guy bennett

According to his biographer Jim Hughes, Smith used a wide variety of cameras

throughout his career, from 4 x 5 Graflexes to Minox spy cameras, and lenses

ranging from "ultra wide" (wider than 21mm) to "400mm and longer."

As for rangefinders, he worked with Canons, Contaxes, and Leicas.

John,

for some unusual and excellent work why not take a look at:

Lucien Hervé, the photographer who worked with/for Le Corbusier on many of his

projects. Like some of his most illustrious contemporaries (Capa, Brassaï,

Kertesz), Hervé was Hungarian, but lived and worked in Paris. Unlike them,

however, he specialized in architectural photography and produced some really

astonishing work. Though in a way it is the epitome of modernist photography, it

still looks fresh. There are a two relatively recent monographs on him, as well as

a book of images of the Eiffel Tower, a sort of modernist equivalent of Hokusai's

"One Hundred Views of Mount Fuji."

A more recent architectural photographer I like is Richard Pare. There's a new

book of his just out from Phaidon: Tadao Ando | The Colors of Light. It's a small,

inexpensive volume of stand out (IMO) photographs, all in color, from 35mm to

large format. The photos are of the work of Japanese architect Tadao Ando, and

are quiet, thoughtful studies that frequently focus on architectural details and

the qualities of light rather than attempt represent the buildings themselves.

Definitely someone to check out.

Good luck with your project.

Thanks for the various tips.

I should have specified that I use an enlarger to print, so I'll check out the

idea of the glass neg carrier with the adjustable blades, as well as the

possibility of using a 6 x 7 carrier as suggested above.

I've also put in a call to a local photo store, and they're looking into the

question as well.

I'm considering buying an Xpan for panoramic shots. I shoot mostly b&w film,

process it myself, and print my own negs. My question is: is anyone making

negative carriers for Xpan's 35mm panoramics, and if so who? I've looked in

the archives and elsewhere on the net and haven't found a definite answer to

this question. Is anyone marketing these or would I have to make my own or

have one custom made?

Thanks in advance.

Why not try a <a

href="http://www.mclassics.com/category.html?UCIDs=1129890

">M classics strap</a> ?

I got one to use on my IIIf - it's great, lightweight, and

inexpensive.

They are also making the wriststrap that Leica used to make

until just recently.

I'm in L.A., and called Calument to see what the Leica techs would be willing/able to repair (I was hoping they'd adjust rangefinders) and was told they would only do "external" work (am not sure what that is supposed to mean) and check (though not necessarily adjust) shutter speeds.

Based on that phone conversation, it sounded like the techs would *check* your camera(s) + lenses, and let you know what if any repairs would be necessary to bring them up to specs. Does this sound right?

BTW, at Samy's (Venice branch) last week, there was a sign outside that read: "Leica Factory Trained Technician Inside," or something to that effect. Was in a hurry and didn't look into it, so I'm not sure what if anything was going on there.

I had the same problem, and none of the suggestions above

worked for me. I wound up buying Heliopan filters, which all have

thin mounts, and I've never had a problem since. I only use

Heliopan filters now.

My M-classics bag has replaced both my Domke satchel and "little bit smaller bag" as my regular bag; it's really easy to work from.

Can't recommend it highly enough.

I don't have an M5. I'm just checking the thread to see if anyone responded: "to the left."

I'm stunned: no one has yet.

Compositionally, I think the image would be stronger if it were shifted to the right a bit, so as to not cut off the fellow walking towards us.

As for the subejct matter, well, out of context it's difficult to imagine why this should interest the viewer. As part of a series of shots of diners in general, or of this diner in particular, I'm sure this shot would have its place. All alone, it poses more questions than it answers, at least for me.

Douglas and Charles,

"... in the last line of the preceding quote, you are denigrating an entire group of people."

