Leica in Yosemite!

[wai_leong_lee]

This is the picture referred to in my past posts.

 

Leica 35/1.4 ASPH @ 2.8, 1/15, Efke 25 film. I braced the camera against a tree

trunk. Taken in Feb 06.

 

Scanned from the print.<div></div>

[wai_leong_lee]

Oops.

 

Here's a better one.

[Troll]

Reinforces a good reason to use a bigger camera.

[jtdnyc]

Nice shot, Wai-Leong.

 

What time of day was it taken? From the darkness of the sky I thought you might have used a red filter, but since that's not indicated in the exposure information, I wonder whether it was taken at dusk. You exposed 6 stops under the Sunny 16 rule for bright sunlight with an ISO 25 film, so I assume this wasn't taken at noon.

 

While I understand the appeal of a bigger camera for such shots, legend has it that the reason the sickly Barnack developed the Leica was to have a small camera suitable for nature photography on his hikes through the woods.

 

The concept seems to have worked admirably here.

[dave_s]

The print is flat and dark. It's your neg, but I would print lighter and to higher contrast, and hold back the overfiltered sky.<div></div>

[roland_schmid]

It's mostly helpful to have some black in a b/w picture, to get off the spots and then there is

a sharpening tool too. Here is my suggestion of Lee's photograph.<div></div>

[roland_schmid]

Now it looks to dark. I give up, have a nice day anyway.

[wai_leong_lee]

The real print is much better. Done on Ilford FB warmtone glossy, on 16x20 there is no grain evident, Efke 25 is really a fine grained film.

 

The sky is dark due to the polarizer. Picture was taken around 9 or 10 am. Still early for winter.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Odd that you see no grain on your print as it seems evident in your scan.

 

I'd opt for 4x5 for printing B&W 16x20. Or medium format at the minimum.

[ken_ford1]

"Bill Mitchell, Aug 10, 2007; 09:43 p.m.: Reinforces a good reason to use a bigger camera."

 

Jeez, Bill! You're starting to sound like Terrence Mahoney!

[michael s.]

<< ... starting to sound like Terrence Mahoney! ... >><p>

 

Terence was <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F6Y8> often</a> very <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F76H>funny</a>. I miss his posts.<p>

 

Yosemite's quite a place, isn't it ?

[jtk]

Ansel did a lot of mediocre work in Yosemite early on, while he learned his chops. I'm sure he'd have loved a Leica if it existed when he started out. Some of his medium format portraiture was excellent, and his Polaroid work was a waste.

 

What I'm saying is, burn film, have fun.

[dave_s]

Adams was a known gear freak, and worked in all formats. He used a Contax rangefinder in the 1930s. He used a Leicaflex later on, probably in the 1970s. There were probably other 35s in between.

[35mmdelux]

When shooting large scapes at 1/15 a tripod would be helpful.

[blowingsky]

I know it is sacrilege to say this, but Ansel Adams images are technical marvels but as for emotional content, the real realm of art, they are mostly tech for tech's sake, mighty as it is, and don't go deeper than that. Even Minor White, the most ascetic among the lot, was often attracted to a scene because of the challenge of placing zones. Having said that, I'll also say that Moonrise Over Hernandez and a few others are exceptions to the above.

[dave_s]

Hmmmm. The familiar scent of photo.net BS is wafting from my computer . . .