p_n_chong

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>I understand perfectly what you were saying. Really there is nothing new. Perhaps everyone just need to go through the experiences himself to decide what really matters to him. </p>

<p>Go ahead and enjoy yourself. I sincerely hope your happiness will last.</p>

<p>I understand that this thread is about chosing a piece of equipment. I had earlier suggested a very simple combination. A 35 mm summicron, and any M. The reason for "any M" is that once anyone got use to the workings of a particulalr equipment, he will find that the camera body does not matter that much really. One with an inbuilt meter helps , but is not critical.</p>

<p>We are talking about photography in this forum, and it is obvious that we need a piece of equipment to take images. And a piece of equipment is just one part of the equation. I have assumed that members of this forum understands that. Perhaps I am wrong. Unfortunately, equipment talk seems to take a disproportionate slice of our energy and forum space.</p>

<p>My point is really very simple. Just get any M, and a 35 summicron. Then go and take pictures. Maybe my experience might not be that of others. But owning several M bodies, and several lenses did not make me happy. But having some nice images, taken with a variety of equipment which includes nikon, or canon film cameras, or 4x5, or x-pan or olympus digital or nikon digital, is the reason for my happiness.</p>

<p>Not the equipment.</p>

<p>I have never felt that happiness is dependent on getting a certain piece of equipment. Neither do I think that being a collector can make one "happy". To me these things are at best a surrogate for something else, something more fundamental. But I digress!</p>

<p>As a photographer, I think I will be quite happy if my image tells a wonderful story, and more so if it can move the human spirit. And that, I think is really not quite dependent on what equipment I happen to use for that particular image. </p>

 

<p>I will take a 35 mm summicron, and any other Leica M with meters. It matters very little once one gets use to the camera at hand.</p>

<p>Here's one taken with a Hasselblad X-pan with a 45 mm lens. Film of course.</p><div></div>

<p><em>"How many shots would I miss taking the 55-200 instead of the 70-300?"</em></p>

<p>With the 55-200, you would have a lot more "opportunities" than I have with my 35mm f2!</p>

<p>Yes, I would certainly have lost the opportunity to photograph that monkey on top of a temple, or the man digging his nose across the street. But really, does it matter? Because, when I turn my back from that monkey, I have a huge drama unfolding right behind me! I do not have to focus on what I cannot take with my lens. I focus on what is available. The limitation I place on myself forces me to see differently.</p>

<p>Did Picasso say something like this? Correct me if I am wrong.<br /><em> </em><br>

<em>"Restriction is freedom".</em> </p>

<p>Freedom to creativity?</p>

 

<p>Here is another image from Kolkata</p><div></div>

<p>I like to keep things simple.</p>

<p>I now use only the D3 and a 35 mm f2, and plenty of memory cards! No, I do not make tight portraits of sadhus. I prefer environmental portraits.</p>

<p>Here is a portrait I took in Varanasi.</p><div></div>

<p>Lannie,<br>

Therein lies the difference in personal taste, and what makes us tick. What is compelling to one may just be a bore to another.<br>

Makes us interesting. Does it not?</p>

<p>I do not like the word "Captured". So aggressive! </p>

<p>I am of the opinion that a good photograph should tell a good story. I believe good photography, like other visual communication, should tell a good biography of the subject being photographed. And this means that the photographer should have a good message to tell, about a subject that has a potentially good story to be made known. And the photographer should have the skills to tell this story, so that the message or biography of the subject could be conveyed to the viewer.</p>

<p>A kiss is, well, a kiss. But what does the photographer want to tell about this kiss? What is so special about this kiss that another person should want to look at it?</p>

<p>To me, if there is no message, then it is a picture with a poor biography about the subject. In this case, the kiss. Therefore, to me, despite the aggressive stance of being "captured", the image is just plain banal.</p>

<p>I am aware that there are others who love to"capture" images, with apparently no message in the images. This is fine with me. I too, oftentimes, just take pictures without the "angst" of making meaningful pictures. However, I do not consider these pictures to be "good images". I do not seek to try to impose my POV on others. I will not engage in debate on my view.</p>

<p>People have different reasons why they prefer films (and perhaps also the rangefinder way of making images). And I believe they are all valid to the person concern.<br>

To me, the reason why I like film is the fact that the look of a B&W silver print is just different. And I prefer that. If someone else prefer an inkjet look, good for him!<br>

It is absolutely true that there are many advantages to using the digital medium, and that is why I am using a Nikon D3 as my main camera now. But the inkjet print just do not excite me. The digital images will do the job that I need to do. But I will rather prefer a traditional B&W print to an inkjet anytime.</p><div></div>

<p>I have recently donated my 4x5 enlarger and accessories for film photography to a local arts college. I am fully conversant with the issues of film versus digital, and I have no wish to delve into the arguments. For most of my photography, I have gone digital. I still keep my leicas (both rangefinders and SLRs), hasselblad x-pan, medium format film cameras both rangefinders and SLRs, and large format equipments.<br>

<br /> For sometime I have used both film and digital format. Increasingly I have used more digital because my interest in photography have changed. I am now more interested in documentary photography. Using film just takes too much time. I am not a professional, and do not have at my disposal a lot of time to process my films and print the images. I estimate that I will probably need a few months at the end of a project to produce a piece of work when I use films. With digital, I could do it within a week. But the reason why I have to dispose my film equipment is that I have to vacate the premise where I keep my enlarger. So keeping the enlarger is not an option anymore. I am just glad that someone else can put my equipment to good use.<br>