I'm not attempting to denigrate an entire group of people (and if I have, my apologies). It is the impulse to dismiss outright what we do not understand that I am talking about. (Hence the Picasso quote.) I have no problem with actual criticism. It's just that there has been little to none of it in the current thread.

"And the gist of your posting, if I understand it correctly, is that when someone fails to understand something, and then criticizes it, it is likely the individual's closed-mindedness and/or poor education that is at fault, rather than the idea/art/text itself."

Not criticizes, dismisses. Labeling the above work a "hoax" and a "put on" is not critical, just insulting. It doesn't in any way address the supposed shortcomings of the work, it just writes it off. Instead of these dismissive labels, why not offer an actual argument?

"What you're saying is that to be critical of something means you simply don't understand it, and that every artistic attempt has value if you try and understand it."

No, I'm not saying that. I'm talking about the offensive labels people attach to things without giving any sort of reasoning or justification for their remarks. It's easy to dismiss something with a glib comment, but that's not criticism.

And as for Wegman, well, I'm not much of a fan either, though I don't find the photos in question in any way similar to what Wegman does. I agree with those above who mention Eggleston and Parr as possible influences.

I'm always amused when people who cannot understand or appreciate something rush to denigrate it instead of considering the possible reasons for their own lack of comprehension. In my experience (I am a teacher) this reaction is either the sign of a closed mind or a lack or education, or both, as the two frequently go together.

To the Picasso quote above I'll add the following lines, which he wrote in 1923. He's never far away in such discussions (which seems to suggest that there are some who still haven't digested abstraction in painting, but that's another story...):

"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, and why should I blame anybody but myself if I cannot understand what I know nothing about?"

Johann,

It's a wonderful portrait, but if I could interject a critical note, I find the darkest tones in the image a little too light. Compare for example the dark gray of the jacket sleeve to the black of the border. It may just reflect a personal preference, but I'd print the darkest areas darker, close to maximum black in the darkest parts.

And then there's the following, for your 35 Summilux...

http://www.quickreleaseplate.com/luxfdpage.html

I have experienced the "disappearing" right frame line with a 90mm lens mounted on my M6TTL. As with other forms of RF patch flare, the problem disappears if I shift my eye slightly.

Mildly annoying.

I retract my above statement, which was indeed wrong. BPW Limited has a great selection of all sorts of used classic gear. I am embarrassed to say that I did not know this shop (all the more so as I live just minutes away!). Shocked to learn that there was a collection of fine used Leicas just around the corner I went there this morning and spent an hour or so chatting with the owner - a lovely guy with a lot of great gear for sale.

Live and learn, as they say.

Guy

There isn't a single *good* used leica/classic camera dealer in L.A.

You'll find some nice things at Bel Air Camera in Westwood, but the used selection is usually pretty limited, and the prices are nothing to write home about.

There's a much greater selection at Samy's (the one on Fairfax in the Miracle Mile district, not the Venice shop), but the prices there range from high to very high. I don't know if they are willing to bargain or not.

If you just want to look, go to Samy's, where you'll see a full range of LTMs and old M cameras and lenses. If you want to buy something, keep an eye open for FS messages and/or post a WTB in this forum or on the LUG. And there's always e*** as well.

EUR 3100 - ouch! I realize they'll be cheaper in the States (isn't everything?), but still.

One wonders why the MP is more expensive than the M7, with all its bells and whistles.

It seems a case of paying more to get less.

Or have I missed something?

I've got both, and they are both fantastic. I concur with feli's assessment that the current Summicron is stunning at all apertures. I've used it constantly since I got it about 3 years ago. It is consistently sharp and contrasty with beautiful bokeh.

I just recently got a Summicron DR. It, too, is a wonderful lens. Very sharp, but in a different way than the current model. I don't know how to describe how. The bokeh is also quite beautiful - fluid and luminous. And it's nice to be able to get close for a change.

My suggestion: buy the DR. Shoot with it for a while and compare your results with those you get the current model. Keep the one you prefer.

