded on the film, because slide mounts and printing cropped in a little around the edges. The Nikon ‘100%’ viewfinder was ludicrous: what good is is to see something you can’t print?!!!
- April 23, 2012 at 11:00 am #2237
Doug A;2119 wrote: I’ve been shooting film since 1955. I only shoot B&W and develop my own film. I switched from wet printing to scanning and inkjet printing when I found I preferred the results. My main outfit is an M6 with a 35/2 Biogon. I also have a Nikon F6, a Hasselblad and an X-100 but they don’t see a lot of use.
Which films and scanning equipment do you use?
- April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am #2211
Messsucherkamera;2105 wrote: My suggestion is this: Take a hard look at the M4-P and the M6 classic. You should be able to find a good user version (rated at around 8+) of either for around $1000 American.
Ken Hansen in New York City would be a good place to start your search. You can contacthim by email at [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email]
Tamarkin is another source, as is KEH.
- April 6, 2012 at 7:21 pm #2199
Jack MacD;2091 wrote: Glad to see some R image postings.
My favorite is Ornello’s Button Girl.
One of the more interesting people I found was this seemingly lost soul:
and this child is simply adorable!
- April 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm #2193
- April 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm #2189
Roger;738 wrote: I know to extract the most out of the S2 that a heavy tripod is recommended. Looking at the latest article on Luminous Landscape and David s post on the Telyt conversion …both seem to be using a GITZO 5 series . I have one but use it with a Gimbel head for long lenses .
The series 5 GITZO is as solid as I ve seen but wow …..will I really drag this baby on a shooting trip that includes air travel? I also have a 3 series GITZO which is really quite portable .
What combinations are the other S2 owners using and what are they recommending ? What head are you using and have you sprung for the CUBE?
Where do you get the idea that a tripod is necessary for a camera such as the S2?
- April 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm #2182
- April 2, 2012 at 3:33 pm #2181
In this article, Mark Dubovoy mentions that HCB spent a lot of time practising with his cameras until every movement was precise and second nature (see quote below in red).* He also practised and worked on how to move in the street so as not to be noticed. In other words, he tried to take into consideration his own presence in the scene being photographed.
I don’t understand why Mark Dubovoy brings this up. Apparently he is quite easily impressed. Everybody who’s any good at anything does this sort of thing. It seems that Mark Dubovoy never played a sport seriously or mastered a musical instrument or played chess. This is nothing! He needs to read something like The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. For a while in the 1980s I would spend one or two hours every evening practising my tennis serve. I wore out many sets of strings just from serving practise. A few years back I played a singles match in which I hit at least 24 first serves in a row without committing a fault (for those of you who don’t know about tennis, this is a real feat). Just three years ago I played a doubles match in which I lost just two points on my serve the whole match (one was a double fault; the other was an easy volley that my partner missed). I hardly missed any first serves, and one of our opponents did not return a single one of my serves. Practise pays off.
I honestly don’t understand Mark Dubovoy’s fascination with what is to me rather ordinary behaviour.
I once remember showing some of my photography to someone who said “I would give anything to be able to take photos like that.” The truth is that he wouldn’t, or else he would have already done it. Yes, it takes time, practise, thought, care. But these things are expected. I can remember, when I first got a camera, how much time I spent holding it, focussing, handling it, etc. I practised holding it behind my back and setting the aperture and shutter speed by touch, so that these things became instinctive. I didn’t think a thing of it. To me, this was a perfectly ordinary thing to do, and not worthy of special mention. Does doing this make anyone an extraordinary photographer? Of course not, but what it does is to enable any potential there to come out. HCB was not what he was (I’m not all that impressed by most of his work, for those who are curious) simply because of such practises; these sorts of things are things everyone who takes takes his craft seriously does or should be doing. They go without saying. Anyone who has ambitions to be a good tennis player or football player or archer needs to spend time, lots of time, practising. According to Gladwell, 10,000 hours are needed to become really good at anything.
Why is Mark Dubovoy so easily impressed?
*”While some people seem to believe that good street shooting means taking tons of images and periodically getting lucky, at least in the case of Cartier-Bresson, nothing could be farther from the truth. Cartier-Bresson was an incredible perfectionist. Everything from the lighting to the composition to the exposures, to the smallest details in each and every image had to be as perfect as possible. And each and every print had to be superb and as close to identical as humanly possible to all other prints of the same image. This is a man that used to incessantly practice things like how to best grip the camera and how to best press the shutter release. Even the way the camera strap was held was a detail that had to be mastered to ultimate perfection. He was meticulous about weather, lighting and wind patterns before he went out shooting. He was even meticulous and constantly concerned about his own presence in the street. His images did not happen by lucky accidents while shooting tons of images hoping that one would work. He did not shoot like a crazy speed demon and he did not carry much equipment. Every move and every step in the process of making a street photograph had been carefully rehearsed and choreographed to perfection ahead of time, and he made sure his reflexes were lightning fast. All of this allowed him to make each release of the shutter really count. His images are the result of incredible amounts of practice, dedication and amazing attention to the smallest details.”
- April 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm #2179
Pete Walentin;2068 wrote: 🙂
But as asked, why do you care? Sometimes I like to spent time to create a photo, it is part of my journey. Do I think it is the only way to make a photo? Definitely not. Most times there isn’t that much time to do so. And you can continue this and continiue this and continue this… at the end I would say focus on your stuff and just dont care. Makes things easier unless you are on a mission. If the latter is true I wish you good luck. 😉
Why do I care? Because the psychotics get all the attention. Undeservedly so. And I am serious. These people are mentally ill. Everywhere you turn, in photography magazines, at the book stores, they dominate. People getting into photography, either through photo courses or by looking at the published material, are exposed to this psychosis and the propaganda that ‘Ansel Adams was the greatest photographer; emulate him’.
