james ravilious

Thank you to all of you for your responses to my submission of two

days ago, (including the silly and offensive ones).

You are quite correct, it does not matter at all what camera is used

to take photographs and the photograph is what the art should be

judged by and not the camera manke.

ut James Ravilious used a Leica M3 to take the photographs in the

book that I was suggesting you might like to know about. And this is

the Leica forum.

Ravilious did not like modern Leica lenses because he felt they had

too much contrast so he used old, screw-mount uncoated lenses and his

favourite I believe was the 35mm Elmar and his film was Ilford HP5.

As a matter of interest he also felt that some of the finest lenses

ever made were pre-1914 Zeiss Tessars that he used on his large

format cameras.

I do not know who the best photographer ever is or was, nor do I care

who she or he was or is. But some of my favourites are Bill Brant,

Dorothea Lange, Paul Strand, Doisneau, Hill and Adamson, HCB, (pre

1940) and Steiglitz.

I have been a photographer for over 50 years and have used Nikons for

35 years, Leicas and Rolleis for about 45 years, Hassleblad for about

15 years, Pentax MX with 40ml pancake(a nice little camera) as a

point and shoot for about 20years. But my favourite camera and the

one that takes my sharpest photographs is no doubt my Nesbitt.

I hope that some of you in the US can see the exhibition in NY which

contains some of the work of Ravious and is called 'An English Eys'.

I wish I could be there but as a Cornishman I will have to settle for

the exhibition in North Devon!!

You negative people who answered me earlier seem to forget that this

is (forgive the shouting) THE LEICA FORUM!!

Arrrgh! My initial excitement about the Ravilious exhibit in NY ( at the Leica

Gallery, no less) was followed by disappointment when I read that it ends on

6/21 and my time in New York will be from 6/26-7/1. Oh, well.

Stewart

Thank you for sharing your reactions to Ravilious� The English

Eye and also for the information today about his use of older SM

Leica lenses. I saw your original post just after you made it and

jotted down the name of the book so that I could look into

obtaining a copy. When I misplaced the note, I returned to your

posting a little while later to write it down again and, of course,

noticed the rude and absurd responses you received from a few

forum members.

Of course, it doesn�t matter what camera you use to take a good

photograph. But making that point on a forum that is devoted to

a particular camera is stupid, and making it in such a way as to

insult the original writer, whose intentions were obviously

generous, insults all of us, who really don�t need to waste our

time reading such drivel. Most of the members who regularly

read or post on this forum have a strong interest in using and/or

collecting Leicas . You were and are absolutely correct in

assuming that most of us therefore are very interested to know

about a new book such as The English Eye or to find out that a

great photograph was made with a Leica.

As I was last weekend in the crosshairs of some these "flaming"

imbeciles, myself (after I posted some equipment for sale here),

I want to assure you that they are a minority. I received � and I

assume you did also � many emails from individuals who did

not want to post publicly their remarks, but who let me know via

email that I should ignore the negative remarks I had received,

which I very much appreciated. The several members who used

the forum to defend your last post and expose the gratuitous

hostility of the few who mindlessly attacked you did you and the

rest of us a service. In order to keep the forum open, we may

need to continue to suffer these fools, but I hope that anyone

offended by such gratuitous hostility will strike back quickly and

hard when they see it. Unfortunately, however, many of these

characters, hiding as they are within the anonymity of the

internet, have thick (probably scaly) skins. Nevertheless, if they

are verbally smacked down, and quickly, they will at least be

deprived of having any illusion of legitimacy for more than just a

few moments. Put another way, Stewart, we can�t be dissuaded

by this tedious, however vocal, minority, Instead, let�s see if we

can marginalize them.

Returning to the substance of your last post, I have also used

Nikons, Hasselblads, Rollei TLR�s and SL 66�s � and Leicas �

for over four decades, and I really couldn�t say that my favorite

pictures -- probably none of which approach the quality of

Ravilious� work--were only those that I took with SM and M

Leicas. What I can say, however, is that I enjoyed and continue to

enjoy taking pictures with my Leicas more than I do with any of

the other cameras. Indeed, if I have a particular photographic

mission in mind that calls for a larger format or for long telephoto

or macro lenses, I don�t hesitate to grab one of the other tools in

the drawer, but I also know it probably isn�t going to be as much

fun.

Bravo Stewart!

Thank you for your oroginal posting on the exhibit by james ravilious.

Bravo Ed!

I am in deep agreement with you.

As with both of you gentlemen, Starting off humbly with Minolta, I've also had the opportunity to use 4x5, Hasselblad, Nikon, and now Leicas. My favorite being the Leica SLR's, currently an R7.

It is indeed a pleasure reading both of your very rational posts on this forum.

I, as with your kind selves, wish these "flaming" imbeciles would vanish into the woodwork with other vermin.

In addition to some of your favourites Stewart, mine also are Bill Brant, Dorothea Lange, Paul Strand, Doisneau, Hill and Adamson, HCB, (pre 1940) and Steiglitz, with the addition of Walker Evans and Robert Frank.

Enjoy your photography to the fullest!

Stewart:

Thanks for your effort to introduce us to Ravilious, I shall certainly look into his work with great interest. As for the idiotic sarcastic comments, ignore them. Not unlike the phenomenon of road rage, some people believe that their sense of courtesy can be diminished by the anonymity of their cars, or in this case, their keyboards. Don't let them put you off. As you can tell from many of the responses to your original post, there's plenty of good folks around :-) cheers

Thanks, Stewart, for this second post regarding Ravilious and his opinions on the uncoated, vintage, optics (etc.). Perhaps in an ideal universe new examples of similar glass could be purchased!

regards,

I am also a great fan of James Ravilious (and the watercolours of his father Eric Ravilious.)

Other JR books worth finding (some in print) are 'A corner of England' and 'Down the deep lanes' and about 50 of his photographs in the book... 'Traditional foods of Britain'.

Try these links for these books....

http://www.halsgrove.com/SHOP/sections/counties/devon_titles_to_2000.html

http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/pages/isbn874.htm

As for the film he used, I spoke to Chris Chapman (another archive photographer of Devon life and a friend of JR) and he was sure that James Ravilious used Tri-X rated at 200 - 250 and developed in D76 (Chris Chapman favourted HP5 and uses Olympus OM SLR equipment.)