<br /> Having said that, I must share why I still like the film medium very much. I use predominantly B&W. And I print all the photos myself. The fact is, no matter how convenient the digital process is, (and there are many reasons!), the look is just different from film. To me, no matter how good the digital print out is, the look from a silver halide print will always be different from an Epson print. Just like a platinum print will always be different from a silver print. Some may prefer a platinum print, another a silver print, and yet another a digital print. We are all different, with different taste and esthetics. But I prefer the silver print, anytime. (Actually I also like the platinum/palladium print, but I can't do it well enough!)<br>

<br /> I am keeping my film cameras because there are special moments which I like to capture in film. I do not think I am a sentimental nut. But I really prefer these special moments to be printed in Silver halide medium. Hopefully, I will have access to my old enlarger to print some of these!</p>

<p>Thank you James for taking the trouble to comment. Much appreciated. I agree that it would be great if the shadow could be sharper. This picture was taken at night while I was out strolling. They were playing in a lighted field. If I remember it correctly, the chap was making an "urghhhhh" sound because someone missed a goal!</p>

<p>Mark, I am with Fi here. I do not see a connection between the man and the displayed wares.<br>

Fi, this is a nice picture of a bridge with 2 persons walking on it. I like the glow emphasizing the bridge. My criticism is that it is a simple documentation of a scene.<br>

I find making compelling street photos to be very difficult. I feel that much of my criticisms also apply to my feeble attempt.</p>

<div></div>

<p><em>"Documentary or Photojournalism as a hobby or for fun"</em><br>

I am a pure amateur. I have never made a single cent from my photographs. I did have photographers asking to buy some of my photographs. I gave them away instead.<br>

There are many different reasons for making photographs.<br>

For me, at least initially, it was just for fun. A hobby. I did that for about 7 years. Then I asked myself the purpose of those pieces of printed photos. I have no illusion that my photographs serve anything more than giving me some joy and a reason to meet other like-minded people. But I was wondering if that was all it was? That was all?<br>

From the beginning, I had been fascinated by the works of photographers like Eugene Smith. His "Minamata" pictures had a profound effect on me. But I certainly could not take a couple of months or years off to indulge in projects like those from the great photo-documentarians. I have to make a living to support my family.<br>

Then I found that I could make small documentary projects. I cannot give up my regular job to attend to a sudden catastrophe like the tsunami. But I can make plans to do small meaningful focussed projects over an extended period of time. I am now beginning to work with NGOs. A recent work is now taking shape. The pictures will be used for fundraising in other countries. I am also showing my pictures to people I come into contact with. And I have people who were moved by the pictures, and wanted to do something.<br>

For me, at least now, documentary photography is still a hobby. I do derive some degree of satisfaction when I made some good pictures. My photography is not a business. But now I have the added satisfaction and joy that my pictures have other uses besides making me happy.<br>

My photography (documentary) is now a hobby that is more than just self-amusement.</p>

 

And here is one taken on the "sly".<div></div>

I just went up to this gentleman and asked if I could photograph him<div></div>

Like many, I use films. There is no EXIF data.

 

Films are processed well after the photos were taken. And in my case, printed in the darkroom weeks, or months, or

sometimes years after the photos were taken. And then it may be sometimes before the prints were scanned.

 

So, I think is not unreasonable that one cannot remember all details of the shoot!

About a year ago, I bought a used F6. I just bought another used F6 last month.I do not scan my negatives. I develop and print my images with my trusty enlarger.

My wet prints were made from a variety of negatives including leica equipments, as well as medium and large format camera.

 

I use an Epson flatbed scanner, and I am reasonably happy with the scans, given the limitation of web images.

 

The biggest problems I have are dust! Despite cleaning scanner and blowing the prints, I still get a lot of dust which require some boring photoshop clean-up work.

I had a 3/3 rating within a minute!

Having "struggled" with trying to understand and make better portraits, these are my

thoughts on "portraits". I am sure there will be no consensus on this.

 

First of all, I do not think all pictures of people are necessarily "portraits". Examples are

sports people on the field, or actors on stages. Or candid pictures of people in the streets.

 

Secondly, and coming to pictures of people as people, such as the picture posted by

Aman. I would call this a portrait. But one that is taken in a very superficial manner. If I

may use a description by Gary, a documentation of a person. A documentary portrait. And

if I were to rate the picture of Aditi (which might be called a documentary portrait), I might

give a rating of something like 3/3. Technically, there were inadequacies. Esthetically,

there is little of interest to make me want to take a second look at it.

 

Finally, I think a good portrait is one that tells a story about the subject. It goes beyond

the superfical recording of the likeness of a person. It is a biography about the subject as

seen by the photographer. And in this case, the portrait is also about the photographer

himself. And the "better" the photographer, ("better" as not in being technically "better" ,

but as a "better" person in areas of esthetics, culture, vision, spirituality, etc etc), the

"better" the portrait. The photographer cannot make a good "portrait" of someone if he

has nothing to say about the person. And also a photographer will have a hard time to

make a good "portrait" if the subject has little to give.

I am 55 years old. I too travel with my F6 and a 28mm lens. My photography skills is wanting. But I do not agree that after a dozen portraits with one lens(35 mm or else), the images become "regular". Of course this view is highly personal. I can refer to the images by Antonin Kratochvil and Ernesto Bazan (they use a 28 mm lens).

 

I am also a little disappointed that the D3 is so large! (compared to the F6)

Thank you, Andy.

A couple of questions for Mitch please. I am seriously thinking of getting this camera.

 

In your shots in B&W, did you take in color and convert? Or is there an option to take it in

B&W mode?

 

At what ISO would you get a "Tri-X" like effect? In other words, from your perspective,

what is the effect of ISO on the B&W images?

 

Thanks