sikaan1

< center >

< img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/515802" >

< /center >

< center >

< img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/515802">

< /center >

< center >

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/515802&size=md">

< /center >

<p>

I'm stubborn, I hope this works Al.

< center >< img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=515802&size=md">< /center >

<p>

Al, you had a space between photo? and photo_id, that's all.

"... Which may be why I prefer a Michaelangelo to, say, a Rothko. Or

why I prefer the M6 to the F100. The question now remains: What do I

do with the Nikon? " -- Gulley Jimson

<p>

Gulley,

<p>

If you prefer a Michaelangelo to a Rothko, then you would prefer a

F100 to a Leica. The F100 is intricate and more detailed in its

innards than the mechanical Leica. A Leica is pure Rothko, simple on

the outside, but capable of amazing results, depending on one's

vision.

<p>

The National Gallery had an exhibition on Rothko, you might be

interested, and might find out that there was more to Rothko than

rectangular splotches. A lifetime of angst got him to generate those

rectangles. Here's the link:

<p>

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/rothwel.htm

<p>

My favorite is "Untitled (No. 4)" painted in 1964. In plain English,

a black canvas. Here's the description:

<p>

With some exceptions, the darkened palette continued to dominate

Rothko's work well into the 1960s. He developed a painstaking

technique of overlaying colors until, in the words of art historian

Dore Ashton, "his surfaces were velvety as poems of the night."

<p>

Ok, the above is tongue-firmly-in-cheek. My favorite Rothko is

Purple over Yellow, I don't know its real title but it evokes strong

emotions that I didn't know existed. Isn't that what art (or Leica,

or even F100 photography) is supposed to do?

<p>

Best of luck with your dilemma.

Chris,

<p>

The place I haven't been to, but would like to go to, are:

<p>

(1) Ecuador. You can see some outstanding Leica M photography at

Duane's Photographs of Ecuador (he also has good advice on M

cameras):

<p>

http://ecuadorphotos.tripod.com/archives/archives.html

<p>

(2) Western China. Untouched by the McDonaldization of the world.

<p>

(3) Remote places where indoor plumbing doesn't exist. This is where

manual cameras are king and sceneries are spectacular.

<p>

(4) The Southern reaches of South America, particularly Chile.

<p>

The places I've been to and are photogenic (to me) are:

(a) Kenya. One of the most naturally beautiful places for M

photography (scenery), as well as for R photography (animals). The

books of Leni Reifenstahl and Mirella Ricciardi capture some of the

essence of Kenya.

<p>

(b) Switzerland. What can one say about this country except that

every angle is a picture-perfect postcard shot, with spectacular M

quality scenery. Interlaken, Adelboden, Wengen, Gstaad, Lausanne,

Berne, the list goes on and on. A definite M camera country.

Switzerland is the closest to heaven in terms of what man can do to

beautify their surroundings. You will not be disappointed.

<p>

© Nigeria. The closest to hell on earth, nothing works. The

photographic opportunities are endless. The people are extremely

friendly.

<p>

(d) Japan. The topography and scenery here is unique. A beautiful

country. And they love photographers. Go away from the big cities

and there is a different world, a world of beauty and tranquility.

Very expensive.

<p>

(e) Australia. I've only been to Perth and parts of Western

Australia, but the scenery is unlike any other country. The people

are a blast, you'll love it. No one has their kind of joie de

vivre. Rottnest Island is a must see, it is like traveling back 100

years.

<p>

(f) India. Again, so different from the rest of the world. No

wonder Steve McCurry spent a lot of time there. The scenery is

breathtaking. But leave the big cities. This country is like being

on another planet. A must or any serious photographer. Most other

countries are so similar in their people/places, that India has a new

vision to offer a committed amateur. Himalayas, Rajasthan, Kashmir,

Sikkim, each so different and unknown to the Western eye.

<p>

(g) Utah, Arizona, Vermont. For natural American scenery. The

comercial flight from Salt Lake City to Pheonix will take you low

over Bryce Canyon and the Grand Canyon, have your Leica ready and get

a window seat. Get the noon flight. No need for the Noctilux.

<p>

(g) New York City. Never a dull Leica day. A lot of edgy, attitude

shots. Beautiful sexy women.

<p>

(h) Rhode Island. This is where I currently spend most of my time,

and it is a beautiful state. Good for close-to-the-ocean M

photography.

