glenn_travis5

#1. I completely agree with Sal, because, I too, got the real story from the source. #2. Charles is one rude philistine. #3. One thing I noticed about the sample portrait, the bunny is in better focus than the young lady, indicating to me that Charles doesn't quite know, or understand, how to set the plane of focus. So what could have been a nice photograph is just off by a hair, something like his IQ. I could have taken a much better photo of her. Street Portrait #32:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=942882&size=lg" WIDTH="700" HEIGHT="475">

I wanted to add that I lost my Leitz Red Dot. They replaced it with a

Leica Red Dot which now make my camera look as silly as everyone

elses. But, afterall, I wanted to turn this piece into a "user" and

not a collectors item.

Let me see, what to do, what to do? I think I'll go with the Elmar-M

50mm 1:2.8 AND Leitz M6. That is my lens on the world. Leitz M6,

Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, Leica UVa, Kodak T-Max 400 in Xtol 1:1, Polaroid

SprintScan 4000:

<p>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=779149&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="515">

Just beautiful photography. And now, I'm more confused than ever, but

Ralph Baker really hit the nail on the head for me.

If all anyone is interested in is a technical representation of

reality, then virtually ANY camera one could mention is far, far

better at this than a Leica, and particually a Leica RF. As for the

Photo I included in my post, you're right, any number of people with

any number of cameras could have taken a far, far, better picture

than I did. As for Rob, I love him like a brother. But he has choosen

his own path, and his talent no longer belongs to his alone. It

belongs to all of us. When we feel he is out of line, we owe it to

him to say that which is in our hearts. But in the end Rob has to

choose whether he becomes one of those Leica Legends or just another

poporazzi.

I would classify a "Picture" as a representation of reality, and

a "Photograph" as a representation of how you see reality. I am not

talking about the "decisive moment," but about the approach. Do you

mean to say that for your subjects you have no connection? That you

don't try to represent their humanity for us to see no matter what

their circumstances? That your "snap click" of your subject isn't

done with caring, feeling, love, aprreciation of who they are and

what they mean to you? How can you call yourself human, and yet only

see your subjects as a snapshoot, maybe a a stepping stone to a

better, higher paying job? It's pretty obvious to me, that you're

held in high regard by many of your subjects, and yet to you it's

only another snap? If I see one more photo of a starving third world

person and their fucking cow, I'm going to puke! I thought you were

above that. Obviouly, by your own words you're not.

Digital appeals to those who TAKE pictures, as opposed to those of us

who MAKE photographs. There are very few cameras that are able to

make a photograph as well as the Leica M, but there are just scads of

cameras able to take a better pictures. Only a small percentage of

those on this forum seem interested in making photographs.

"Mommy, I see pictures." Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC,

Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=776689&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="507">

From my Leitz M6 Manual: ". . . These frames correspond to an image

field of 23x35 mm (slide mount format) at the closest focusing

distance for each lens. At longer distances the image will contain a

somewhat larger subject field than that shown within the bright-line

frames." In fact, my own experience is that frame line accuracy (of

my camera) is pretty damn accurate. I suppose that the frameline

accuracy, much like the rangefinder itself can go out of alignment.

Within the past six months, I had a CLA & rangefinder overhaul at

Leica USA. I like having the 75mm frameline within the 50mm

frameline. For me, it becomes a framing tool, and I also use it for

tight portrait shots, cropping in the print process. For me, the 75mm

frameline is a framing accesory, much like a grid. in fact, the

corners of the 75mm frameline almost seem to correspond to the rule

of thirds for the 50mm frameline. Ralph Gibson likens the Leica M to

a Stradivarius. To become an expert with the Leica M requires

practice. But when properly tuned and played, the music you and it

can make is like no other.

Being an Architect, I'd like to respond. I work at a fairly large

corporate firm which employees photographers on a continuous basis.

Work is done with 35mm slide, or digital. Why 35mm slide? Our

marketing department has a huge inventory of slides, and photo CD's

which are constantly being used in in-house desktop publishing

proposals. (Scanned with a 4000 dpi film scanner, I might add.) Also,

Architects are notorious photo hounds themselves, with many smaller

firms doing their own photography. About fifteen years ago, I saw an

amazing exhibit where the photographer used a Leica M + a 16mm (?)

