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! 
Related Posts :
My friend, Earl Moore, of Meandering Passage has offered to run compression on any SoFoBoMo PDF. ...
Who knows where it's going? When I started with this whole film thing, I had no idea where it ...
I've been using these Lightroom presets for a while. I've mentioned them before and they bear ...
9 Responses to “Aesthetics”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
While that 645e image at the top of the post is gorgeous, I do want to say I really like the beach series, which I’m thinking is Leica work. That might be because of the fact those images include people, which always make them interesting to me. With all that sand, exposure can sometimes be a problem, and these images you’ve captured are right on. I was wondering: how do you find working with the frame lines on the Leica?
Different tools for different jobs.
I believe the format of 35mm is 3:2 (36mmx24mm) whereas the 645 is (6×4.5cm) 4:3. I’m sure that’s what you probably meant.
@Chris: You are correct. The beach series is all Leica work and all from the same roll of film. I need to head out and get more. Working with frame lines is interesting. The big advantage, as most have pointed out in other forums, is that you are not working with blinders on. You have visibility outside of your lens’s view area. You can see people that might soon walk into your picture. This gives you the ability to decide if that person would make the image stronger or weaker, perhaps. Also, this works for static objects as well. It simply provides more information for the decision making process.
The exposure part just comes from leaning on some old-school exposure understanding. When I got to the beach, it was overcast, so there was a nice, even light over everything. The cloud layer was thin, so the sun kept peeking through and giving me some shadows to work with. The sand at this particular beach is not white, but more of a tan color. My guess was that was around zone VI or VII, max. I metered the sand, took the reading, and knocked my shutter speed down one stop to give one more stop of exposure. After developing the negatives, I found that they were a little bit dense, or overexposed, so from now on, I’ll adjust only about 1/2 stop from what the meter says. It appears that that sand is pretty much medium gray under overcast skies!
In thinking more about it, there are all types of medium gray objects to meter off of. The beach is filled with lots of weathered wood.
@Ray K: Certainly, the right tool for the job; however, I was talking more about the aesthetics of the tool itself and possibly the results from that tool for a given job where either tool would be appropriate for use. Some people are really into the tool as well as what they can produce with it. I guess that even though 2 tools could do the same job, one feels better, and provides the user with a certain feeling, like they could possibly produce better work. I believe that if they believe that with a given tool that they can produce better work, then, they truly can. Call it the placebo affect or the power of positive thinking.
@Eric: Yep. You are right. I got my wires crossed. I’ve made the correction. Thanks for pointing it out.
One thing I have noticed is that your 645e images are more rich in tones, while your street (beach) work has been more contrasty. There are of course personal preferences tied to image ratios and subject matters. With the 645e, you seemingly takes calmer images, and some like that more than others.
@Ove: Thanks for your input. That’s interesting. I use the same film, developer combination for both. Regarding the calmer images, I think that the 645e lends itself to that. It’s a much bigger camera, suitable for use on the tripod. This leads to a more methodical approach. Also, I have only 15 shots per roll rather than the 36 that I get with a 35mm. Add to that that I hunt ‘different game’, based on the tool that use. All of these so-called reasons could add up to the type of photo that I take. I shall have to experiment more.
You can also add to the list that although you use the same film and developer, the lenses might render the light differently over the film. Leica lenses are known for being contrasty.
@Paul I do understand what you are thinking and believe you are assuming that each camera can take the same image and the results are the difference. When I say the right tool for the job I believe that the final print is only part of the equation. Some images just can’t be captured with a large camera due to size, presence etc. Opposite is true in other cases. The final image quality should be judged on the situation and subject. I’m sure Cartier-Bresson street photos wouldn’t be anywhere near the same with an 8×10 view camera although the negs would be much ‘better’.
All that said I still feel that the tool that feels right in your hands will give you the best result no matter what the tech differences. It is about how something fits/feel that allows the creative and awareness to be natural, not technical.
@Ray: Great points, especially about HCB and the view camera!
I could just see it, now! LOL!