guy bennett

Sometimes form is content. A lot of Gibson's work, but particularly the "Quadrants" series, is formally driven, and the same is true of many "great" photographers, particulary from the modernist era (Kertesz, Hervé, Weston, etc.). Heck, even HCB was a bit of a "géomètre," to use his own phrase. In "The Decisive Moment" he writes: "If a photograph is to communicate its subject in all its intensity, the relationship of form must be rigorously established.... One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material, since it is impossible to separate content from form. Composition must have its own inevitability about it."

Ditto on the recommendation for M Classics straps.

 

Check out their bags as well.

There's an Xpan forum <a

href="http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/7/7.h

tml&lm=1077920911" >here</a>, with sections for both the first and second

models of the camera, as well as for the lenses.

On not mixing B&W and color in a book...

 

I tried to think of a book by a single photographer that did, and recalled R.

Gibson's "Histoire de France." So I got out my copy and leafed through it - to my

surprise, there were only color photos though I distinctly remember that he

mixed both. Then I open my copy of his "Deux ex machina," flipped forward to the

"Histoire de France" section, and low and behold: B&W and color images on facing

pages.

 

I think the two work beautifully in this case. If you've got the book, check it out.

He characteristically presents his pix in conscientiously selected pairs, but adds

to the mix by juxtaposing B&W and color, and they compliment each other quite

well IMO.

Thanks one and all for the advice. There are some good arguments for the 180.

Food for thought.

 

Steve, thanks for the pic. Good to hear from you.

The recent post on "which Leica SLR?" -- with the SL getting all the accolades --

prompted me to post this question. I usually use an M, but having heard all the

hubbub about the SL, purchased one recently. I bought it with a second model

Summicron 50, and am now looking into a longer lens. I'm as yet undecided

between the 135/2.8 and the 180/2.8, and was wondering which one photo.net's

estimed Leica SLR users would recommend. What are the pros and cons between

the two other than size, weight, and cost? Anything I should think about/look

for/avoid? I've seen a mint second model 135/2.8 for about US $490 - any

thoughts on that price? Finally, in anticipation of the question: it depends on

what you'd shoot with it: this would be a general purpose tele for me; I wouldn't

be buying it for any specific type of usage.

If you frequently work in low to very low light you should invest in

a faster lens and shoot with faster film. I like to use a Noctilux

and Fuji Neopan 1600 in such situations, and can shoot hand

held in pretty dark environments. If Ilford's Delta 3200 still exists,

you can use that and shoot in even less light. Rate it at 6400 and

there's almost nothing you can't capture. <a

href="http://www.shinozuka.org/20011031halloween/"

>Here's</a> an example of such work by a photographer on the

LUG. You might also consider the Summilux 50 and/or 35, and

the CV Nokton 50 and/or 35.

So all of those who find value in Eggleston's work are deluded, and your definition

of gibberish is the only correct one?

"I'm sorry, but one of the many definitions of "Art" is that it's a form of

communication."

 

Andrew,

 

You are certainly right, but as you yourself acknowledge, that's only *one* of

the defintions or functions of art. And even then, we've all had to learn how to

communicate -- none of us were born speaking, reading, writing, etc. We had

to work to master those skills.

 

Also, it's good to note that Eggleston does not *need* to explain anything.

(And to my knowledge, he never has.) Clearly, judging from the above, many

people have no problem "understanding" his work without any commentary

from him or anyone else. In this case, Jorge asked for help, he's the one who

was unable to come to terms with Eggleston's work. Is his shortcoming

Eggleston's fault? Put another way, if Jorge had posted his question in

Spanish and I couldn't understand him because I don't speak Spanish, would

that be my fault or his?

 

It's always easier to blame someone else for our own lack of understanding

than to consider that we may be responsible for our incomprehension of

things we have never learned to understand. Reminds me of the following

passage written by Picasso about people who couldn't understand Cubism:

 

"The fact that for a long time Cubism has not been understood and that even

today there are people who cannot see anything in it, means nothing. I do not

read English, an English book is a blank book to me. This does not mean that

the English language does not exist, so why should I blame anyone else but

myself if I cannot understand what I know nothing about?"

I truly love these types of discussions, because they demonstrate how deeply

engrained our aesthetic expectations are, and how hard it can be for us to

conceive that there are other possible approaches to artistic, or in our case

photographic expression, that don't embody the principles that underlie what

we have been taught to understand as "good" art or photography.

 

Surely, if your understanding of photography is based Cartier-Bresson's or

Salgado's, or any other major photojournalist's conception of photographic

work (I hesitate to say "art," given that this is a Leica list), somebody like

Eggleston is going to make no sense because his work in no way reflects the

priorities or assumptions on which photojournalism is based.

