zora_suleman

Once saw a small insect walking across the screen of my

Hasselblad. With the 8x magnifier, scared the life out of me..

I thought you might like to know that the 'Tate Modern' gallery in

London will be showing a retrospective of Robert Frank's work

later this year (28 October - 30 January 2005). Given that Frank

will be eighty years old this year, perhaps there will be a similar

exhibition to mark the occasion in the US or other places? If not,

come to London, it's great. We'll work out how many Leicas you

need to bring for the trip later.

I think that 'The Americans' is one of the truly great photographic

works of the Twentieth Century. Funny to think that half a century

ago, it was at first considered too shocking to be published in

the US.

Z

I wouldn't use a really wide angle lens in such a confined space.

If you are not careful, it might give you some very odd views. I

don't think that it's necessary to include absolutely everything you

can see in a picture to convey a sense of the experience or tell a

story. Your original selection sounds just fine to me.

I have read your column on occasion Roger, and it is always

interesting. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your comments

about 'sterile pseudo-wilderness shots in the derivative Ansel

Adams school', as I think that it must in some ways be very

difficult indeed to bring something real and beautiful out of a

natural landscape. With people, infinitely strange and beautiful, I

find the possibilities almost endless.

That said, I love John Blakemore's large format studies of

Derbyshire and Wales. So beautiful. But of work by Ansel Adams,

it would be his 35mm pictures of people (Georgia O'Keefe and

Orville Cox for instance) that I am most drawn to.

Anyway, take care now

Zx

And Robert, yes, I understand what you mean about needing to

have confidence that you are in focus. Sometimes we have to

just press the shutter, and if we have time, focus properly and

take another one. Sometimes we dither and see the whole

scene escape, for ever.

One reason that I tend to steer clear of automatic or autofocus

cameras is because I never know what the blinking things are

up to. Even my lovely Ricoh GR1v has a date information setting

which can accidentally get switched on, imprinting pointless

numbers on the negative.

Zx

Thanks Peter, I like your work. I will try the two eyes open thing, if

mine will let me. I once picked up a Leica Model A (?) with the

viewfinder perched on top. It was great. You could see so much

around the frame.

And I find when working at full aperture in low light, the ability to

see through the viewfinder into the far background really helps

make me aware of distracting elements. I find with an SLR that

my eye is drawn much more to the main subject in focus, rather

than the whole scene.

Interesting - the different ways of working.

Cheers

Z

The discussion about whether film is 'better' than digital only

gets you so far, and probably not very far.

There's a story I picked up about Terence Donovan (I think, don't

shoot me if I'm wrong) wanting to take a picture of a woman

(famous model possibly?), but didn't have a camera handy (a bit

strange for a fashion photographer, but carrying on anway), so

he took her into a photobooth in 'Boots' or the station or wherever

they were, arranged the background really carefully, made up her

hair and makeup to create the effect he wanted, and took his

picture.

Now, I think that's a creative person at work, and perhaps it is a

more useful line of thought for people also seeking to be

creative?

.. was fascinated to see in recent posts Steve's comment that the

Leica (M) is 'not suited for.. action shots' and also Peter A's that

'The Leica's strength as an image making device has NOTHING

to do with the viewfinder'.

My own experience using a 90mm on an M4-P is that it works

well for taking pictures of people on the move at close range. I

find the brightline frame on the M4-P easier to see than on an M6

(they are thicker I believe?), the much talked of rangefinder patch

flare doesn't appear to exist as a problem, there is a lot of room

outside the frame, which gives you a great sense of what is

happening in the scene, and what is likely to happen, and the

focussing patch covers a large proportion of the 90mm frame,

which makes it easy to focus on moving objects before quickly

composing the image. Sometimes it is possible to just let the

moving elements drift to the point in the frame that you want. It

surprised me when working in Rome that at 125th f11 with the

90mm, I could catch people moving across a scene at about ten

to fifteen feet, in focus. There is usually some slight blur in the

image, but I think that looks quite natural, as long as it is only a

fraction. A bit of movement never seemed to bother Robert Capa

or Henri Cartier-Bresson much, it would appear.

Also for close focus work, the 90mm lens at f11 at one metre

range gets me close enough to photograph small objects (ie

cigarette butts on the pavement - don't ask why), while still

showing something of the wider scene, which I like. I did borrow

a 90mm macro lens on an SLR to get closer, but soon got bored

with giant pictures of small things.

So for that bloke who asked what to take to Rome, try just the

90mm, get close to your subjects and see what happens. And

anyway, the Romans are so frighteningly stylish that I'd hate to

think of you standing there, wearing your Khaki photo vest with

lots of pockets and a bloody great bag over your shoulder,

cameras rattling away.

