art waldschmidt

If the counterpoint of the bright sheet on the left was removed it would make her face seem overly centered.....Waldschmidt's addled....it's just fine as is!!

I also like the tones, but have you wondered if the bright sheet at the left edge may be claiming too much attention...? Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to where the highs and lows are distributed in a print....anyway, I was out shooting all day and I'm perhaps a little addled at this late, no, early hour! All in all, Marke, it's a lovely image of a lovely creature - and her eyes are beautiful!

Personally, I adore interesting subjectivity - anyway, it seems the world is over-full of objectivity at times (at least in esthetic matters) - and personally, (with apologies to Roger) I believe that the most compelling art derives from an intensely personal, inspired, vision and is not created with the desire to be perceived as *art* by the masses. Here are some words by Stieglitz which seem to address this area: "It is not art in the professionalized sense about which I care, but that which is created sacredly, as a result of deep inner experience, with all of oneself, and that becomes *art* in time."

Bill's right!! NEVER throw anything out.....let your heirs do it!!

Jon, I'm sure I already mentioned this before (in another similar thread) - If there's any possibility you'll be using the camera a lot in bright sunlight you may find the black to be a better choice. The glare from chrome surfaces can be very unpleasant and distracting, especially in sunny tropical environments.

 

Best of Luck!

Mark, there's really not that much stuff on this forum (per your concern) that will soil your feet. Beyond the images, there's a lot that falls into the "what lens do you think I should buy?", and the routine nuts and bolts categories. I like the quotes and aphorisms because they serve as a succinct kind of distillation of the originator's philosophy and view. After having learned about photography, there are some who enjoy reflecting on those things that relate to the medium's role as a means of personal or artistic expression. Anyway,.....feet can be washed!!

"I think one's art goes as far and as deep as one's love goes" - Andrew Wyeth.

Good question. For someone like myself, who values non-battery/electrical dependenc (to possibly obsessive lengths), THAT is enough! But you ask for something *besides the fact...* - possibly it is also a sense of complete consistency with the mechanical tradition, and a delight in using a device that one believes in and even respects. Personally, I think there is a kind of esthetic enjoyment involved in the purely mechanical and well crafted mechanisms that is only impaired when *improved* by the electronic. Perhaps it is only personal taste, but I think one works best with tools one respects.

Yes, Lex, you "hit the nail squarely on the head". We are always being told/propagandized as to what is *great*, rather than encouraged to develope the means to a personal awareness of the worthy and desirable.

I want to also state that I think it is infinitely more desirable to be capable of editing the image one sees (through the viewfimder, or on the groundglass) BEFORE making the exposure. This ruthless habit forces the photographer to also look inwards to define the qualities which he or she is trying to communicate or express. When I look at anything it is with the discipline of seeing it as a final print in mind.

Your post evokes some interesting considerations. First, the idea of *great* is a slippery concept. How does one learn to recognize *the great*, that is, in a more universal sense, beyond personal, insular, preferences and prejudices? Considering the detriment of unexamined personal bias, is there any greater, significant, benefit in uncritically accepting the popular tendencies of academia or the *professional critic*? If there is any hope of gaining the requisite foundation for the formation of substantive assessments I believe it is gained by a long, committed, process.

Before one concedes to the current, popular, standard of *great* it may be instructive to reflect on how often the current (historically insular) opinions were WRONG. Most are aware that many of the coveted impressionist paintings (which now, routinely, fetch extravagant sums) could hardly be sold for anything in their day.

Additionally, we must also guard against the forces which have a vested interest in applying the attribute of greatness to the works that they have commercialized and marketed. As for myself, I'm aware that the process of estimating *greatness* is, in itself, a work in progress.

I'm always hoping to intensify and develop the themes that fascinate me. Because of this, I'm grateful for subject matter and circumstances which further and advance my quest - I know what I want to express in my prints and feel grateful for any little successes. It is gratifying when others respond to the same qualities I work to realize - but, regardless, I find satisfaction in those successes whether praised or not.

Generally, I also tend to like images taken with wider optics printed larger - but there are always exceptions, and I think there are many factors that influence one's choice!