<p>

Happy shooting, but don't be a Travis Bickle and wear a flak jacket.

<p>

Regards,

"Pardon this obviously naive question, ..." -- Stephane Bosman

<p>

Stephane,

<p>

Thanks for asking this question. I was too embarrased to ask it

myself since I thought it was something basic that I should have

known, and was waiting to figure it out over time. Like most men, I

suppose!

<p>

Regards,

Ditto on the Gypsies. While I feel for their plight, they should not

resort to crime.

<p>

Though this incident happened in Paris, they are in every major

city. A bunch of young boys and girls (they often travel in

wolfpacks) surrounded a woman friend and her 9 year old daughter, and

patted them down for things near the Eiffel Tower. They are

impossible to get rid of, like a bunch of locusts.

<p>

Also, another time the same two people got robbed by a couple of

young men on those little Euro mopeds, the one in the back snatched

the purse and off they went. This is a normal modus operandus in

Italy.

<p>

I should add that the woman and her daughter had "I'm a tourist so

rob me" written all over them. But then again, the woman got robbed

twice in Manhattan. So it could happen anywhere.

<p>

With the sorry state of the world's economies, the thieves have

become more brazen. What do they have to lose? In jail they get

three meals a day and a warm bed, and running hot and cold water.

".. originally I was going to restraint myself from posting on this

thread... ...but then you just triggered my impulse to throw in my

0.02 Euros. I'm not going to bore you with a list of composers,

painters, writers, photographers, musicians, film makers,

revolutionaries, actors and actresses, human rights activists,

founders of the Red Cross... you name it - of Swiss or German breed. -

- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), January 15, 2002.

<p>

Herr Konermann,

<p>

My sincere apologies. I didn't mean to offend your culture. I have

lived in West Germany and Switzerland for three years each. My

favorite film director above all is Fassbinder, followed by

Kurosawa. I have books by Goethe and Max Mueller. I stand humbly

corrected. I'm sorry to speak in generalities.

<p>

Apologies,

Find out what cars they drive and what watches they wear. Especially

the lens creators. :)

<p>

Seriously, please give us a paragraph or two on your tour, since most

of us cannot do such a thing ourselves.

<p>

Thanks,

I find it interesting that the Germans make the best mechanical 35mm

cameras (based just upon price, since I still love my beast of a

Nikon F2AS), while the Swiss make the best mechanical watches.

Interestingly, these two cultures are reknowned for lacking in

creativity and passion.

<p>

If there are any other cultures that could make such high precision

instruments, I would put my money on the Japanese and the Chinese.

The reason I say this is that in these cultures there is a tradition

of mastery and excellence in an endeavor or path that is imbued into

the populace from a very young age. We just don't find this in other

countries.

<p>

However, for creativity, for using these tools to generate passion

and feeling, you just can't beat the U.S.! Just look at Peter Hughes

and Mike Dixon's portfolios, there is a sensuality and emotion that

is so tasteful and classy that it gives a good feeling, that yes,

there is indeed a God. After all, without these artists the Leica's

are just hunks of metal, overpriced point and shoots.

<p>

(Note: I'm not putting down other photographers on this site, but

these two gentlemen have shared a substantial body of work here.)

I wonder if the M users on this forum strive to be manual in other areas of their lives? Does the Leica "gestalt" flow into other areas of your lives. Or is this a case of being "idiot savants" only where M camera usage is concerned.

<p>

For example, I drive a car with a manual shift (Saab 900SE), and would never consider an automatic. If I could afford it I would be sitting in a AMG Benz. In the US it is mostly the European imports that can provide the joy of driving, and the manual shifters. There is a rush to be attained from the process.

<p>

However, I use automatic technology where there is no other option. I don't cook on a wood stove but use a gas range.

<p>

By the way, I have learned a lot from this forum. I particularly like the Peter Hughes and Mike Dixon portfolios. Why don't others also share their work? I will when I build up a critical mass of pictures that can withstand the armchair Barnacks here. I've only had my M6 for one month.

<p>

Thanks again to all,

John,

<p>

Thank you, I thoroughly enjoyed your portfolio. Great stuff. And at

your age! (Not that older people have better portfolios!)

