christoph_frick1

Thank you for sharing your photo and your experience! When I started using a Leica M, I was also amazed how relaxed it is compared to using noisy SLRs. Even after about 25years using SLRs and only one year using a Leica M I feel much more relaxed with the Leica M. [btw: this forum helps me a lot with the learning curve which *is* involved, thanks everybody!] I'm looking forward to more photos!

Kevin: I'm not an Englishman, but a Kraut, and unfortunately there are way too many fascists around here in Germany [well, even just one would be too many, but I'm afraid there are much more]. For me, even without any caption, I would immediately suspect fascists on Brian's photos. There is something in the body language and in the facial expression, this typical fascist kind of arrogance ("we are better than everybody else, we are the 'Herren-Rasse'"...), which stinks some miles against the wind.

 

Brian: great photos, thanks for sharing; how many fascists did turn up for this rally? Was there any counterdemonstration?

Yes: (i) Agfa Scala; (ii) what Mike Dixon wrote: dr5! -- ad (i): please note that Scala can be pulled or pushed and looks quite different in those cases (different contrast). ad (ii): dr5 offers an even much much broader spectrum of looks, so if you don't like Scala for certain applications, try different films via dr5 (and for each film different pull/push variants); this opens a wide choice of options, and it is very much worth it!

No Words can adequately express how much I like your photo, Travis.

Doesn't it also depend on which area of photography? -- A few months ago, a coffee table book about the Olympics 1972 fell into my hands (OK, that's more than 25 years ago...). What was very obvious: (i) the technical quality of the colour photos was quite "poor" compared to todays standard in sports photography: not quite sharp, bad resolution, strange colour shifts...; (ii) most of the BW photos were actually quite good technically. So obviously there have been significant technical improvements, mainly for colour photography. On the contents/artistic side, it should help that today it is so much easier for aspiring photographers to find inspiration in the work of others, photographers, other artists etc., via the media, i.e., "standing on the shoulders of giants". Some less creative people might be discouraged by thougths like "everything has been done already...", but the truly creative people always go beyond that.

Imho, nothing compares to a Leica M. I was stupid to wait many many years until I thought that now finally I could "afford" it (about a year ago) -- this way missing out on so many great photo opportunities which I didn't take advantage of with my other cameras (SLRs). It would have been worthwhile to somehow make it happen and find the budget [e.g. rob a bank ;-) ] and take a risk for it. Being a rather shy person, I simply don't dare to use a very noisy SLR (e.g. my FM2n-s) in a lot of situations, but now being able to use a Leica M expanded my horizon and courage. Also, it's just such a joy to use that inspires me to spend more time on photography, which seems to be the best way to improve my skills.

 

What lens would be best: currently you seem to be using zooms with your SLR, and zooms obviously don't exist in the Leica M world (well, there is this Tri-Elmar, but this is another story, and might anyhow not fit within your budget). So the question is first about which focal length is most important for you. For me, it is the 50mm, and therefore my first Leica M lens was the 50mm Summicron (not needing the additional speed of a Summilux or even a Noctilux), and I think this lens has a great price-to-performance ratio. The question about your most important focal length is very personal. Good luck and maybe you can learn from my experience which is that I definitely waited too long.

When I enjoyed a 14-days trip through Japan some 12 years ago, what I liked most were all those amazing Japanese gardens mainly in Kyoto. Probably "the" example of a Zen garden is Ryoan-ji. But my absolute favourite was a garden more of the landscape style, which also made wonderful use of the concept of "borrowed landscape", i.e., certain views in the garden are designed in such a clever way to include the scenics of far away mountains etc. into the garden view (unfortunately I forgot the very name of that garden, but it should be easy to find in any Japan/Kyoto guide).

 

Please note that you need an upfront permit to visit certain gardens! This is done to avoid that those most favourite gardens are completely crowded. Actually, for foreign tourists it was easier to get such permits more quickly than for Japanese people: e.g. for this fantastic landscape garden I mentioned above, as a foreign tourist I applied for the permit upon my arrival at Kyoto, at the Garden office (or whatever it is called officially), and was allowed to visit this most-wanted garden only 2 days later, whereas I was told that Japanese people sometimes have to wait for years! -- I could believe this during my visit of this garden (only about 30 people allowed to visit simultaneously), as for the Japanese visitors it seemed to be an even more special occasion, and many of them came in traditional Japanese clothing. So make sure you get such permits; maybe this is even possible before your trip, otherwise the first thing to do in Kyoto is to go to this Garden Office (or whatever it is called) which gives out those permits. (As I mentioned, my experience is about 12 years old, maybe some forumers currently living in Japan know the current situation with those garden visit permits). [btw: my visit was long before I got a Leica, but in this particular wonderful landscape garden, there was a Japanese gentleman happily shooting both a Leica R and an M]. Good luck and enjoy!