 

To paraphrase Bach, "If it looks well, its right!" - do what YOU personally prefer!

 

At the moment I'm keeping everything within the limitations of 8 x 10 paper.....and curiously, I'm comfortable with that.

 

Regards,

BRAVO!!....fascinating, for me, because you've done something fresh and positive.....and outside of all the usual, tired, categories!

A great *portrait* ..... really seems to capture the spirit of the creature!

Steve, thanks for the tip about the 'Lux......a shame the vintage design doesn't come with a vintage price!!!

I agree with Al about the *vintage look* optics.....wish they had a line like that for the M's.

Hi Dimitris, I always think of photography as a chain made of many links - camera and optics, film choice, developers, etc. - yet, of these, the only *link* the viewer gets to see is the paper. In many ways, the paper's characteristics exert the final and most telling influence upon the image. Perhaps many of the older photographers lavished more concern on the selection of certain papers. Of course many fine papers are no longer available - Agfa's Portriga Rapid, and Kodak's Ektalure K, for example.

 

Possibly too, the earlier photographers/printers desired prints with greater atmosphere and more beautiful tonalities than in these colder days of technocentricity to which, perhaps, the prevalence of much barrenness and sterility may be ascribed. Undoubtedly, there are a lot of graduates from photographic arts programs who've never seen a really fine, original, vintage print. Personally, I've almost reached the conclusion that, in many ways, technology (in the arts) is often mis-applied and performs routinely as a kind of substitute for real craft-knowledge and vision. In such cases it will always be a detriment. I've seen many beautiful images that were made without the benefit of multi-coated optics (with cameras that would be considered primitive beside today's plastic marvels).

But there is a difference between imagery that is made for scientific or technical purposes and that which is crafted for the purpose of artistic expression.

 

Maybe too, what one perceives as differences between the older and contemporary prints is the subtle effect of a general shift in the culture and world-view, or sensibility, of the printers.

Size matters to whom size matters - unfortunately, poetic content and subtlety (which constitutes a. different variety of *impact*) are easily exchanged for the notion that bigger is always better.

I also believe that the size of the print is related to the subject matter and how it is portrayed.

 

The 1812 Overture performed with full orchestra (plus cannon) has a form of impact that does nothing to diminish the compelling effect of a chamber ensemble playing Mozart - I can not help but draw parallels here - a beautiful, small, print with a wealth of content will always possess its own subtle charm.

Regardless of esthetic considerations, I prefer to use a black camera because I don't like the blinding glare of tropical sunshine (it doesn't have to be tropical) that goes with the chrome surfaces. I even recall placing black tape over the chrome edge of the waist-level finder on a 500 C/M!

Wonderful.....however I'll wait for the *black paint* version with the Leica script on the top plate!!

Some of Lee's sentiments parallel mine - Leica isn't currently manufacturing anything that I'm interested in. At one time I used an M5 and an SL - wished I still had them. I (relatively) recently purchased an M6TTL. Sadly, costs notwithstanding, it may be the last *new* Leica I ever purchase. Above all else, what I've valued in connection with the Leica name has been build quality/craftsmanship, design integrity, and freedom from battery/electrical dependence. No, sadly, they DON'T build them like that anymore and it appears that, due to the *progress* of our culture, they probably never will again - niche markets or not! Sad.

I used a Leicaflex SL for many years along with an M5. For me, the SL was the perfect compliment - everything I wanted, with nothing unnecessary to get in the way. Wish I still had it!

 

If your priorities are size, weight, and build integrity, you might also want to look at some Olympus OM's - I use an OM4T (the aperture values run contrary, different direction, to Leicas, however).

The 4T is, sadly, battery dependent however - and that is something you might also wish to consider. I guess my first vote would go to the SL - they really don't build them like that anymore!!

My experience with a wide variety of optics (from Leica to Zeiss/Hasselblad, to Mamiya 6x7, etc.) suggests that bokeh is influenced by many factors (aperture, relectivity, angle of light, etc.). Back-lighting, upon which Edward weston (I believe) remarked: "should be avoided, like the plague!" - seems to generate highly unpredictable and atypical results.

Dave, Eloquently stated!!!!