"Send it back and make them fix it. How else, short of not buying,

can we give Leica a message that we expect perfection of them--

certainly at these prices." -- Bob Fleischman

<p>

Bob,

<p>

I am definitely sending the lens back as soon as I get the 90mm in

the mail (hopefully in mint condition, since it is "NEW"). :)

<p>

I think the dealers are sending Leica the message that its time they

pulled their socks up. It must be frustrating for the dealers to

have to keep shipping back lenses with cosmetic defects. Where do

these refurbished items end up?

I thought I'd share a human interest story in this technical discussion group.

<p>

I am new to the Leica format (being a Nikon F2AS & FE person) and luckily took advantage of the Leica Day Special (10% discount) and the $200 rebates to get a M6 0.72 TTL, 35mm Summicron-M f2.0 Asph, and a 50mm Summicron-M f2.0 Happy Holidays to myself! I had worked hard this year and decided to go for it.

<p>

Then came the delivery via UPS.

<p>

So far I'm batting 0.333 which is great in baseball but not for Leica's.

<p>

My M6TTL was the only thing that I would consider perfect. A true joy to use. So far I've managed to drain the battery once and shot a few frames with the lens hood on, but I enjoy the camera immensely.

<p>

The 35mm came with a crooked lens hood, so I eventually wrote to Leica via their website, and they offered to fix it in New Jersey if I sent it to them. After a lot of hemming and hawing I decided to live with it since it is only 1mm off and I didn't want anyone messing with it, and because it "won't affect the image quality" (with German accent). The gentleman was right, the images are so crisp and clear.

<p>

The 50mm had a 5mm white hair (looked like a carpet hair) one-third of the way to the center, right in the area where the light rays would hit the negative, an obvious flaw that a blind monkey like me could detect. The dealer spotted it in 0.08 seconds. They didn't have a replacement in stock and offered me a back order, or anything else with the Leica Day discount plus the $200 rebate. They did mention that Leica's quality had dropped a bit, but when ok, their stuff was still the best.

<p>

I thought the 50mm was too close to the 35mm and decided to buy a 90mm Summicron-M f2.0 APO Asph, but the wise dealer asked me to consider the 90mm Elmar-M f2.8 instead. And he was right. I had studied up the 2.8 on this website and thanks to all your astute comments decided it was the lens for me. I want to flatter women in their portraits and not reveal their every minute facial feature. And I'd have $1,000 in my pocket for the 50mm to be had later. Once again, I examined the lenses that they took out of the box and they both had minute scratches on the glass close to the outer perimeter of the lens. I know it won't be anywhere near the area of the image, but I wanted a perfect lens. I told them I didn't want anything and got my refund. At that point I was so frustrated that I was ready to return everything with the Leica name on it.

<p>

On Monday I called them and said I wanted the 2.8, so now I wait for a backordered 90mm f2.8 The dealer was so understanding, I guess he's used to dealing with yo-yo's. I'm happy I'm getting the Leica Day discount and the $200 rebate.

<p>

In spite of everything, I stand by the Leica products. I am willing to put up with all that I went through because in the end the quality of the images is astounding and worth the means to get it. The joys and frustrations of Leica ownership. Is it just me?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Leica fix/replace such things if

they are under warranty?

"...if you check some of the work of photographers such as Sieff,

Gibson, even guys like Hamilton or Bailey - wonderful photos that

have never seen an airbrush or Photoshop filter........ "

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

<p>

Bob,

<p>

I can't agree with you more. I don't particularly find the women of

today to be beautiful in a natural sense of the word, they seem too

artifically made up, as if fitting into some formula for universal

beauty, whatever the word "beauty" means today, something meant to

sell products. There is a sensuality that is totally lacking. The

sensuality of Hamilton's pictures, which I had in the 1970's, is just

not there anymore. The women of today seem very plastic.

<p>

You can see this phenomenon when you look at movies shot in the

1970's. The women were women then, and not gym-built cyber-chicks

with plastic-surgery faces and breasts, and sometimes asses.

Whatever has happened to women???

<p>

Thanks for the Hamilton memory. A lot of his photos had some sort of

soft focus filter or something like that. Made them look more

sensual, but not too far from innocent.

FYI, most (I would say 99.99%) of pictures you see of beautiful women

on magazine covers, and inside, have been doctored using digital

technology. The picture may have been taken with a film camera, but

the digital darkroom takes care of scars, pimples, tatoos, or other

natural features that the editors consider to be less than worthy to

put to print.