I use one on occasion, mounted on a IIIf. Though many find fault with it (soft wide open, flare prone, etc.), I personally like the lens. The slightly softer look at full aperture can be a nice effect. A black and white Summarit image printed on nice, matt paper can be particularly beautiful, the softness at full aperture looking almost like shaded pencil drawing (probably going to spark a few guffaws there). It produces fine results in color as well. As a matter of fact, I just recently shot a role Portra NC 160 with the IIIf and a variety of old Leica lenses from the '50s (Elmar 50/3.5, Summarit 50/1.5, Summaron 35/3.5) and was frankly surprised at how well the lenses performed - sharp and beautiful color rendition.

If you're tempted by the Summarit, give it a try. If you don't like it, you'll be able to sell it for what you paid for it, or close to it. As someone remarked, the hood can be hard to find and expensive, but there are relatively inexpensive alternatives for it.

I've had some spotty experiences with La Maison du Leica. The

do have a nice selection of used stuff, but the owner can be a bit

gruff and unfriendly. A Paris-based Leica-shooting pro I know

(how's that for compound adjectives?) refuses to do business

with them, as he considers them to be interested primarily in

profits and only secondarily in photography. "Vendeurs de frigos"

is how he refers to them.

The other shop mentioned above is "Photo Beaubourg." Don't

recall the exact address, but it's in every "Chasseur d'Images"

(as well as in the yellow pages). It's a tiny place with a good

used stock and friendly people, IME.

I've also heard good things about a shop called "Prosirep" (sp?).

You might also want to check them out.

I use a hood with all of my lenses at all times, though I'm

beginning to loosen up a bit and forget the extendable hood with

the current 50s f/2 and f/1 (which collapse all too easily, in my

experience).

Joy of joys: I recently bought a 50 Summicron DR and love the

old 12585 hood which you can reverse over the lens and cap

when not shooting. Fabulous!

I personally like a hood I can keep on the lens at all times, and

cap when I put it away (like the 12585 or the current 35

Summicron ASPH's hood).

"Just read an interesting article on this very subject. See: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=381438"

"OK I read it. Every word. First off, it's an editorial. An editorial from a journalist. (Hardly from the US military) Full of opinion, woefully short on fact."

The article in question was written by a journalist with more than 20 years of experience covering wars in the Middle East, and that means working with governments and armies as well as media outlets and their editors. For these reasons his opinions, and the facts he presents to support them, carry more weight with me than do unsubstantiated refutations meant to discredit them.

"You might also want to see the many articles on media censorship on the first half of the Gulf War here: http://www.fair.org/extra/extra-highlight.html#1991"

"Read this also. Much of the censorship was "in house" by CNN, CBS, and other journalistic entities. No US military. It's called editing. These institutions serve their audience/advertisers. They pay the bills. Everyone serves some type of master or the other."

Censorship is merely "editing"?! For me, this statement alone pretty much discounts anything else you might have to say on the subject. (Though the implications of the follow up sentence: "censorship is ok because you don't want to offend advertisers" is no less outrageous.) But let us go on...

"My main point is to refute bias against the United States and US military."

That is clear.

"This is the internet. Everything goes here. Fact or fancy, everyone with a keyboard is an expert."

I didn't note an anti-American/American military bias in this portion of the thread, rather a commentary on current policies regarding media coverage of the coming war. And as for the idea that "anyone with a keyboard is an expert," well, that's just ridiculous.

"And citing journalists and editoralists regarding the policies of the US military is weak. Very weak."

Citing journalists on issues of media censorship I find rather informative. What I find weak are the unsubstantiated refutations of their comments on the subject.

"If the next Gulf War happens the US military has already developed plans to make sure that reporters show only what the military wants us to see.

How do you know this? Again, please cite something, anything to corroborate this."

Just read an interesting article on this very subject. See:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=381438

You might also want to see the many articles on media censorship on the first half of the Gulf War here:

http://www.fair.org/extra/extra-highlight.html#1991

Guy