For the sake of argument, let's assume that "The Leica Look" would be something which *is* easily recognisable. Imho an important reason historically that people started talking about "The Leica Look" is the fact that some of the most visionary, influential photographers happened to use and still use Leica-s (HCB, Ernst Haas, W. Eugene Smith, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Inge Morath, Mary Ellen Mark, Sebastiao Salgado,...) as their favourite photographing tool. In the very early days of 35mm Leica nearly did have a monopoly, at least a head start. The quality of the work of those photographers is certainly above average and therefore naturally got and still gets a lot of interest. Of course they wouldn't have used Leica-s in the first place if the lenses would be crap. Maybe if somebody like e.g. James Nachtwey would have lived earlier (and already used Canon as far as possible) his fans might now talk about "The Canon Look"... But on top of this most important factor, the photographers, Leica lenses do have unique qualities, which help creating photos with high emotional impact.

That's the next Leica M lens I plan to buy (winning the lotterie would help). Haven't used one yet, but have seen some great pictures made with it, some of them here on the forum [credit for great photography goes mainly to the photographers, but also to the lens for what it contributes]. What is the experience with external finders, in particular for people wearing glasses?

A design feature which makes both the 35mm 'lux and 'cron different from other lenses is the fact that the front element is concave [the back element as well, but this should be irrelevant for those reflections]. I guess this makes reflection effects like the one shown in your photo and the ones shown in this other discussion forum more likely, when a filter is attached in front of this concave front element.

You are one of the posters whose personal style is immediately recognisable (square format or not), and I like most of your photos very much, so thank you for sharing them, and please keep them coming. I hope you make lots of money with your photography such that one happy day you *can* afford a Leica! ;-)

I should start by saying that my only own experience is with the current 90mm Elmarit (and I'm very happy with it). But I do remember having seen on the Internet a comparison test between the new Summicron AA and the Tele-Elmarit (with photos of trees with foliage in the background etc.). In those tests, the Tele-Elmarit showed some quite bad bokeh, among the worst I've seen from a Leica lens via Web viewing (which is admittedly limited). Sorry, I couldn't find the link quickly right now, but some Google-ing should reveal this test. So if bokeh is important to you, check it out. In this test, the Summicron AA had much much nicer bokeh. The current Elmarit was not part of this test, so no direct comparison possible; but I can say I'm quite happy with the performance, incl. bokeh, I get from my current Elmarit (smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Summicron AA).

Did the Lomographic people embrace digital image-taking? Based on the (limited!) impression I got about the Lomo idea, digital might be a logical medium for it -- or are digital cameras too complex technically, and too much dependent on batteries?

For me, some differences between Leica results (with 50mm and 35mm Summicron, 90mm Elmarit) and Nikon results (with 50mm, 35mm 1,4 and 105mmm 1,8, AIS) have been more obvious with colour slides (I use mostly Provia, some Velvia); as I don't do my own BW development at the moment, I don't see optimal BW negs from a commercial lab with neither of my cameras (Leica M6TTL and Nikon FM2n) and lenses. It's visible already on the light box, and it's overwhelming when those slides are projected e.g. with a Colorplan lens. Somehow, I find those Leica slides at the same time more natural, both relaxed, but also punchy, with high definition and impact, whereas in comparison the Nikon slides show some kind of a strange "technical tension" -- somehow hard to describe in words, but quite visible. As Marc Williams pointed out, it's not just sharpness or resolution, there is more to it. I also agree with everybody else who pointed out that the handling of an M with Leica lenses is an important part -- in my case this meant that I'm spending significantly more time photographing, thus practicing, which also helps for better results. For me, there is also a learning curve involved, after some 25 years with SLRs, using an RF. Now, if Leica would make lenses for MF...

Yes, I tried it, exposing it at 1250, in artificial light, had it developed by a commercial lab [don't know which developer they are using]. Quite sharp for such a high speed film, grain still OK, and giving good contrast and tonality. As an alternative, I also tried Ilford Delta 3200, exposed at 1600, in similar light, developed by the same commercial lab, but was much less happy with the results: much softer, coarser grain, much too flat contrast [i guess this commercial lab is not performing the optimal development for this film]. So I'll stick with Neopan 1600 for now, at least as long I don't do my own development.

Very good portrait, I like it very much already on my computer screen, and I'm sure the "real thing" (i.e. a well-crafted print on fiber paper) will look just great. Just one small technical question: at the left side, it looks as if there are slight artefacts of uneven development, due to the developer flowing quicker through the sprocket holes than between them. If this is the case, and if you want to avoid this effect, you surely can get good advice on how to avoid this over at the BW film & processing forum, there are also very helpful people over there (I can't help you with this, don't know much about darkroom work unfortunately). I'm looking forward to more posts from you!