Zeiss. The big secret is to use a step ladder and get up high. Also

there is also nothing wrong with highly stylized work (converging

lines) either, but it really has to be stunning. We have a number of

display photos done this way. Believe it or not, a lens would be at

the bottom of my list. If I were going into this type of work, the

very first thing I would buy is a high quality, studio, tripod that

goes up high, and needs a small step ladder to use at max height. The

second would be a 4000dpi film/slide scanner and 13x19 photo printer

with archival quality of at least 25 years. It almost seems as if you

have the idea that you can buy a lens and some film, take a few

pictures, have them developed at Walmart, and make a couple of

hundred bucks, and indeed, you might, for one job. But it's that

repeat business that makes a successful career. Have you actually

approached any of the firms you're interested in doing business with

to see what their requirements might be? I would contact their

marketing dept (or person) and talk with them, see what they'd like

to see in a initial interview. And consider the fact that you'll

probably need to make some sort of marketing proposal yourself at

some point.

Personally, I think the killer lens for that camera is the 80-

200/f2.8 L IS.

Since I've choosen to shot with only a Leitz M6 and Elmar-M 50mm

1:2.8, I did read EP's remarks. And you know what, EP only proves my

point. How is EP testing lenses. With the Air Force test charts? Will

that's all find and good, if all you're shooting are targets with

only black lines on a white background. That's not what I shot. I

shot real world photos with large tonal valves and large latitudes.

To me, most of this lens testing is silly. Hey, if you want to be

able to say, "Well, Edwin tested this lens, and it sucks when

compared to this other lens." Well, that's fine and that's your

approach. By the same token, I have a Voigtlander Nokton 50mm/f1.5,

which Edwin ranks higher than the Summilux-M 50mm. In fact the Nokton

walks all over the 'lux-M 50mm /f1.4. And I use the Nokton on a Bessa-

R, and it is a great lens.

Do other manufactors use the same exotic glass that Leica used, and

uses? Doubtfull. So it's not just the coatings. Couldn't it also be

some of those rare earth elements floating around in the glass

formulars?

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. My challenge to you: is talk all you do? yak,

yak, yak, yak! Maybe it more than $50, but it's well within the

spirit of your challenge. VOITLANDER BESSA-L (well under $200),

VOITLANDER HELIAR 15mm, 1:4.5, T-MAX 400 IN XTOL 1:1, POLAROID

SPRINTSCAN 4000:

<p>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=768909&size=lg" WIDTH="406" HEIGHT="600">

The truth is out there. . . .

<p>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=716116&size=sm" WIDTH="133" HEIGHT="199">

So the real point (at least for HCB) isn't whether a photographer can

take the same photograph with a high end camera & lens as they can

with a disposable camera, but rather, can you actually sketch it, or

paint it, or draw it? Can you model it for massing, or light and dark

areas? Can you break it down into it's compositional elements, and

know what the hell you're talking about? Of course you can't, and

either can I. And what of the work, the exploration of image, now

being done with the Holga's, and Dana's? Just spend some time going

through the Galleries at our sister site, Photo.Net. I've seen some

pretty good stuff there taken with all sorts of cameras, both digital

and film alike. Or how about Terry Richardson, who now shoots

exclusively with p&s cameras (and not very expensive ones at that)?

Or Robert Franks porfolio of Polaroids taken with the Polaroid SX-70?

I tell people, want to see how good a photographer, or image maker

you are, shoot a disposal camera. What's it all about Alfie? Well

it's not about Leica's, Nikon's, Canon's, or Air Force Chart

resolution. It's about, , , , , (X-Files!) little green men in space

ships.

Willhelmn - Could the reason be that "Fine Arts" education he had?

Did you ever see the HCB/Charlie Rose interview? At one point, CR

asked HCB, if he always carried a camera, where his camera was? And

HCB pulled a small sketching pad and pencil out of his pocket. Wow,

thought I, I can really dig were this dude is coming from.