The time difference between the UK and the US, sometimes

make it difficult to participate in discussions, so this is a sort of

response to about three different threads, so sorry if it is a bit

long and rambly. I hope the 90mm thing is helpful, although I

don't think I have conveyed just how fluid (is that the word?) it is

to use, but I do think that it creates a very different impression of

a street scene than using a 28mm or 35mm lens at close range.

Of course Ralph Gibson was doing this in the sixties, so nothing

new really.

Was there anything else? Oh yes, the stripey Magnum book that

Rene talked about. I have that. I got it free when visiting the

printer. The usefulness of a contents page or index seem to

have been forgotten by the designer, so you'll have to identify the

pictures carefully. But yes if you want to discuss any images from

that, and don't mind delayed responses, by all means.

Best wishes

Zora

"Does April 15 have the same significance in England as in the

US?"

I don't know. Give us a clue? It's a Thursday here, and apart from

Trevor being ready to mine the channel tunnel, it seems to be an

ordinary day.

You know, I do wonder about the XPan. I expect it is a great

camera, but somehow people seem to produce really boring

images with it. Perhaps it is the format that somehow draws the

photographer to yet another ridge of mountains, or perhaps it is

just hard to fill such a wide frame with enough interesting

content, although Josef Koudelka's panoramic photographs,

(taken with a Linhof ?) are truly beautiful.

I don't know, but it is a puzzle to me. Perhaps I have been looking

at the wrong pictures? Perhaps the camera is mostly used by

landscape, travel and fashion photographers, which are not

areas that I am particularly drawn to. Perhaps I am just wrong? I

would be interested to see some outstanding portraits or street

pictures or something unusual taken with the Xpan. I can

imagine that it would be a brilliant camera to use in the street.

Sorry, I have hogged your thread, but as to your question, if you

want the panoramic view, you're not really going to get it with the

Leica, so take the XPan. If you don't want it, no need for the Xpan

anyway, so take the Leica. Practically, I doubt that the difference

between the lenses will make the difference between an

ordinary and an extraordinary picture. Except for the two stops of

course, which if working handheld would might pretty quickly

become a problem with the Xpan. I'd take the Leica, and if I

wanted a panoramic shot, stick some pictures together later, like

my Auntie does with her holiday snaps.

I hope that helps

Z

Thank you for your kind responses, some fascinating insights.

The Cecil Beaton and Bill Brandt exhibitions at the NPG were

excellent. It was a good opportunity to compare the different

approaches to portraiture of these two amazing photographers.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Zx

.. that the current Cecil Beaton exhibition at the National Portrait

Gallery (in London) is very good, and that his work is beautiful.

The NPG is also showing some of Bill Brandt's portraits, so

that's my Sunday sorted out.

Before Aled Jones chips in with his 'What's this got to do with

Leica?' comment, I should say that I don't see my life as a series

of discrete compartments. Art, politics, love, sex, drink - it's all

part of the same to me. And I was wondering what inspires the

photographers here? We are pulled I suppose to events

happening in front us, or sometimes by the sheer amazing

physically of things, but how do we make photographs of things

that don't really exist, dreams or memories perhaps, things that

are absolutely part of us, that can be drawn upon but not easily

represented. These things are difficult but I think it is maybe what

makes the work of artists like Bill Brandt for instance, stand out

from the ordinary.

I am a great admirer of Lucien Freud. His painting of Frank

Auerbach reveals, I think, so much about the man. Difficult to

appreciate fully on screen or in a book, because the paint is laid

on over time and has a real physicality to it. Painting is

something very different from photography.

So the invitation to share influences, beyond other

photographers, is there if you want to take it up?

Cheers

Zora x

Morning! Thanks for the responses. I love Kertesz, and

Giacomelli too. I had not heard of Bayat Keerl, but his work looks

fascinating, as does Ray metzker's. So cheers everyone, even

the people who posted pictures of dogs all over my thread.

Zx

Strange and beautiful pictures Karim. It would be lovely to see

the original prints one day. I remember seeing some of

Steichen's work exhibited - the tones just seem to go on forever.

Thanks.

I'm afraid I've got to go home soon for the weekend. I expect that

America is just waking up or having lunch or something (I've

never been very sure about time zones). It would be lovely to

come in on Monday morning to five hundred links to amazing

images all over the world. We could create our own virtual book.

I'd be Editor of course.

Here's another picture, one of Bill Brandt's from the 1930's of a

girl dancing the 'Lambeth Walk'. It is the third picture along,

scrolling with the arrow to the right..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/3556817.stm

The young girls make me think of my mother, who grew up in the

East End before the war. They were eventually 'bombed out'

during 'The Blitz' and moved to Croydon.

