2mnycars

Thanks for the explanation ASA....ISO

I grew up with ASA; I never understood why it was changed.

Recall that every film box had a sheet or label within that explained what settings to use. Using those recommendations I finally understood. I got good at street shooting, using no meter. My used M3 was a jewel. I wish I had it still. It was stolen; the M4P I bought later never suited me and my workflow, because of my eyesight and the rangefinder.

I voiced this love of the Leica M3 to a friend. He has/had more money than I. He bought an M6 and an assortment of lenses. Then he started buying digital Leicas.....he's a fine photographer. His results are incredible.

I'm really interested in this thread. It's time I found a good M3 and started shooting with film again.

My M3 was my favourite camera of all time. I only had 2 lenses. 50/2.0 and 90/2.8 IIRC

I live an hour away from Midland Ontario. That's where my M4P and a couple of my lenses were made.

I had the good fortune to have a profitable photo business for years; I was nationally published. My clients were very happy. You'll find none of my work now.

Time goes by. I'm grateful I had a chance.

Mr Karsh did a heck of a lot better than I did.

Sometimes I judge a photographer by the impact they had in their day. If one of them shows me how they would find a subject, and their path to a finished product I am grateful.

There are many heroes in photography.

I'm recalling seeing a photo of a photographer's wagon on the edge of a battlefield, as he took daguerreotype images and worked magic there in horrible surroundings.

I used to buy Outdoor Photography every month. I read every word that Galen Rowell wrote there. He had a sad end to a wonderful life that inspires me to this day. His time was up.

I'm quite sure that if I had wondered into Karsh's business in Ottawa as a learning photographer, I would have been given the bum's rush. And I would have left quickly.

Maybe/probably not. That doesn’t make Coleman’s opinion less valid or less worth consideration by viewers and history. That Karsh wouldn’t recognize the validity of this criticism may speak to the fact that he doesn’t recognize the tediousness of his body of work, which is evidenced precisely by the tediousness of his body of work. Often, style is used expressively and to comment on the person in the portrait. Karsh’s photographic competence is evident in every shot while his style is unrelenting and lacks character. There will be plenty of viewers who disagree with Coleman, which makes sense. That fact that Karsh, who created this body of work, would either disagree or not care about this criticism, makes perfect sense, since it was Karsh’s choice to consistently photograph this way.

I understand.

However, that's Coleman's opinion. I'm happy you share it.

The man made a good living photographing famous subjects. That's really difficult to do, any time in history.

I admire good photographers with skill, style, and good business sense.

Photographers have style too. They chose how to represent their customers in the product they produce and sell.

There have always seemed to me to be at least two different issues involved.

 

The first, already addressed nicely, is that of feeling comfortable with the person(s) being photographed and having them feel at ease with you.

 

The second is that of technnology, such as lighting, either natural (as some portraitists prefer) or 'artificial' in the sense that the photographer provides and sets up the lighting angles, posing, etc.

 

The photo magazines, in the day, used to run regular articles on portrait lighting, and the internet now has the same sort of thing e.g., (6 Portrait Lighting Patterns Every Photographer Should Know).

 

There is, however, considerable disagreement about what is good and what works.

 

Consider a portraitist like Karsh, who many consider one of the finest portraitists and contrast the opinion of him held by A. D. Coleman.

 

 

review in Popular Photography 1973-08

 

De gustibus non est disputandum, eh?

Wonderful post. you stated your opinion well.

Karsh: I went to High School in Ottawa, where Karsh worked. I've met/experienced his Brother who produced good work too.

My interpretation: It's about style. I was a pro ski instructor for over 35 years. I recognized my colleagues because of their style. All experts, all the same, but different. I knew who they were when skiing, because I knew their style.

Mr Karsh photographed many people well. He sold a lot. I believe Coleman was reacting to Mr Karsh's style. That's ok. I predict Mr Karsh didn't care a bit about Coleman's opinion.

I shot a lot of Kodachrome 10, then 25 back then. Nikon F2 photomic/F3HP photomic. Also an M3 (no meter at all, unless you had the Leica accessory...)

The recommendations of the Moderator above are spot on. Sunny 16 rule is the start. You don't need a light meter. compare it to faster film...simplifying it....if you had identical cameras with same lenses, and load 10 in one, and a faster film in the other: Set the two lenses with same aperture you MUST have a much slower shutter speed with ASA 10 film, compared to any faster film.

I shot many, many rolls of ASA 10, then ASA 25 Kodachrome. I often shot the Agfa colour slide film that was available. I didn't like the results shooting AGFA slide film at all. Perhaps it was the photofinishing; however, the results were no where near as good as Kodachrome developed by Kodak. I stopped using AGFA even though it was cheaper.

I've had 2 Pradovit projectors. Still have one (uses a carousel.)

DaveL

Toronto

Thanks for this thread!

I loved my Canadian F90S

I couldn't stand to sell it for nothing, so I kept it. I had an 801 before it; the 90S was so much better.

Nikon F90S would be a good choice. I have no experience with an F100

You are in risky territory...watch for mold in older lenses Check your shutter speed carefully. As good camera stores die it may be harder to get good used gear. I had a Nikon 1V1 for almost 2 years. I regret selling it. If you're looking for a digital alternative, consider a used Nikon 1 V series, I'm Canadian; the situation may be different in the US.

I think I'll have it right this round. I don't need stabilization on wide-normal FL lenses. I'll have four midrange zooms to test. I'll keep the best one and resell the others. I'm fairly happy with the Sigma 8-16mm and will keep it. On order are two vintage Soviet lenses for portrait use... a 58mm Helios 44-3 with 13 aperture blades and an 85mm Jupiter-9 with 16 aperture blades. These were made in 1986 and 1988. I'm sure I'll have to use a monopod with the Soviet lenses. I also bought some sharp primes... Sigma 19mm f/2.8 ART, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 40mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor, 60mm f/2.8 Sigma, and Samyang 85mm f/1.4.

 

I'm looking for a a good 24mm and a suitable replacement for the Nikkor 55-200mm.

Take a look at the Nikon 70-300 VR; mine is a delight to use. It's a little dark.... ;)

Good suggestion: small Nikon DX body.

I would have saved lots if I had done that.

I've used Nikon since '72 when the F2 first came out, and I bought 2 with motor drives.

Nikon menus are much better for me; my Sony a6000 experience is that it took a long long time to become used to Sony a6000 menus.

Seeing adequately in camera viewfinders

I am shooting with a budget now. I bought an a6000 when Sony was closing their stores. I've had it several years. Yes the diopter adjustment helps. However, the Sony viewfinder that clips on positions me too far back...I'm doing without it now. That has helped me.

I also have an early RX100-2 I added a used sony evf and it's beautiful.

I tried both cameras before I bought.

I was spoiled with the early viewfinders in my Nikon F2 and F3HP....and my M3 Unfortunately, all are long gone.

I was a member here for a long time. However, I fired my internet account supplier, and no longer have access.

Interests are Family, photography, skiing and landscapes.

I used to have a "photo store" business in film days. I shoot for fun, and always carry a camera because it helps me see better!

I wish I could recover my old saved interests.

It's good to be back.