 

If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept - and here I'm being kind,

because whether we accept it or not, the world is full of different peoples and

cultures whose aesthetic practices and the assumptions on which they are

based differ greatly from and do not need to be validated by one another - that

there are different conceptions of photography, none more inherently

"important" or "natural" than the others, then work like Eggleston's, Parr's,

Gibsons, Plossu's, etc., pose no problems whatsoever because you are less

inclined to judge them according to the criteria of HCB's or Salgado's or

WES's work, which are no better or worse, just different. (BTW, seen from the

other side, i.e. working from the assumptions that underlie Eggleston's work -

exploration of color, texture, "unusual" composition, denial of a central

"important" event, preoccupation with the mundane, the "insignificant" [which

is itself a loaded term, in that it implies a "universally" posited understanding

of what is "significant"], i.e. an almost point-for-point rejection of "decisive

moment" photography - HCB's work is all wrong, because it doesn't do any of

the things Eggleston's does.)

 

Should we criticize Mondrian or Malevich because they don't paint like

Vermeer or Repin? Should we dismiss Webern's music because it doesn't

work like Mozart's? Should we look down on Asian or Islamic art because it

doesn't conform to traditional Western aesthetic models or practices? Do I

even need to answer these questions?

 

If Eggleston's work makes no sense to you, can you say why? Can you note

down all of the things he's doing "wrong" and/or what he could do to make

better pictures? That list should show pretty clearly where your assumptions

lie. Now, if you can imagine that other people might not share those

assumptions, and that there is no reason that they should, then perhaps you

could look at Eggleston's work again and try to see it for itself, and appreciate

- or not - what it has to offer, on its own terms, and not according to other

criteria.

 

Then it might be easier for you to see what other people see in his work.

Riefenstahl is right up there with (actually, a little above) Eggleston and Sontag,

when it comes to bringing out the best in Leica photographers, as we shall

undoubtedly see here.

 

Sigh.

I'm probably alone on this but frankly couldn't care less about a digital Leica M.

 

I just can't see spending what I imagine will be so much for a camera that will

most likely be so limited compared to its competitors and that will undoubtedly

be superceded so quickly.

 

And then having to buy another one 2-3 years later when the required memory

cards are no longer available, or the sensors can't be repaired, or...

The correct link to Freestyle is <a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz"

>here</a>.

 

Sorry for the mixup.

On the subject of b&w papers, about a year ago I decided to experiment and see

what was available in terms of VC FB papers, addition to the Ilford products I

generally used. Going to a local photo shop (Freestyle in Hollywood, CA), I found a

pretty remarkable variety of papers, some of which put the Ilford papers to

shame, IMO. The nicer ones included products made by Oriental (A. Adams' brand

of choice), Forte (a Hungarian company producing beautiful papers in a factory

set up by Kodak in the 1940s), Cachet (whose "Multibrom" is one of the few

bromide papers available, and is one of the coldest tone papers I've ever used),

and Luminos, and these are only the *nicer* ones. There a many, many more

brands currently available, and most of them are producing a variety of papers

(FB, RC, and various "textured" "artistic" papers) and finishes (glossy, matte,

semi-matte, etc.), all for prices comparable to or less expensive than the Ilford

papers. (And we're talking professional quality papers here.) I should mention

that Freestyle also carries an equally surprising array of toners, and darkroom

chemicals and equipment, so many more than one would ever expect in this

"ever'bodies goin' digital" age. I can't recommend them highly enough if you're

into darkroom (especially b&w darkroom) work. But don't think it stops there:

they also sell a pretty broad range of printers and papers for the film impaired

photogs among us ;) And you don't need to live in Hollywood to shop there (and

thank god for that). You can check 'em out on the web at <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/guide-to-links-on-photonet.html"

>www.freestylephoto.biz</a>, or call and request a catalogue and order by

phone. They ship all over the states; don't know if they do so internationally.

(BTW, don't work for the company, satisfied customer, blablabla.)

 

It would be unfortunate if Ilford - or any other company producing film products -

were to disappear, but if they do, I won't be worried about finding other high

quality products - they're out there, and, though it sounds surprising, new

analogue materials are coming out all the time.

Had both the Leica 24 and the C/V 25. Use the former on a M6, used the latter

on a IIIf. Kept the former, sold the latter. Why?

 

Kept the former because it's an absolutely stunning lens in every respect. One of

the better, if not the best Leica lens I use.