Yes extraordinary pictures I think Glenn

Funnily enough we did have a discussion about '1964' here

some time ago. Unfortunately I reacted not too well to some of

the adverse comments made about my personal (and perhaps

rather naive) interpretation. So it got a bit nasty and I had to

apologise. Oh well..

But lovely pictures. Thank you.

I'm hoping this will be a good afternoon.

Z

A space has crept in before the last letter of the link that needs to

be removed before it will work. I don't know how that happened..

Ta

Z

Hello. Well not much happening on the Leica Forum today, now

that the hilarity of April Fool's day is past. I was sad to see the

thread from the bloke who failed to spend £2,000 on a new

camera because he got in such a huff in the shop that he

stomped off, deleted. It was barely libellous at all.

Anyway, I had a go at starting a thread of links to pictures on the

internet that people like and find inspiring in some way, and

although there were some lovely responses, there wasn't a huge

amount of enthusiasm for anything much outside 'photo net',

which was a bit disappointing. Maybe because I said on the 'net'

people thought I meant 'photo net', but I was really thinking a bit

wider.

So maybe all those hundreds of people who are out there

loitering, can be persuaded to share just one link to an image

from the whole internet that they find beautiful, inspiring,

gorgeous or whatever. So go on, call in from wherever you are,

from Minsk to Aardvark, Wisconsin, you will be very welcome.

As I get to go first, here is Cartier-Bresson's famous image taken

in Srinagar, Kashmir in 1948..

http://www.jacobsonbest.com/henri_cartier-bresson_kashmir.ht

m

I really like this picture, as perfect a balance between form and

content as I can think of (please noone suggest a better crop).

Incidentally, I believe that David Bailey has referenced this

picture as one that made him originally want to pick up a camera

and become a photographer.

Cheers

Z

PS I did post a thank you to those who did reply last time, but it

got wiped in some strange thing that happened on the photonet

server, and by the time I realised a few days had passed, so

apologies to anyone who thought I was rude for not saying thank

you.

PPS I don't know how to make the link work automatically, so I

hope it works

"Oh, and make sure to see the centenary Bill Brandt exhibition on

at the Victoria and Albert museum in South Kensington from now

until late July."

And the exhibition of some of Brandt's portraits at the National

Portrait Gallery looks interesting too.

And for Madrid, there's 'Guernica' at the Reina Sofía. Wish I was

going.

Oh and what about one camera, one lens and a couple of rolls of

Tri-X. See what happens when not loaded down like a mule?

Z

PS same is true whether in the darkroom or on the computer, I

think.

Hi Craig

Have to be quick I'm afraid (time to go home), so excuse any

incoherence, but there's that thing about the artist reflecting life,

and a set of scales. Put your finger in on one side and it doesn't

balance any more. Not sure where that image is from? Maybe

Shakespeare?

But some photographers heavily manipulate images in the

darkroom, Bill Brandt for instance, yet the pictures still reflect

something that feels real, that we can connect with. Don

McCullin admits to 'laying it on a bit thick' in his printing, but his

pictures are still considered powerful and true.

It's a hard thing to define and get right, but I think that it really

doesn't matter what you do to a picture, as long as the final

image is somehow true within its' own terms.

Probably bollocks this, but never mind, this is the Leica forum

after all.

By the way Craig, I like your picture, even though you have

'over-egged the pudding' somewhat. Now that isn't

Shakespeare.

Cheers

Z

Ta everyone. Very interesting. I posted a 'thank you' the other day,

but it sort of fell off!

Z

As I clicked in this morning I wasn't entirely surprised to see a

picture of someone's dog ('W/NW My Pet' is surely coming ever

closer). And it made me think of Jill Freedman, who took some

fantastic series of pictures of the circus, the New York Fire

Department and of Ireland too, mostly in the early '70s I think (I

can't seem to find a decent link, if anyone knows one?). She also

started to take pictures of dogs, which I didn't take as a good

sign, not being a particular lover of the smelly great things

myself.

But if anyone is interested in social documentary (or dog

pictures), her work is well worth seeking out. I would love to see

a copy of 'Circus Days'.

By the way, she said in a piece for a book called 'World

Photography', edited by Brynn Campbell, twenty odd years ago,

that she used rangefinders or Nikons, according to her mood.

Apologies to Ms Freedman if I have unintentionally

misrepresented her, and likewise to any dog lovers who might

be upset. My Dad has two great big Red Setters that launch

themselves at you as soon as you walk in the door. Not much for

it usually, except to hold your Leica and your (more expensive

than you could really afford) bottle of wine above your head, until

they get bored and piss off.

Cheers

Z

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/P/penn/penn_butts_full.

html