joakim_malare1

I agree with most of what's been said already, and the quote from Winogrand - "There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described" - is how I feel, too. I'm interested in both photography and drawing and have been doing both for a few years. These are really two different things in my life.

Drawing is indeed a way of meditation - something I do to feel alive and connected with what I see. When I draw, I truly see. The result is not as important as the process, as the experience of the practice is what drawing is all about. When the awareness from a session of drawing comes to an end after half an hour or so (which is about the time I manage to concentrate, or "meditate" if you wish), I often make the mistake of correcting or enhancing the drawing. When I do that, it becomes something else. If it is left untouched, it is the record of a higher state of awareness.

In my opinion, this is why drawing is always related to your inner being - your intuition, emotions and experience as a human being. It cannot be anything else.

Photorealistic drawing or painting is, to me, different from this process of a higher awareness. Photorealistic is about logic, common sense and a kind of objective vision inherited and related to photography (remember camera obscura).

Photography is also about awareness, seeing, feeling alive and connected. But from the other side of your skin. Photography describes your being, your soul and body in "the world", whereas drawing describes "the world" in your body and soul.

When I take pictures, the photographs are always about me, because I chose the contents. What to include, what to exclude. But it also holds the mystery of whether there IS something outside of _me_.

Photography is interesting because I register the world _around_ me, from my and only my perspective, while at the same time posing the question "IS there a world around me?".

There are different ways of drawing and different ways of photography - to me each has its own purpose and the two do not compete.

Call it quantum physics, religion or philosophy. Same thing to me.

David, all right, no light seals :) I couldn't even see a trace of old seals, but just to be sure - before I start putting effort into my pictures ;)

Adrian, absolutely. No problem :)

Thanks again guys!

Adrian and Ken, think twice before you greet newcomers by throwing insults at them. You might hurt someone. I intend to live with my girlfriend for the rest of my life. A camera and rude people like you two I can live without.

Stuart and Stephen, thank you for the info. It works fine, no problem. I suspected there was some sort of friction clutch in there and now I know for sure. Have a nice day!

/ Joakim

Hi everyone,

I joined the forum a few minutes ago, and here's my first post :)

I just bought myself my first rangefinder, an M3 single stroke with a Summilux,

uv filter, lens hood, leather cover and a Leicameter MR4 (I believe). Very

satisfied, as this is all I really need for 35mm photography. Well, that, and

film. The lightmeter I could do without, it doesn't seem to work as it should

anyway.

My question is about the advance lever. When a frame has been advanced and the

shutter is ready, is it possible that advancing the lever further by some force

could damage anything? I asked my girlfriend to take a picture, and since she's

used to the sluggish levers of my other cameras, she pulled the lever all they

way while the shutter was already cocked. Indeed it takes some to do so, but it

just seem to slide a little... I don't know how the mechanics look in there, so

I don't know if I need to worry?

Also, are there supposed to be any softish light seals around the back door?

Mine is clean.

Thanks in advance!

Kind regards, Joakim