yeffe

I see the 'frightening potential...... " as exactly that, a potential that, pretty much anyone

immersed in a culture of self-conscious social and economic status, is going to have at

least a flash of concern ranging to outright dread when the camera swings his way.

The entire 19th century enterprise of striving to 'fix nature's image permanently on a plate'

seems quaintly vain to say the least if not downright narcissistic. Now, in the video age

with print stills relegated to the tabloids, we have a mainstream culture consisting of

narcissism blended with irony.

The best of the lot, Newman, Avedon, Lange, etc. excelled mainly because of their human

qualities. Besides bashing the girl-watchers, Hattersley also maintained that if your aims

were well self-understood, there would be a tendency for people to open up and accept

your presence. His prime example was Ken Heyman, a huge guy who knew how to get the

attention off himself by behaving in a totally unassuming way.

Paulo Bizarro , jan 26, 2006; 11:54 p.m.

What is Leica Photography? Is it better than Photography?

It isn't better but it is, for some, the ultimate repertorial tool.

The romance of the Leica, fueled by the legend of mid-twentieth-century physical heroes

like Capa and company, is another thing entirely. I recall being able to buy almost new

Hassies, Nikons, and Leicas at good prices back in the day because the wealthy had traded

them in for something they didn't have to work so hard to master.

Photographic processes are essentially contrivances, an artifactual bundle of supposed

auto-writing born out of a fascination with 'realism,' whatever that meant to the

nineteenth-century.

Hattersley wrote about the arrested emotional development of those who photograph

because they don't have the courage to, "approach the object of their desire and offer their

manhood," thus placing themselves in a vulnerable spot.

I don't necessarily see street work an exercise in adolescent pining and avoidance of actual

contact with the world. It can, at its best, be a brief conversation between adults or

between the visible world and the artist, but it's true the person with the camera is a

predator, thus giving him or her cover and a potentially frightening upper hand.

True, I've had more shots spoiled by subject movement than by camera shake, about

which which I'm very disciplined.

I spend a lot of time watching people's head movements and comparing to various slow

speed durations. 1/15th is probably the slowest workable speed in my own experience for

shooting on the fly, where asking a subject to hold still would spoil the potential of the

picture

The Leica table-pod and their ball head (long version for me) together make an impressive

means to mount the camera to your torso rather than your arms. The fact that Leica makes

or made this item is irrelevant to it's fantastic functiona design. I think of it like Ross

McIlwhee's shoulder-mounted 16mm he never took away from his eye in his film

Sherman's March. He still got very honest and self-revealing behavior from his subjects.

Canon and Nikon have come out with digi-lenses that utilize motorized floating elements

to eliminate canera shake even down to one-second exposures. The lenses are 3.5-5.6

zooms, and so do not make for very discreet camera handling, but who needs f/1.4 or 2 if

you can shoot confidently at speeds that low, hand-held. Konica-Minolta has an in-the-

camera version of shake-proofing.

What does this mean for us Leica low-light enthusiasts? We've paid big bucks to have

equipment that helps us in low-light work by traditional mechanical means. Will this

distinction go out the window when this technology becomes cheap and ubiquitous?

At $999. for the Nikon lens, it's not cheap but not outrageous either.

Interesting article in today's NY Times on the first solo HCB show since his death in '04.

Featured are some juicy quotes from the sainted father of street photography:

HCB called photography a 'duel without rules." The subtitle of the show (they seem to have

omitted the main title from the article) is, "The Inner Silence of the Consenting Victim",

borrowed from one of HCB's phrases. This begs the question, "how natural can a portrait

ever be?"

Of course his portraiture, especially after HCB became world-famous, was completely

different from his street work. Contrivance was common in his portraiture ("Thus a large

cross appears above the head of painter Charles Roualt"), etc.

At the HCB Foundation in Paris.

Did you know Rick Albertine? He was a close friend who began his career at RIT in the late

'60s. He had known Minor and Ralph Hattersley when he first attended RIT. He took some

time off to join the Air Force before coming back to school where I met him.

The Gurdjieff groups, of which I only attended introductory meetings up in the mansion on

Park Ave., was seen chiefly as a way to curry favor by most of the people in my group who

went further with it than I. But many of G's observations about the somnolent and

mechanical nature of ordinary life, and the efforts needed to wake up from that have

served me well in life. Minor's stress on previsualization and use of photography as a two-

way mirror enhances the process of self-remembering. The principle of cultivating

outward rather than inward 'considering' develops empathy, a key skill for anyone with a

camera, or a life, for that matter. Not displaying anger was another damn good general

suggestion. I'm sure the anger he meant was the irrational kind. G could be scathing

towards his students, but I'm certain, in a measured and targeted way.

I spent two semesters with Minor at MIT in 71-72. We were a group of seven, picked to

some degree by our astrological charts. Unfortunately, the group was fractious and we

weren't really able to mount any kind of cohesive show at the gallery. Creative audience

was my favorite activity.

I've always carried a hunch that photography, tied as it is to geometric progression in its

technical characteristics, owes more to architecture than to painting. Photography needs

to be experienced in depth at a physical level: a point Minor was intent on making. He

taught groups how to quiet the 'monkey mind' and let new information through.

Most of us were so involved with impressing the master that Minor repeated to us more

than once the question: 'why are you looking at my finger when I'm pointing at the moon?'

Here's a buck-and-a-half solution. A couple of feet of nylon webbing and a split ring from

the hardware store.<div></div>

It's wildly off-topic, but I'd love to read accounts of workshops people have taken with

photo-luminaries. I studied with Minor White for a year, for example. Gibson is intriguing

to me, first because he seems to be able to 'channel' his 'inner mind.'

Also, he was, and maybe still is, demonstrating that 50mm focal length has its own

personality and potential.

How 'bout a workshop thread?

Lutz: A drawing would be tough. And I practice figure drawing. I'll ask my wife to shoot a

digi-photo showing what I mean. Actually, if you simply find a way to wrap the right

forearm (clockwise), the rest pretty much follows. Obviously, the length of the strap needs

to be adjusted.

In response to John: perhaps I neglected to mention you don't start with it around your

neck. As a kid, I participated in target matches with a 22 rifle. I like to think of the ideal of

camera-wielding as the camera comfortably held in the hand, and quickly raised, left hand

slid under the bottom plate, deployed quickly, then lowered. No one looks at your hand

compared with quickly noting what's around your neck.

I've also found gardener's or cyclist's gloves (fingerless) to be a huge advantage in

avoiding hand fatigue.

Years ago someone showed me how to handle a camera strap like a rifle sling for

maximum steadyness. You hold the camera upside down in your left hand and wrap the

strap around your right hand and forearm. Invert the camera and find a comfortable

position for the right hand that allows a quick grab-up and keeps your index finger pretty

much over the shutter release at all times. (users of soft-releases may want to delay

winding their film to the next frame till they need it to avoid acidental fires).

Then you are left with the portion of the strap now tensioned under the bottom plate. Slip

the left hand between strap and camera, allowing fingers access to lens controls. Dig your

elbows into your body for a three-point hold. Now the camera is anchored to your torso, a

much steadier item of anatomy than your free arms. Tilts easily to vertical.

I take your point, Eliot. It may not be HP in the optical sense. I just mean you can see the

whole field at a comfortable measure of eye relief, therefore, an HP effect, if you will.

Though I use a 35 lux asph frequently, I sold my M6 .72s and now use only 1:1 viefinders

in a Bessa r3 and an M3. I use a VC aux viewfinder and find it even easier to use than the

M6 finder with its built-in frame lines. How so???

Because I can keep both eyes wide open using the life-size viewfinder, it's nothing to

glance back and forth between the built-in and aux finders. Both have high eye-point,

wonderful clearance if you wear glasses.

The difference in magnification between the Leica finder and the 35 aux is not an issue

because I'm only using the aux to find the edges. The shot is composed more by direct

eyesight, allowing an open-eyed view of damn near 60-70% of the 140 degrees of

horizontal vision, and therefore a much wider and inclusive view than you get squinting

thru a 72. This enables me to relax more and handle the camera in a natural manner.

Miss the metering with an M3? Take the Bessa along as a spot meter.

Sorry not to note that the error was in the RF, not the lens.

See bottom of frame for compositional problem of cut-off. Trying to work rapidly in low-

light with .75 finder, I remember paying close attention to the edges framing dad's head,

and not the bottom edges where I wish I had included his entire hand.<div></div>

I have the latest pre-asph model. I've been happier with it than with with my m6, who's

viewfinder is just a pain for me (I traded my M6 bodies for a VC R3a and a late-model M3).

But the photos the 75 lux allows you to make can be very compelling. I've had to learn to

use it, not least because, at across-the-table distance, you're always needing to watch for

odd subject cut-off.

It's weight has been a plus, adding stability using a three-point sling grip and digging my

elbows into my ample torso for support. With 1:1

viewfinders, I expect it to be much less difficult.

I often toy with the idea of selling the 75 lux and my 50 cron and getting one 50 lux. But I

don't think so...not yet anyway.<div></div>

A Nocti...are you serious? Heavy, heavy! I love my 75 1.4 in spite of its weight. It's form

factor feels more weight- balanced in the hands than the Nocti which is a stubbier and

also weighty projection. I have a 50 cron which is, well, we all know...I think often I'll sell

the 75 and 50 and get a pre-asph 50 lux. Projects, projects.

I have an F3. The HP finder is incredible.

I've shot all kinds of medium format, reflex and RF and still have a Rollei F which I love.

6x9 is trés cool and leaf shutters keep vibration to a minimum Flash synch all the way up

to 1/500 gives a lot of flexibility.<div></div>

It really depends how important the issue of finder magnification is for you. I hate to have

to squint uncomfortably trying to glimpse the entire field of the viewfinder. After all, you

want a natural, expansive relationship with the machine. How else to take advantage of the

slow exposure advantages of an M, but to relax into it.? I got the eyepeice magnifier and

hated it. It finally fell off the camera at the zoo (slipped its leash). I regretted the loss of

money, but not the loss of that dumb non-solution. sorry for the bile) At that point owning

two M6s seemed like dumb and dumber.

The 600 bucks may not compare well to the cost of an M6 user, but then the m6 doesn't

have an auto stepless shutter (in auto, I assume) from 1/2000 down to 8 sec either. As a

second camera, I'd guess R3a probably beats the inflation adjusted cost and features of

the CLs during their pre-Minolta years of manufacture. What I'm not sure about is what

that might prove.

Word back from repair is that the M3 is a healthy specimen and will perform well after CLA

and look sharp after leather replacement. With the seller footing the cost and my original

price $600. I'm not going to gripe.

It has been mostly by reading threads here that I've become more educated on Leica's

limitations as well as it's glories. Their product evolution has not necessarily created, as

Voltiare's Candide would have said 'The best of all possible worlds" Now maybe the digital

they're supposed to be working on will address some other basic issues as well. How

about a convertible viewfinder that allows you to switch magnifications? Now there's an

innovation I'd like to see. Anyone want to draw up a petition?

BTW, I love my Bessa. I actually expected less camera than I got.

The issue for me came down to opening my eyes to Leica's often hide-bound course of

product development. I realize cloth shutters have their limitations, but slips like the glare

problem in the M6 RF seem to be avoidable. The M3 probably was their finest product.

Why should I mind having to use a 35 or 28mm aux finder? I'm probably zone-focusing

anyway. When Bessa came out with a life-size finder, I broke out of my self-induced

Leicaphillic haze and decided to get the best setup for me based on my requirements.

Don't know if this qualifies as an adventure, but here goes:

My interest is low-light B/W documentary-style shooting. I'm into f/1.4 @ 1/15th much of

the time shooting slow film in dim places and processing in two-bath compensating

developers.

I bought two M6 bodies in 2000 and a clutch of the more outrageous lenses. I wanted to

look at Bbessa first but it was too primitive at that stage to suit me.

After five years of struggling with the M6 viewfinder and glasses, I finally recalled the ease

with which I could see using the M3 I had sold long ago. TheM3 is the epitome of the

camera as an extension of the reportorial eye, and the 1:1 finder is what makes it.

So I bought a Bessa R3a from Gandy, am selling my remaining M6 (Cherry if anyone's

interested) and having a pitiful, but finder-OK M3 I bought from a little old lady in Clifton,

NJ CLA'd. Haven't heard from Youxin Ye yet. Hope its not DOA.

The Bessa, meanwhile, When you get past the shutter's annoying metallic 'chink' sound,

(It's much worse when the camera is pressed to your head. The subject certainly doesn't

hear it that loudly) You've got a compact package that costs about one fifth of an M7 and

doesn't force you to squint through a narrow hole.

Sorry for the lengthiness.

Rothelle: Your photos have a lovely, creamy tonal scale. Using roll film, the requirements

for lens perfection decrease markedly. The reason 35mm B/W users go nuts with

perfecting their technique, is that the film must be enlarged 6.66x to make a full-out

8x10. Using 6cm film a 3.3x gives you the same size enlargement.

Not to diminish your efforts or ability. After all, you've got a whole other set of problems

to deal with: needing a faster shutter speed, perhaps using flash and/ or fill, smaller

maximum apertures, etc.). There's always something.

I have a Rollie F that I use for situations like this posted shot. No flash or fill, shot in and

exposing for the shadows, boosting thm one stop at least in exposure. Developed in D

-23.<div></div>

Mr. Puts defines resolution (not sharpness):

"On the assumption that a 15 times enlargement is the limit for really critical work for the

35mm worker, we can calculate the limit of resolution as being 15 times the limiting

resolution of the eye. As this limit should allow for several types of eye-power, we should

use a bandwidth figure. The true limiting value is 1 minute of arc, as here we jump to the

spacing and size of the cones and rods in the retina. The distance between cones is

measured as 0.5 minute of arc and we need one additional cone to separate the detail and

therefore the 1 minute of arc is the limiting value."

"This has been established as scientific fact, but even here there are some who decline the

facts."

"Now one minute of arc at a visual distance of 25cm translates into 8 line pairs per mm.

We simply cannot see finer detail at that distance due to the retinal structure. Let us

however argue with 10 lp/mm (easier to calculate!)."

"At 15 times enlargement, we need to have on the negative a maximum of 150 lp/mm.

And if we want to have some reserve capacity a figure of 200 lp/mm is really not only

sufficient, but the maximum."

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.

That covers the physiologic side. But is it 'sharp'?

"A light patch with a circular dimension of 3 micron will be identified as a spot or a true

point without any doubt. The question now becomes, at what diameter of the spot will an

average human recognize it as a circle and no langer as point. This is the area of the

human visual acuity. It has been established that the human eye can easily resolve details

when they are separated one minute of arc. This angle is represented by 1 unit 3440 units

away. A a distance of 10 inch the detail size will be 10/3500 or about 0.0025 inch. That is

aproximately 8 linepairs/mm or 0.06mm (60 micron). If we relax this demand a bit, we

may assume that any spot with a diameter of less than 0.1mm (100 micron) will be seen

'as sharp' at normal viewing distance. In the past this criterion has been used to establish

DoF tables. As DoF is not independent from the film format, there are several different

diameters for the Permissible Circle of Confusion."

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/DoF/DoF.html

Note that viewing distance, therefore enlargement size, also figures in here. What's sharp

at 8x10 might look soft at 16x20 with out adjusting the viewing distance. Puts settles on

15x. That's a tall order IMHO.

Oh, yeah.

Leica M6 with 75mm 1.4

I carry the Leica table-top tripod with me. It conforms to your shoulder to allow torso-

anchored shooting. Not used in these shots.

Another drawback:

In this shot there's a focusing error visible. The plane of focus crosses the dad's t shirt and

continues to sharply render the baby's pants. I was focusing on his eyes. I believe there's

more error in my eyesight than the rangefinder (I've tested the rangefinder).<div></div>