Camera and subject
A bird for Dennis
My friend and coworker, Dennis, has inspired me with several posts over the last few months. Our daily conversations are varied and wide. Today rolled over to my desk, as we sit back-to-back, and said something like: You seem to be into the people pictures right now. Probably not an exact quote, but close enough. I considered this for a few moments and thought about what a great statement that was. Now, all I had to do was to figure out why, or at least give it some thought.
I told him that what I photograph is a factor of many things, mainly mood, situation, camera, and season. In the fall, I prefer color and fall scenes, even if they seem cliche. In the summer, I’m more apt to shoot early morning shots, mainly because of the heat and the bugs, etc. When I was shooting with the 645e, as it’s a big camera, it was very suitable for the tripod and therefore static subjects, like landscapes or cityscapes. During basketball season and indoor color shooting, certainly the D300 hits the mark.
Now, having a rangefinder or two, I can branch into areas that I’ve never really delved into before. Sure, I’ve taken photos of people on the streets, both with and without their knowledge, but I’m broadening my horizons, now. Today, I was really in a blue mood. I felt quite down and out. I knew that I needed to do something, anything. I didn’t want to go directly back to the apartment and stew in the funk. There’s a festival in town called MOJA, it’s here from September 24th through October 4th. It’s a celebration of African-American and Caribbean art. Through the time here there are many free events such as poetry readings and story tellings. Each one of them is held in small, intimate locations. Today’s poetry reading that I attended was held in a small coffee house. All told, there may have been 30 people there to listen, a full house!
Today, I wanted to find out just how quiet is the shutter of a rangefinder. Before the reading started, I found a table, sat down, had a glass of iced tea and a scone. Right before the reading started I took a couple of readings. This was going to be tough. I would be shooting at f/2 @ 1/30 second or less! This would test the rangefinder’s ability to shoot at low speed settings as well as it’s quietness.
I can certainly tell you that it’s quiet! No one even noticed as I snapped photo after photo during the poetry reading. No one! I could hear the quiet snick of the shutter, but no one even turned around. Mind you, this was in a small, intimate cafe with no conversation going at all. There was nothing but the ambient noise filtering in from the streets. I would have been certainly afraid to use my D300 in this condition. The mirror slap is quite loud and would have been very disturbing. Though I don’t know for sure, but she probably would have asked me to stop. It certainly would have been more convenient to have used the D300 because I could have cranked the ISO up to 1600 and had some light to work with; however, I had to settle for shooting with ISO 125, as I didn’t have any 400 or greater speed film with me. I’m quite excited to see what develops (pun!), but you’ll just have to wait with me. I only took 20 shots of a 36 exposure roll. I’ll see about using the rest tomorrow or Thursday.
Anyway, it’s interesting how getting another tool can expand your horizons, or perhaps change your perceptions, if you let it. BTW, today was the first ever poetry reading that I attended. Interesting. The poetry, in my opinion, wasn’t anything profound or earth shattering, however, watching the people sure was a great way to spend and hour or so. On second thought, the poetry was pretty good. She put a lot of heart into it. Who am I to say that it wasn’t good?!
The mysterious magic box!
Some time back in the early 1990 time frame, I was a prolific bowler to say the least. I tried to put in a minimum of 50 games/week of practice. I became quite good, though never reached a professional level. My friends and I would enter quite a few tournaments. Some we won, most we didn’t. It wasn’t for lack of trying because we all were pretty good, but so were the other people!
I remember that we would go to the bowling centers carrying our bowling balls that we had had for a couple of years. Inevitably, we’d run into someone who was dressed to the nines. I mean, they had it all: The best bowling ball on the market ($200), the best bowling shoes ($150), the best wrist guard ($45), and of course, the best bag ($100). So, here they were with $500 worth of gear, ready to roll. We used to joke because we knew what to expect. Usually, this guy wouldn’t have a clue about the fundamentals of bowling. Most times, we were right. They’d saunter up to the line, looking quite good in their bowling regalia, and promptly deposit the ball right into the gutter! All that we could do was shake our heads. They knew nothing about the weight of the ball, the weight of the pins, composition of the lane (wood or polyester), composition of the ball, oil pattern, etc. All of these, especially the type of ball and the amount of oil on the lane and how it was placed, could materially affect the outcome of the game. The knew nothing. They simply had nice gear.
I remember going to a tournament out of town, as well. We showed up and the bowling center hadn’t automated the scoring. It was funny to watch the younger guys flounder. They were fairly competent bowlers, but had absolutely no clue as to how to keep their own score. It was mysterious to them. The computer had always done it!
With the introduction of digital cameras, matrix metering, and program modes, photography has become a bit like the bowling. A person can go out, buy an expensive DSLR and not have a single clue as to how exposure works, or even what exposure is for that matter. They don’t know about apertures, shutter speed, ISO, etc. Granted, a camera on program mode, using matrix metering, will get you the shot 90% of the time, perhaps. However, the problem starts when you get into those situations where the computer cannot help you because the situations are far out of the norm. Uh, oh! No computers to help. B.C., or Before Computers, consumer-level photography was basically divided into two camps: SLR, and other: (Disc, 110, disposable, Polaroid, etc). People who wanted to learn, or perhaps didn’t mind learning, about exposure, etc, used an SLR. Everyone else had what amounted to point and shoots.
I suppose it’s not a big deal that one doesn’t know about or understand exposure unless you want to take your photography to the next level, expression. How do I make that water blur or capture that runner’s movement? How can I make the photo feel moody? Then what? You have to drop back and learn the basics, which is probably a good place to start. I’ve seen my share of people with expensive cameras who have no clue whatsoever about how to use them. To them, it’s just a big mysterious magic box. It works most of the time, but when it doesn’t, it’s just not that important anyway.
If you know about exposure, when did you learn about it? Was it back in the film days? Was it shortly after you got your first digital camera?
Aesthetics
For Earl: A 645e shot!
My friend, The Earl of Salisbury, brought up an interesting point in his comment to yesterday’s post. Earl said:
Paul, I’m going to toss my two cents into the ring and hope it doesn’t get tossed back at me. While recent photos taken with the M6 have been excellent, I’ve personally found there’s something I liked better about the earlier Mamiya 645e photos. They had a different feel and I can’t put my finger on the exact reason why they seem “better” to me–it may be a matter of personal taste. I’d be interested to see if anyone else agrees or disagrees.
To Earl, the 645e photos had a bit more appeal, but when tasked to find the answer of why, he couldn’t put his finger on it. It’s just like trying to define what quality is. You know it when you see it, but you cannot describe it. Now, I certainly didn’t take Earl’s pondering as an attack on my photography or way of doing things. Instead, I looked at it as more of a question to himself as to why he preferred one over the other.
It is in interesting question to try to get a direct, quantifiable answer to. Why is that when we see a particular color, a shape, sound, etc, it is aesthetically pleasing to us, but may not be so to many others? I think that what is pleasing to us comes from all of our past experiences and our preferences that we have built up over time. Who knows? It may be the more evident grain pattern in the smaller frame, the subject matter, even something so subtle as the format of the image that engenders a preference. The format of the 645 is 4:3, while the format of the 35 mm frame is 3:2. These are small differences, but differences nonetheless. Perhaps someone might favor more blurred background, while others prefer razor sharpness from front to back, side to side.
Personally, I like it either way. My only slight dislike, in the beginning, between the two was the apparent grain in the 35 mm film. It’s no larger than that on the 120 film, but it is just magnified more during the scan. However, I have since crossed that barrier and am pleased with both. Probably this weekend I’ll take the 645e and the tripod out for a spin. The shot to the right is from the Leica.
Earl, I had wondered what I was going to talk about today. Thanks for the post! 
Leica M6: Impressions thus far
This post has been put together over a number days, perhaps weeks. I have no idea when I will post it. It will sit in reserve for a while, I suppose.
A number of you are interested in my impressions of the Leica M6 that I recently purchased and I am interested in the ‘mystique’. First, how the heck did I even get here? A Leica? I must admit that I was influenced by Mike Johnston’s article about spending a year with a Leica and a single lens. I became intrigued. First, I went and purchased a film camera, a Mamiya 645e, shot that for 3 months continuously, then looked in my bag, saw a lot of stuff that I was not using that I could use to finance my Leica purchase, then just did it. Now I have it and I need to use it.
I’ve always admired simplicity in design, which was why I was so comfortable with manual cameras. Simple devices. With the Leica, it’s back to the ultimate in simplicity. It’s nice to know that I have a camera where even if the batteries were to die, I could keep on shooting. Pure mechanics involved here. Truth be told, I could do the same thing with a Olympus 35 LC/RC rangefinder, which I happen to have. But, I really just wanted to know what all the hubbub was about!
2009/09/08:
I have used the camera a couple of times: Once, in downtown Charleston; The other time when I was at home this past weekend. I like the heft and the feel of it. One of my friends, upon holding the camera, remarked: “It’s got some ass to it! It doesn’t feel cheap.” Translation, it’s fairly heavy for such a small camera. It feels solid. That was my initial impression, too. Although expensive, it didn’t feel like I had to treat it kindly like it was some sensitive, high maintenance prima dona. Nope. This certainly feels like a workhorse, definitely blue collar.
The controls are very few. There is an aperture adjustment, shutter speed, and ISO. That’s about it. However, what more does one need?
The viewfinder is very crisp and bright, save for the times when I accidentally place my thumb on the rangefinder window and leave a smudge, but a simple wiping off of the viewfinder with a part of my shirt brings the brightness right back.
The only issue that I have with the viewfinder is that while using the lens shade for the 50mm lens, the lens shade gets in the way and cuts off the lower right corner of the viewfinder. This is a bit annoying. Now, I understand why pancake lenses would be useful. They’d stay out the way of the viewfinder. This would be especially useful for shorter focal lens that have such wide angles of view.
Film loading:
Many have heard the legend of how strange it is to load a Lecia. Well, it is strange, that is until you read the manual and understand how it works, then it is quite easy to do. Simply slip the film in, guide it into the take up spool, make sure that it is engaged in the sockets. Close the back, put the bottom back on and it never fails. My first load took about 3 minutes. The second about 1 minute. The third just a few seconds. What’s the difference? I found an online manual and read the instructions. Presto-Changeo-Alakazaam! Easy!
Focusing:
I’m getting better at focusing. Rangefinder focusing is a little different, but accurate … I find that zone, or hyperfocal, focusing is the way to go. It allows one to simply frame and shoot. What could be easier? At first, I was rather against it, that is, until I tried it. I’m not doing any sneaky shooting from the hip. I’ll put my camera to my face, frame, and shoot. It all happens in just a few seconds. This kind of shooting is interesting in that lots of times, you’ll be surprised at what you captured in the background. There’s not a whole lot of time futzing around trying to get the elements just right. The moment could be gone before you know it.
DOF:
This, I think, is the most difficult part to get used to. I’m used to looking through the lens and seeing what my DOF looks like. I rarely use a DOF preview, knowing somewhat intuitively what my DOF will look like at about the first 3 f/stops of my lens; I’m not there yet with the Leica. Looking through the viewfinder, everything is so bright, clear, crisp, and in focus. Nothing is out of focus, so there is no starting point to imagine DOF. You just have to ‘feel’ it. It will take a number of rolls of film and a lot of paying attention for me to figure it out.
2009/09/21:
Exposure meter:
So far, I’ve shot about 5 rolls of film. I’m not shooting just to be shooting. I’m taking my time with this. I’ve finally gotten used to how the shutter speed dial vs the exposure arrows work. If the left arrow is on, then you need to turn the shutter speed dial to right to get the other arrow to come on. Of course, the opposite is true: Right arrow on, turn left to make the left arrow come on.
Funny, there’s not a whole lot to say about this camera. It’s very simple in it’s design. My only problem that I’ve had with it is that it seems just a tad small for my hands, but it does feel good. As mentioned earlier, I tend to smudge the rangefinder window with my thumb. This only happens when I’m focusing. If using the hyperfocal method, it’s not an issue.
I’m curious to see how it compares to the Olympus 35 LC, whenever I get it back from its cleaning.
Hyperfocal focusing
End of Summer
I learned about hyperfocal distance a long time ago. I used to use it to get maximum depth of field in my landscape photography, when I was going for that type of thing. However, with the birth of auto focus, I never really thought much about it anymore. However, now that I’m doing everything myself, focus included, it has started to become useful again.
The other day I went out to the beach. Now that the summer season is officially over with the passing of Labor Day on September 7th, the beaches are clear of the tourists. Now, the locals can reclaim the beach. Myself included. I consider myself a local now. Anyway, I wanted to try some decisive moment type shooting. I remember reading that many of them used hyperfocal focusing. That is they selected an aperture that would maximize their depth of field, set the hyperfocal distance, set the corresponding shutter speed, then away they went.
I wasn’t sure what to expect, as I had a 50mm lens, not a 35mm or 24mm, which would have guaranteed me a much greater DOF. However, I was game to try. I set my camera to f/8, metered, set the shutter speed, and the hyperfocal distance for f/8. Then, I walked around seeing what I could see. I was careful not to touch the focusing ring.
I was quite surprised at the sharpness that I got! For me, these images looked like I intentionally focused on the subject, but was not the case. According to my lens markings, my range of ‘acceptable focus’ was between 15ft and infinity. When I wanted to take a photo, I simply framed it, and took the photo. That makes for some lightning fast photography. No need to futz around with the focusing ring or the AF button, etc. See. Frame. Shoot. You can squeeze off a shot so quickly that no one even notices! I was able to do that several times.
Room to play
If you’ve never tried it, you ought to give it a shot. You can do it on an auto focus camera, but you’ll have to make sure that you are in manual focus mode and, more important, that your lens has the appropriate markings to show what your depth of field will be. I had a look at the Nikon 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses, all have the markings.
4 cameras?! WTF???
Hi! My name is Paul and I have a problem … I collect cameras, sometimes unwittingly, unknowingly, and unintentionally! Well, that’s probably not so true about the unknowingly, etc. About a year ago, more or less, I sold down my camera ‘stock’ to 1 camera, a Nikon D300. I don’t count the Canon Powershot point & shoot that I never use. Well, the other day I had a look and that one camera has now grown to 4! 3 film cameras, one digital. Huh? Say what? I know, I’m just as surprised as you are, maybe even more!
So, here’s how it happened: I’m going to blame the first film camera on Chris Klug for telling me about the the Mamiya 645e. Yeah, he came all the way from Arizona, at the time, twisted my arm, took out my wallet and made me order it. Honestly! He did!!! Well, after absolutely falling in love with medium format and those glorious negatives, then somehow, I got bit by the Leica bug. I think that I’ll point the finger at Mike over at TOP and his Leica for a year article!!! Yeah, that’s it. It’s his fault! You can’t trust those people from Wisconsin!
I thought: Hmmm, it would be nice to have a rangefinder. I’ve never shot one of those before, so I went to eBay, saw the price of the Leicas and decided to go with something a lot cheaper. I made a bid, $25, on a Olympus 35 LC rangefinder. I placed my maximum bid at $35, I think. During that time (7 days), I decided to treat myself to an extravagant expenditure, a Leica. After all, I had some glass to sell and could more than make up for the cost of the Leica, right?! (Yeah, Paul! Whatever helps you to sleep at night!!!). I had a friend in need who wanted to sell his camera to me and Presto! Changeo! I had a Leica.
Not a problem, right. I figured that I’d never get that other rangefinder for $25! Wrong! No other bids! We have a winner!!! Crap! Oh well, so that’s how I got 4 cameras. I’m waiting for the Olympus to come back from Camera Repair dot Com. I sent it in for a CLA, Clean, Lubricate, Adjust, which cost nearly 4 times what the camera did! If you’re going to use it, it might as well be in tip-top shape!
I plan to load the Olympus and the Leica with the same film, head to the streets, shoot both of them, and then let you try to decide which was taken with the Leica, and which was take with the Olympus! It will be an interesting test, to be sure! I’m interested in the outcome myself. Naturally, I will use the same developer/temperature/agitation on both batches of film.
Of course, I’ll have to photograph different scenes with each one because one has a 42mm lens, the other has a 50mm and you might be able to tell based on crop/object size within the image. I imagine if no one can tell the difference, it will amount to heresy and I may be censured by the Leica community for even suggesting such a test, let alone actually performing it!
Stay tuned!
High ISO : Manufactured need or real
Nikon D300: ISO 3200 f/6.3 @ 1/30 – Tamron 18-270mm @ 270mm
I’ve spent much too much time reading stuff about Leica’s M9 and X1. I’m not really even interested in owning either one, but I am very much interested in the interest that people have in them, moreover, the things that people are speculating about. One peculiar thing that always gets mentioned is the high ISO performance. How much noise does this camera, or that, have at ISO 1600, 3200, 6400, etc and why don’t they go higher?! This is in direct contrast to the number of photos that I’ve ever seen shot at such high ISOs.
I do find high ISO performance useful. It was useful when I had my D2x, which could go up to 3200. Mind you, 3200, though useful, was very noisy, but it beat coming home without the shot. So, in that respect, it was useful; however, it would not have been a deal breaker. That is, I certainly could have done quite well without it. Enter the D300, which stepped up the game quite a bit. It’s ISO 3200 performance was leaps and bounds above the D2x!
The photo that accompanies this text was taken at ISO 3200. What’s impressive is that even without using any noise reduction software, it looks pretty good. Even at print size, it’s a nice shot. I took it when I went to see my niece graduate from college. This speaker was quite animated and a joy to photograph, very expressive. I was standing quite a bit back from the stage using my Tamron 18-270mm, racked all the way out to 270mm. She was even smaller in the frame than this. This represents about a 55% crop, based on original pixel size and cropped pixel size. As you can see, it doesn’t really look very noise, at least not to my eyes.
Other useful places for high ISO are gymnasiums. They may look well lit, but believe me, our eyes are great at compensating to available light. Depending on the lens that I have, I will usually have to shoot somewhere between 1600 and 3200. Expressed as a percentage of shots, I use high ISO about 0.5% of the time, so you can see why it would not be a deal breaker for me.
So, in some cases, especially indoor sports, I can see why one would use/need high ISO with reduced noise; however, for the general population, those arguing in the forums, I can see little use for it. Most of the blogs/galleries that I might visit that show EXIF information, the images are shot at ISO 400 or less.
Would you look for high ISO performance in your next camera? Would it be a deal breaker for you if it didn’t have it? If you have good high ISO performance, how often do you use this feature?