And this is what I have to say. Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W

KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=767582&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="503">

This is what HCB has to say about sharpness in his book, "The Naked

Eye," page 39: "I am constantly amused by the notion that some

people have about photographic technique-a notion which reveals

itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the

passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe

l'oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either

case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of

that other generation which used to endow all its photographic

anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to

be "artistic.""

There is a thread just before yours called "Available Darkness" (Eric

Kragtwijk) which shows a self-portrait using a Leica Tabletop Tripod.

Take a look at that for some ideas. Being able to hold a Leica M at

slow shutter speeds requires thought, technique, and practice. Leica

practitioner's have been handholding the Leica RF at slow speeds

forever. Fifty years ago, before the advent of the modern flash and

super speed films, how do you think some of those shots were taken?

The beauty of the Leica M is that it dampens secondary vibration so

well. You should easily be able to hold the Leica M, with a 50mm, to

1/30 sec or a 1/15 sec. If you can only hold to a 1/60, then I think

this would be an indication of faulty technique. Practice by dry

firing your Leica, and putting a coin on the top plate. The coin

shouldn't move. Once you're comfortable with this, try balancing a

coin on the lens barrel while you fire. With some practice and a

decent tabletop tripod, you should be able to reach very slow speeds.

And not only will it help you at slow speeds but it will benifit your

highspeed technique also.

When it comes to film I have to cheat, though I feel with good

reason. I always use the cheapest film I can find, and more

importantly for me, I shoot both color and b&w. But as far as camera

& lens goes, THIS IS IT (for real)! Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W

KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200-24 ($.99), Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=766043&size=lg" WIDTH="426" HEIGHT="650">

The angle of view of a 50mm lens is 45 degrees. This is closest to

the angle of view of the human eye. 43.2666 is the diagonal of the

24x36 film. This diagonal is usually considered to be the standard

for a normal lens.

Why your getting underexposure remains somewhat of a mystery to me,

but I would seriouly look at your lab. I just shot 13 rolls of Sensia

II 200 in four days, in varying light, and sent them to Fuji for

development, and the only problem is an occasional 1/2 stop

overexposure which I'll correct in Photoshop. With silver b&w which

has such a wide latitude, how the hell can anyone get an

underexposure? They would have to be shooting with the lens cap on!

To me that would mean the film is black (no light has hit it.) But I

also develop and print my own b&w. Again, this would indicate to me

that your lab sucks. Take the b&w prints back to the lab, tell them

they suck, and you want them redone, or you want a credit. From now

on with the b&w, I would only ask for developing and a contact sheet.

Also get a decent loupe and light box and examine the negs. If you

can see detail in the highligths and shadows, then they are OK. Any

competent printer should be able to get a decent print. Also, the

Leica M meters are not spot, but partial meters. The M6 classic

meters approximately 23% of the frame for the lenses you are using.

The M6 ttl meters approximately 13%. When you say you're metering off

the subject, do you mean that you hold the camera inches from their

face and take a reading? Or do you mean that you're pointing in the

general direction from say 10 feet away? If you're metering from 10

feet away against a white or very light background, then this will

slightly squew the meter. Check the meter by metering the palm of

your hand, filling the lens. This should be within a stop of where

you want to shoot, or right on if you want extra saturation.

This past fall I built a desktop publishing/digital darkroom system,

and your buget numbers really seem out of wack or else I don't

understand them. Here's my starter system: P4 1.7, 850MVL mobo, 1 GB

800 RamBus, Radeon 7500 graphics card, HP 9900i (DVD, CD-R,CD-RW),

Antec case + 300W ps = $1300. I seriously considered Mac, but

couldn't find anything like what I built at double the price. Also, I

designed this system to be upgradable for at least the next decade.

You Leica respondants are acting like a bunch of morons. You're

trying to answer a question about metering when you don't even know

what type of film is being used, or how it's being processed! Is it

color negative? Is it black and white negative? Is it color positive

(slide)? Is it black and white positive? Com'on, wake up and get on

the ball!