More artists, who have not been mentioned yet: (i) Hélène Grimaud, pianist: her interpretations are overwhelming on all scales, from the tiny little details to the overall line, and are ideal emotional communications [see {rather hear} in particular her recording of the Brahms piano concert #1 op.15]; (ii) Vermeer, the light, the colour [to make it on topic: in my experience, in particular Leica glass helps to achieve similar colour rendition]; (iii) Orson Welles [OK, he might not count as entirely non-photographic].

Ähem, btw Ollie, bad news from Physics: polarizers do not work for metallic surfaces (like the INOX steel Salvatore mentions). Might still be worth trying, as there might be reflecting surfaces of other materials, for which the polarizer does work. Sorry, otherwise I don't have experience with this problem. What does sound plausible is to use black and/or white cloth to surround the objects; this shouldn't be too expensive, but you might need some way to hold that stuff, maybe a couple of colleagues. But there is also something to be said for really hiring a pro for such jobs: photographers also have to make a living, and you can expect good quality.

Hm, one body and one lens doesn't really make up a "system", does it? -- I would also definitely keep two bodies, also in order to have a backup for those cases when one body needs servicing. This Black Paint M6TTL sounds more like a collector's item, not a user(?), so this probably would be the one I would sell.

I agree with all of the above, and want to add a few more names who are easily recognizable: (i) Albert Smith; (ii) Leanne Newton; (iii) Lutz Konermann; (iv) Peter Lück; (v) Keith Laban; ...

 

Doesn't this confirm that it really is the photographer making the picture, not the camera [even if it's a Leica ;-)]. Amazing how this creative process called photography, which is substantially more mechanical than e.g. painting, brings about personal style in the work of talented people. And btw: thank you all!

Thank you for introducing this great photographer. Yes, I do find his work very interesting. Can't get enough of photos of this quality. Thanks again.

Thank you for those photos. Good reportage photography [imho one of the most important applications of photography]. My favourit shot is #10. {Also, civil disobedience seems to become more and more important again in these times... (see e.g. www.warblogging.com)}

Maybe the 35mm might give a less grainy look due to larger DOF and lots of details, whereas with the 90mm with its limited DOF there might be more areas which are out of focus where grain is more visible. If you have doubts about the 90mm [there can always be something wrong], you might need to do some systematic testing, shooting appropriate test objects with tripod etc., best using high resolution fine grain colour slide film.

 

The chromogenic BW films like T400CN, XP2 etc. do have a different look than other BW films, as they do not have grain like "normal" BW films but a kind of dye clouds, like colour neg film. This does not mean that their resolution or sharpness is better than that of film with more visible grain. They just give a smoother look.

 

TMAX400 (and other films like the Ilford Deltas) again have different grain than the classical "old style" emulsions, e.g. Tri-X, HP5 etc. It's a matter of taste what you prefer. It can also be fun to try all the options. It's definitely worth trying the "old style" stuff, e.g. I recently "discovered" Tri-X for certain applications, for which I like it much better than any of the modern stuff.

I think it's hard to make a generic statement about this, as it mainly depends on the "eye relief", i.e. the distance of your eye to the viewfinder eyepiece. For me, with glasses, I even have to push against my 0.72 finder to see the 35mm brightlines. From your question I guess you don't use glasses, but even then it depends on the details of the shape of your face, whether you use your right or your left eye etc. So I think it cannot be known in general, you have to test it for your individual situation.

As others wrote, for checking alignment of the rangefinder you don't need a technician. The infinity setting can be checked using very distant objects; the moon is nice if you can see it, or, what I like to use is a very pointed skyscraper here in Frankfurt which I see from around where I live at about 5km distance. For close distances, without film: put M on tripod, facing a mirror, stick an acute-angled triangle onto the mirror surface, focus on that triangle, check with a rule, then focus via the mirror on an object in the film plane; the second focus ring position should indicate double distance than the first one, e.g.: film plane is at 1m to mirror, then first reading should be at 1m, and second at 2m. Of course it is more accurate to do some tests with exposing film: again, M on tripod, set up a rule at about 45 degree angle to the optical axis, use maximum aperture for most narrow DOF, and focus on a particular position of the rule, and shoot 2-3 frames, each time focusing from scratch. Repeat for a set of distances from closest (e.g. 0.7m with a Summicron 50mm) to about 2-3m distance. Develop film and check with loupe, or project frames with a Pradovit projector with Colorplan lens onto a huge screen. If the RF alignment really is off, you will get a systematic error to one side of your intended spot.

 

Now, if you find out that RF alignment is not optimal, you have to decide whether you want to do it yourself or not. Alignment at infinity seems to be easier to do yourself than alignment at close distances. Good luck.