<p>

If I had to put a vote in, I would say that I love my M6 (and Nikon

F2AS), but I would like to have some form of digital darkroom because

I don't have a dark room in my home. In addition, there is the issue

of chemcals in the lungs.

<p>

Also, in Manhattan it costs $24.00 to process a 36-roll of black and

white film, but only $10.00 for 36-color. When I was a child it was

the other way around. So the pleasure fo film camera with the ease

of a digital darkroom would be my choice of formats. RIght now I am

not using black and white film because of the expensive processing

cost.

<p>

Money is a huge motivator, and this year the 2.1 megapixel cameras

have been flooding the market at a reasonable price. A month after I

got my M6 I ended up buying a Canon S110 because it fits in my shirt

pocket and is so easy to use anywhere. The digi is for quick docu-

shots, pictures that I would consider a waste of time and money to

take on the M6 (eg, the new baby, the new cat, the new car, the new

apartment), but I won't give up the M6 and use it with pleasure(the

new girlfriend).

I drive a car with a manual gear shifter. I don't like automatic

cars because there is no pleasure in the experience. However, I

don't begrudge those who buy Porsche sportscars with an automatic

gearbox. There is room for both types of people.

<p>

I wear a $30 quartz watch with an analog face, and shoot photographs

with a $4,000 manual camera. A friend wears a $5,000 manual Swiss

watch and shoots with a digital Canon S110 $350 camera. We are both

happy. Choices are good, and so is competition.

<p>

Just because someone shoots photographs with a M6 doesn't make them

an artist. Most of my stuff is average crapola and I don't *need* a

M6, it just gives me a tremendous pleasure to use it, the whole

process. Makes me wonder. What percentage of the Salgado's and the

Bresson's were keepers? I bet you the number was very low.

<p>

Here's a competition they should have. I roll of 36 film, I hour.

See how many keepers you have. Lucky if you have one.

<p>

Any fool can take 100 rolls and get one awesome keeper, which is the

ratio in magazine photography.

This is interesting, and leads to the question:

"Why does one take a photograph?"

<p>

Taking pictures of one's family is for memories. Nothing wrong with

that.

Taking pictures of buildings and statures is "art." Whatever floats

our boat.

Taking pictures of asses (WITH permission) is also art, but can cross

the line to erotica and then to pornography.

Without the camera where would hte world of erotica be?

Taking pictures of homeless people can have a documentary effect.

And so on.

<p>

By the way, I find it good that people on this website have a high

sense of ethics and morality when it comes to taking unsolicited

pictures of strangers. The world of digital photography is, however,

giving the entire world of photography a bad name. If you look at

the website www.voyeurweb.com you will see pictures of people taken

without their permission. What this ends up doing is making anyone

with a camera seem like a pervert to some. Sorry for bringing this

up but there should be some type of unwritten ethical code when

taking pictures of others. In some countries taking pictures of

women, fully clothed, will invite homicidal attacks from their

spouses.

<p>

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but am just bringing up a topic

that might affect us in the future.

<p>

Thanks.

Jean-Pierre,

<p>

Try visiting Tamarkin New York when you're here. They are at 670

Broadway, 5th Floor (1 block South of Tower Records). Their website

is www.tamarkin.com They have a fabulous selection of used Leica

equipment if you are a collector. Please go to their website if you

can.

<p>

Also, the Leica Gallery (same address, same floor) is right next door

to Tamarkin. The photograph exhibits there are sublime.

<p>

Bon voyage et bon chance,

Sikaan

Dan Brown: "You might also consider a 20' or 30' air-bulb remote

release. B&H sells a Hama model."

<p>

Hi,

<p>

I used to have the Air Bulb remote release (20 ft). It was a major

hassle to make sure that the black air tube was not in the picture.

This is hard if there is only a flat surface between the camera and

the subject (yourself). The tube is coiled for storage and soon

becomes like a large coiled cable, difficult to straighten or flatten

quickly. It ruins the spontaneity fo a photographic situation unles

you are the only subject. Other people are not as patient. In short,

it's unwieldy and you'll soon stop using it for self-pictures. It is

good for animal shots when you want to hide behind a tree or

something.

More on self-timers:

<p>

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006qhd