Bob Schwalberg’s remark on AA:
“It’s definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you’ve seen them all.
But if you’ve seen two, you’ve seen them all.”
The Leica was invented specifically as a renunciation of all that belongs to the tripod and static subject style of photography.
I say: put down your crutches (tripods) and walk!
I am not advocating sloppy technique, by no means. But as a Leica forum, we should be concentrating on Barnak-style photography. We should not be paying any attention to the psychotics.
I should note that this is primarily an American phenomenon (it is not without significance that the OP is a resident of the American southwest). Those of you who live in Europe and elsewhere are perhaps somewhat isolated from this. But here it is ubiquitous, deeply entrenched, and oppressive. And now, not only are we being told to emulate their style, we are now being told by Mark Dubovoy to emulate their psychoses, masquerading as an obsession with ‘details’.
It’s time to throw down the gauntlet and state that we’ve had enough of this tyranny!
- March 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm #2177
Pete Walentin;2065 wrote: Why you are so angry? Why do you care? There are seven billion people on this planet and I could say I disagree with most of them. But we are only talking here about photography, not about world peace, so there is no reason to call anyone an idiot on a public platform.
Why am I angry? because I am sick of Ansel Adams and John Sexton types being held up as ‘great photographers’ and because the very essence of photography is capturing a moment. If it takes you 4.5 hours to work out a composition you need a psychiatrist. These people are mentally ill, and I’m not making a joke, I am dead serious.
I am as careful a worker as anyone (you have to be to do good 35mm work), but I have nothing in common with those psychotics who agonise for a month over a 1/16th of an inch crop!
This was taken with a 560mm telyt-R, a manual-focus lens, on a Leicaflex SL2, about 5 years ago. The scan is of a print (the scanner has some dust in it, and this was not an exhibition print, so it’s not the best print I could make), but it illustrates what I mean by the ‘spontaneous’ and ‘inadvertent’ as important elements. I did not know ahead of time, and no one could have known, exactly what would happen during the play.
You’ll note the focus is perfect (drops of sweat can be seen on the nose of the halfback). The timing of the shot is perfect (the ball is just leaving his hands), the rest is more or less good luck (note the diagonals formed by the bodies).
You will thus note photography of this kind has nothing in common with that of the psychotics so wildly praised by Mark Dubovoy.
Someone needs to speak up against this, and I’m doing it.
I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the perversion of photography into some sort of mystical thing that depends on arcane processes and methods. It’s not ‘art’.
It is especially ironic in the context of Leica. Oskar Barnack invented the Leica specifically to get away from the bulky, heavy, tripod-bound camera. He was an asthmatic and wanted something convenient that he could carry around easily.
- March 31, 2012 at 1:27 pm #2174
The notion that the spontaneous or inadvertent has no part in great photography is a false one, one I find offensive, deceitful, mendacious, and repugnant.
And this needs to be said!
- March 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm #2173
The Leica was designed for hand-held use. Leica lenses are designed for brilliance and lovely tonal quality above all, rather than extremely high resolution. Why? It is because resolution of the finest details can be lost with very slight camera movement anyway (hand-held, remember?) but the brilliance and ‘glow’ for which Leica lenses are famous survives hand-holding unscathed.
It irks me to no end that those who are given teaching positions in American university photography departments are almost always ‘landscape’ techno-fetishists like Dubovoy.
It is a crime to permit these sick and perverse individuals to speak unchallenged about what is ‘important’ in photography, because they don’t know.
In fact, what they ‘know’ is just plain wrong!
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain
It is likely because those in positions of authority are impressed by kitsch such as that produced by Adams or Sexton, because it matches their bourgeois aesthetic sense.
I find the notion that ‘serious’ photography can be done only with a large-format camera, or at least a camera on a tripod, of static subjects, profoundly offensive.
- March 31, 2012 at 3:27 am #2172
Are you actually serious? You wear a photo vest?
- March 31, 2012 at 2:43 am #2171
Jack MacD;1758 wrote: Very interesting essay in Luminous Landscape that discusses photography and also the value of medium format camera regardless of the size of the print. The author is an S shooter.
Not sure if this link should be in Miscellaneous Gear, but I got tired of seeing my name associated with iPhones in this section, and there is no category for philisophical discussion elsewhere on this forum.
Michael Reichman is an idiot and I have informed him of this fact, personally (and so is Mark Dubovoy). His analysis of audio is quite thoroughly mistaken, as is his analysis of lens quality. Why anyone listens to him is beyond me.
It is true that good work demands attention to detail, but the converse is far from true. Merely being fastidious is no guarantee of fine work.
All these people that he mentions (Adams, Sexton, et al) would be hopeless in any situation that demands quick, decisive, reflexive, instantaneous composition, the kind of work the Leica is best at. Why would anyone even bring up large-format technique on a Leica forum anyway?
I find Ansel-Adams worship deeply offensive and perverse. Anybody can make a good composition in 4.5 hours. When you can do it in the blink of an eye, then you’re good!
I hate pretentious landscape photographers. Photography is about the fleeting moment.
I would love for one of these guys, with their tripods and slow composition, to confront a rugby match and come up with a near-perfect composition such as this:
Here is an interesting rebuttal, with which I substantially agree: