finnegan

<p>Thanks I usually get a UV filter but I read some that claimed that that somehow got in the way of those perfection Leica lenses and the best photo possible, that's why I was fixed on a leash.<br> Any comments about that? I don't want to start a war, I'm a new Leica-guy and just trying to figure out basic priorities here: protection of the lens and the best shots I can take. <br> I could experiment myself I suppose: same scene, one shot with a UV Filter, one without, do that a few times on a roll of film.</p>

<p>Yes, and did you know that LBJ ordered the assassination of John Kennedy? My experience of conspiracy theorists from that nation-changing day in Dallas has stood me in good stead for whatever drives you to denigrate CAPA and the source you rely on - which finds no problem with the D-Day photos by the way but blames CAPA for the ruined ones. Who Cares about what doesn't exist when you have such magnificent leavings. That CAPA would have not screwed up all of them is remarkable because most would not have bothered to remove their lens caps and touch their camera they would be so intent on saving their lives. The man was in the middle of OMAHA BEACH ON D-DAY for god's sake.</p> <p>This is the truest statement:<br /> <strong>"</strong><strong>One very last me, which is tangential to what Capa did on D-Day..."</strong> All of it is. The photos are important, not a slogan like the witty one you quoted on a man's helmet - or the other struggles for evidence of a snake-like character.<br> <br /> <br /> On the other hand, Thanks for the useful links about photography. </p> <p>For the rest of this stuff, all I can say is you have a very odd attachment to finding fault with CAPA, why is beyond me, but it's described well by the misspelling: "One very last me". And for me every Memorial Day I'll be pulling out CAPA'S Great 11 as I always do.</p> <p>Now if anyone has anything to say about photography and these photos welcome: and just put 'em next.</p>

<p>One of the great world questions of the day:</p> <p>I tried to put on the usual "leash" for a lens cap, loop to station around lens and sticky to stick on the Leica cap. It wouldn't stick. Without a leash I am sure to lose it. What do you use for that? The Leica lens cap must be a metal of some sorts. I want to keep the original to my newly acquired M3, and also my $40 or whatever they cost + hunting for another one.<br> <br /> I thought maybe of a small piece of duct-tape on the unstuck sticky and the whole thing on the cap but I don't know...</p> <p>Thanks on this mundane but important-to-me question.</p>

<p>Well, giant ego may be your word but what you describe is extreme commitment, courage and energy to others so for them it elevates, not deflates.<br> That he bet on the horses or had a lot of women has nothing to do with egoism as in conceit, it's a style, that could be described as "the common man".</p> <p>If he had money problems trying to sell memoirs to Hollywood was a great idea, and writing memories has been done by greats and "smalls", it's value-neutral.</p> <p>But all this is off the Thread point, which is about photography and shooting in extreme conditions, fast, setting the camera ahead of time, how did he do that, how could one consider the esthetics of photography in mortal danger or is instinct at play,.... all of these things is what I posted for. Not attitudes towards one person.</p> <p>His photos are great: How, is my interest - given the shooting circumstances. That I can learn from, not for war photography but for street and other photography of my own in my little world.</p> <p>You see....?</p>

<blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=523880">Ray .</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 01, 2015; 12:00 p.m.<br /> William, both chemical and digital are processes, not "mirrors" of reality.<br /> <em>"It's like being hit over the head by the Rockefeller Christmas tree. I feel </em><br /> <em>assaulted..." he same has always been the case with the chemical process, </em><br /> <em>depending on who's handling it."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I know the first and mentioned that. I did also mention though not a mirror, a close to a mirrored image exists in film. Or leave at image: there is an image in film. When you open a film camera and treat the the film you get the image that is chemically present, very close to what the eye saw before the shot was taken. You do not have anything in a digital camera period that the eye can see. The two are so far removed from each other that both being the result of processes becomes practically-speaking meaningless.</p> <p><br /> The same is true of the last sentence: though both can produce garish photos, it's digital that does it routinely from the same far-different process. In digital no person making errors is responsible for that, it's the camera. In film, the paucity of "in your face" photos is BECAUSE someone or some mass-chemical processor is producing poor work.</p> <p><br /> I've heard this "all the same" many times. But though elephants and humans are both similar in that we are mammals, I bet if you saw the cars around you driven by elephants and an elephant shopping for bread and milk at the store the difference would strike you as almost complete. And thus, that digital and film are both about the same is only linguistically true but points to no practical similarity.<br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Ray,<br /> I like especially the soft fabric and shadows. That to me is a photo. Thanks for posting them.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> , May 31, 2015; 06:18 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>"find them to be flat and lacking contrast"<br /> With respect looking at the photos posted I would agree with the above. For want of a better word they lack the 'bite' you usually associate with a Leica camera and lens. Perhaps its just my monitor, or my personal taste.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's at the heart of what I mean, it depends completely on "receivers" of information. ONLY. So, do my film photos scanned and put online. But if I or anyone else has seen one on multiple computer monitors, smart phone screens, the Apple Watch, TV screens, which are the various receivers of digital information, and I want a consistent Mother-Image to remind myself what the actual image actually IS, I can go back to the negative where IT sits and print IT. That's because in film the light from the scene in front of the lens is "stamped" chemically on the film, which, when converted back into a mirror visual image on the negative is almost a mirror of the scene that first stamped the film. When darkroom-light through he negative stamps an image of the scene onto photographic paper we're back to a very close almost-duplicate of the original light/scene in front of the lens.</p> <p>It's "almost" because there are fluctuations dependent on the lens, film, chemical mix, and printing variations. But for practical purposes there is an IT there from scene to photo, an image.</p> <p>Digital images cease all associations with the scene in front of the lens immediately when the light/scene enters the camera past the lens and hits the sensors. Then there is no more IT. Only digital, electronic information forever dependent on a receiver to create an illusion of the image at THAT point. The receiver is all those different screens the information creates the illusion on. No more IT.</p> <p>The final image is produced by a computer in the receiver as the camera-computer created the information in the beginning. As opposed to film where there always is, from scene to photo, a "stamped"-image of the scene in very close approximation to it. That's the IT.</p> <p>And that's why to me digital, even using a Leica Monochrome, looks produced. It is. The result:everything is too perfect, needlepoint sharpness all over the place, if color, subtle blends all are now seemingly vibrant primary colors. It's like being hit over the head by the Rockefeller Christmas tree. I feel assaulted, And because EVERYTHING strikes my eye and brain with screams for attention, I lose the whole, the actual scene I saw when shooting. If B&W the same, there is no foreground/background of anything, meaning shading from white to black, focus to non-focus, depth of field etc. In short, there is no Gestalt. And I see Gestalts out there. My eyes and brain see a scene. What I look at in digital is a fragmented multitude of bits and pieces. It's not human, meaning based in human experience of the world.<br /> All that said I like those images of yours, if they are yours, very much, as computer creations. I mean that as a positive, not as a snide remark. If I look at a digital photo that way, as a computer creation overseen by a person, then I take them as that and stop comparing them to a photo of something, or styleistiaclly based on something.</p> <p> </p>

<p>What evidence is there of massive egoism? My impression, through his work, is that he gave of himself to others, and in war, as I said before, to common-soldier-heroes. Biographies can enlighten or tell the story of false-people.<br> At the end of the day when we admire someone's great work and what is subliminally present in it like empathy, we are focusing in the right order. If he wasn't a brilliant photographer and one taking on high-risk forms of it, there would be no need to speak about the man.<br> The photographs give homage to these common men, they tell their story in the beginning of a great battle. His photos serve humanity by bringing home both the carnage of war, it's dream-like experience to those in the middle of it and it's horror.<br> I think CAPA the man had those qualities but that's a hunch.</p>

<p>I just got my first Leica, a 62 yr old M3 and 50 Summicron Collapsible. It looks new. Seriously, there is not one mark on it. The guy stored it for like 15 yrs after he bought it hardly used and the price was good: $1100.</p> <p>I'm getting used to the focus, which I find not easy. I have both a diopter and a magnifier, that helps a lot, except it makes the camera look like it has an erection on the rear side. Whether I continue to use both I'll see. (By the way, my eyesight is not bad at all)</p> <p>But I have already some very nice photos so for me it has been a good purchase, well worth it.</p> <p>I'll have it CLA'd soon. It likely needs a lube after all those years in storage altho there's nothing hanging up now. But still... So the OP might want to factor that in as a possible added expense if it's an older camera, mine will be $285 from Sherry Krauter, recommended by many here.</p> <p>And it's a beautiful camera...</p> <p>Good luck with your choice!</p>

<p>The thing I can't get over in digital is lack of grain. I've been shooting 100 B&W with a Leica M3 and a collapsible Summicron 50. Just bought it. It looks new.<br /> Of course the prints are smooth, but still... there's a difference with digital, that looks too smooth to me. The film has "body" for no better term, + better depth of field in even a narrow shot.</p> <p><br /> I just got a Sony a6000 also. I better learn to appreciate digital. It's my 2nd digital, the first was 15 years ago and needed to be replaced. I haven't opened the box yet because I know the manual will take the understanding of a Professor from MIT. It's 1000 pages long. <em>(joke)</em> Plus, I want to get used to one camera at time.</p> <p><br /> That camera will be "outdated" in 4 years and people will spit on me when I pull it out. My Leica and lens are 62 years old. It will be outdated after I'm dead.</p>

<p>I tried the 675, think it is, hearing aid battery. It's too thick the to allow the cover, the kind you screw in or out with a coin, to close. So I ordered the WeinCell. Hopefully that will do the trick.</p>

<blockquote> <p >"<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 30, 2015; 12:50 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>"I don't think his Editors ordered him to go into an LST in the first wave and stand near the front as the ramp went down when thus began the slaughter of the First Wave and near defeat of the Beach.<br> Going in with the first wave was an assignment he took on willingly. It's where the action was and unlike writers photographers need to be where the action is, especially if they want to be published."</p> </blockquote> <p>Especially noting the insight of FRED G about CAPA'S empathy, I don't really think he did what he did here and when he later was killed to further his publishing. That would be a massively egotistic affair.<br> No, most such self-centered folks drop out way before these moments and accomplish their ends by much safer politicking for honors in name. The deeds go to others - and sometimes no honors accrue to them.<br> Now I can't prove that. Nor can I "prove" that Capa's assignment wasn't generated by his own requests. Anyone with half-a-brain, which must include Capa's editors, would know well that anything could happen to those first waves when they hit the Beach and any "assignment" would have to be a request. Are Medal Of Honor Award Receivers awarded for merely obeying orders? Then there wouldn't be a Medal Of Honor. It's a rough metaphor but not unrealistic I think.</p>

<p>Dear Fred,<br> I loved your insight into these great photos. And to answer your last question: "Photo Historians or Photographers?" you already answered it: PHOTOGRAPHER in Capa's case. The raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima was staged, a re-do of the real thing for photographers. Omaha Beach was not staged anymore than WWII was staged.</p> <p>From the report I first posted by Capa, that low perspective you mention stemmed from his precarious position: trying to escape death behind one of those steel obstacles IN the water taking photos of soldiers behind nearby ones doing the same thing. Talk about empathy! And one soldier he stated he shared his obstacle with for a bit until the man got up the courage to move on forward. God...</p> <p>The casualties, mostly dead, in the First Wave were so overwhelming there is more than a good chance most of those soldiers Capa photographed were killed a few minutes later.</p> <p>His empathy is palpable for those around him. And that's what makes him so unique.</p> <p>Again: Great Post!</p>

<p>I had decided to skip the whole thing and ask for my money back and my return of the meter. Actually the Seller hasn't accepted the payment yet/, So, I thought I'd ask that he cancel the payment or just let it expire which it will in about 5 days and meanwhile I send the meter back.</p> <p>But I did buy it after all so, I'll a get a Weincell but start with the hearing aid battery and try that. <br> I'll post a report after.<br> Thanks So much!</p>

<p>From a post somewhere here I found a recommended replacement for a Pentax Spotmeter Mercury battery. I just got an old but almost new-in-box Honeywell Pentax Spotmeter. I found a manual for it which has a 1.3 Volt Mercury listed and a 9 volt dry battery, the latter from what I know is a rectangular one, where that goes I don't know yet.<br /> The post recommended a WineCell battery to replace the Mercury. The one they have is 1.35 volts, not 1.3.<br /> 1.35 is the spec listed for the one replacement they have for a mercury in a Pentax 1/21 Spotmeter, not a Honeywell Pentax Spotmeter. I'm hoping they are the same or use the same batteries.</p> <p>If so, the question remains: will a non-mercury 1.35 Volt work for the original mercury: 1.30 Volt.<br /> Any idea about this arcane point - but necessary for me.<br /> Thanks.</p>

<p>Well Lex, go back in time to the waters of Omaha Beach in the first wave, take a few pix as <br /> .50cal machine gun bullets hit the water around you and the tell us all about it's: just part of the job.</p> <p>I credit Capa and some others of going way above and beyond the call of professionalism as he did generally in his work throughout his Short life, and most certainly here. He could have taken photos of that LST being loaded with men on the mother ship, or gone into Omaha once it was finally secure. I don't think his Editors ordered him to go into an LST in the first wave and stand near the front as the ramp went down when thus began the slaughter of the First Wave and near defeat of the Beach. He told the story of common soldier-heros, and died while doing it in a later war/ Surely that deserves more than a blasé comment.</p> <p>Fireman have a very high-risk job, sometime involving injury and death. Is that your attitude to the three or four hundred who got killed on 9/11. "....just part of the job..."</p> <p>If so I suggest you not tell that to a lot of NYC Firemen. You might end up in a car trunk in Jersey.</p> <p>Anyway, this Thread is about how a renowned war photographer took world-renowned photos under perhaps the most dangerous conditions possible, and how he escaped death: this for any on the forum interested. It's not about private attitudes toward War-Reporting.<br /><br /><br> And now, back to the Tread:</p> <p> </p>

<p>It matters if it's an intentional focus of those groups doing the hostage-taking and kidnapping, as it adds additional victims to those killed in battle. <br /><br /></p>

<p>I know, he died as he lived..<br> As we see now in the Middle East, war correspondents including photographers, stand in high-risk not only in battle but now taken prisoner by murderous groups, one correspondent is about to go to Trial in Iran, a SECRET Trial.<br> I can't recall any of this stuff in Vietnam and from readings on WWII, kidnapping and hostage-taking of press etc. Even from the Japanese, who were atrocious to POWs.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info.<br> Well I screwed the diopter into the magnifier. My Leica looks like it has an erection in the back. I looked thru it briefly, seemed good but I haven't used it to shoot yet where I'll be a better judge.</p> <p>But the length now of the two together may be too unwieldy: to close the case, an original (altho the the leather strap broke, I've ordered another case) without it scratching the diopter, and to look through. It actually looks like a threat to the eye, better have steady hands. Looks like a narrow pipe: if you tripped, or had a bad hand-shake, would go against the eyeball itself perhaps. <br /> No thanks.</p>

<p>I looked at those again on Memorial Day - they ARE Memorial Day in Image, for me at least. I read somewhere those few photos that survived plus those that didn't were taken in the first wave at Omaha Beach. I knew a woman whose husband drove an LST onto the beach that day, what wave I don't know. He said the soldiers name for it for awhile after was "Intestine Beach", because that was the state of the beach after the battle, I also read that Spielberg when complimented on the great documentary-handheld camera effect and sound of first 30 min. of the film and it's realism, would poo-poo it. He said from his research and talking to many survivors he couldn't create the way it really was. I believe the section of OMAHA BEACH that PRIVATE RYAN showed was "EASY RED". That was the section where Capa's LST hit the beach.</p> <p><br /> This is Capa's description of what I always wondered: how the hell did he take these photos without being killed. And after taking them how did he make it to safety.</p> <p><br /> Many of you may know this, and know his words. For those who don't:<br /> http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html</p>

<p>I wonder if after all that money, you get results better than a good equivalent - if there are any equivalents for some of those monsters. Must be part of the cost, one of a kinders - or at least rare like owning the first VW Rabbit ever made. That would be worth a good $500.</p> <p>I think Ellis hit the nail on the head, these are to make money back in rentals. </p>

<p>Very Interesting, the same thing I just bought is listed on BH Photo as a MAGNIFIER 1.25.</p> <p>What I had before was from photos is a 1.0 DIOPTER. I can't remember who I bought it from, may have been BH Photo. So, the magnifier helped me more than the diopter.<br> The magnifier is from top to bottom longer than the diopter, or to put it another way: it sticks out more from the finder. The diopter is flatter.</p> <p>What I have done is reversed the name. What I thought was the diopter is apparently the magnifier and vis-versa. They are near equal in strength, 1.25 for the magnifier and 1.0 for the diopter. The diopter came in a Leica box. Confusingly it states "Magnifier" on the box.<br> But from BH Photos the photos show what I stated.</p> <p>What exactly is the difference between a diopter and a magnifier anyway?</p>

<p>Good luck o you Craig. I'not aware of exactly what my astigmatism does or rather what effect it has on my vision. I'll ask that next time I go to my Doc.<br> No the Leica is not an easy focus camera for me either. I just trust I'll get better as I use it more.</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

<p>"<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=412357">John Stockdale</a></p> <blockquote> <p>So my point is, I'm surprised that William was able to get a diopter in Leica mount with a value corrected to 0.25 diopter, since the smallest increment I've come across is 0.5. Sure an optician would be able to make any value, but it's not easy to find one who wants to do something out of the ordinary, at least in my experience."<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Just happened to find one on Ebay, bingo! But the corrected value, if you mean what I think you do, is 0.75: 1.25 - 0.5 = 0.75.<br> Isn't that what you mean by "Value corrected to..", the diopter value which is a positive (1.25) on a negative value finder (-0.5)?</p>

<p>Well, I hope he got some nice pix out of that monster!</p>