 

Sold the latter mainly because, 1) it wasn't rangefinder coupled, and I wanted to

be able to focus on close subjects, 2) VF didn't have brightlines and was very

"approximate" with respect with what you saw in the finder as opposed to what

you got on film, 3) the C/V 21 had come out and solved both of the problems I

had with the 25.

 

As for quality: IME the C/V 25 build and image quality is ok. Not as nice in either

area as the 28/3.5, but certainly not bad for a $250-$300 lens. The 24 Elmarit

on the other hand is of very high build quality and produces incredible results. It

also costs $2000.

 

Which one should you get, if that is indeed your question? IMO, depends on 1) how

important the focal length is to you and, 2) how much you're willing to spend in

order to achieve the results you want.

 

If you have never used the 24-25 focal length and aren't sure you'll like it, or

only rarely use it, go for the C/V. If you want you can always upgrade to the

Leica later. If you favor that focal length and want images of the highest

technical quality (the aesthetics, of course, are up to you), definitely get the

Leica.

This <a href="http://www.ozdoba.net/leica/schraub_altezeit_e.html"

>page</a> from Christoph Ozdoba's site devoted to Leica screw mount cameras

gives a pretty thorough discussion of the "European" apertures and shutter

stops and workarounds for them.

 

For my part, being extremely unmathematical, I simply adjust apertures slightly

in order to approximate modern aperture/shutter speed combinations. I.e. if the

correct exposure is 1/125 at f/5.6, I'll set my IIIf at 1/100 and f/5.6-f/8. This

is very easy to do and, surprisingly perhaps, gives consistently good results.

If you're referring to the wrist strap, it's M Classics. You can reach them at <a

href="http://www.mclassics.com" >mclassics.com</a>.

 

If you're referring to a "neck strap," sorry, I don't know, though you may want to

check out M Classics' other straps just the same. They're basic, no-frills,

well-made, inexpensive leather straps.

APX 400 is my standard b&w film. It's got a silver rich emulsion that gives it a

broad tonal range. I develop it in Xtol 1:3, which creates a beautiful, "soft" grain

that looks great in 8 x 12 prints.

Actually, here's a <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007oAZ"

>link</a> to a thread on the digital enlarger in question (it's made by De Vere),

and a <a href="http://www.khbphotografix.com/devere/Current/504DS.htm"

>link</a> to a retailer's page on the enlarger itself.

"The moment they replace film for some digital insert with choices of b/w grain

type I can put in my m2, AND then in my enlarger, i'll reconsider."

 

Interestingly enough, I recently heard of a company that manufactures an

enlarger that comes with software that will transform your digital image into a

negative. You can then print it on photographic paper using traditional

darkroom techniques.

None, at least not for now. I still enjoy the workflow of the analogue process, and

am more and more excited about working in a traditional darkroom. Though it

may sound crazy, I'm actually thinking of buying chemicals in order to mix my

own developers, toners, etc., and have been doing a lot of reading about this

lately.

 

I'll be curious to see the digital M, whenever it comes out, but do not plan on

buying one. My guess is that it will be very expensive, functionally limited

compared to the Nikon and Canon DSLRs of two years from now, and superceded

shortly after its release, like the D1.

Jeff:

 

I'm not "against" digital photography, just uninterested in it. I mentioned that I

use computers for the reason Christopher states: people frequently assume

that if you're not interested in digital it's because you don't know how or refuse

to use a computer, which is not my case.

 

FWIW, I'm not a programmer or software developer, and I actually do scan prints

and negatives, then photoshop them and prepare them for output as halftone

images to appear in books and magazines. Though I'm no Photoshop wizard, I

know the routine and have been using it for several years. I simply have no desire

to go that route in my personal work in photography.

Gotta say that I'm totally uninterested in the various flavors of digital M (or any

other) mount cameras - be they made by Epson, Leica, or whoever.

 

I'm still shooting (b&w) film, processing it myself, printing on FB paper, etc., and

the thought of printing images from a computer leaves me, well, indifferent.

 

I'm far from a technophobe, and actually use computers everyday in my paying

work.

 

I'm just not the slightest bit interested in digital photography.

Thanks everyone for your responses. It looks like this is normal, and in that case

I'm not going to worry about it. I was afraid that perhaps it was just my camera.

I just got the 90mm lens for my Xpan II. When this lens is mounted, the

rangefinder patch is not in the center of the framelines. It appears above and

slightly left of the center of the field delineated by the framelines. Is this

normal?

 

In comparison, the rangefinder patch appears in the center of the 45mm

framelines.

 

I'm puzzled.