OK. I’ll start with this: No, this is not an April Fools Day joke. I did buy an M9. I’ve been thinking about it for, oh, since 9/9/09, the day they were released. I finally got around to doing it. You can find any number of reviews on the M9, waxing poetically about how grand, great, and wonderful it is. Who knows, I may say that too, but I’m not a Leicaphile. I would have bought a different one if anyone had made a rangefinder, but that’s not the case. I can wish all day, but that won’t change things.

So, here are my immediate impressions after about 100 shots with the M9, most of them today. This is not to be construed as a review, only my first impressions. As I use it more and more, I should get more detailed impressions.

1. Sharpness – Holy cow! Very nice. Very! Very, nice! No anti-aliasing filter, Summicron lens, and 18 MP make it a stunner. Click on the photo above for a more detailed look. Mind you, the full file is 18 MB, this export is 2.

2. Automatic White Balance – Sucks! My S90 does a better job, but at least the M9 uses DNG. I will not be shooting JPG with this just because of the WB.

3. Rear viewing screen, as compared to my D300 – Disgraceful – Plastic! Really? No sapphire screen. Just plastic. Doesn’t matter to me so much because I don’t chimp all that much AND the number of pixels and the color rendition is pretty poor. Good for viewing a histogram, not for judging anything else.

4. Weight and size as compared to M6. A little heftier, but it fits my hand better.

5. Noise. A bit louder than I’m used to, especially the cocking of the shutter, though it was interesting that I didn’t miss the cocking lever. I guess its’ because I switch back and forth between film and digital so it’s no big deal. The shutter mode, Soft & Discreet is fantastic, though. Just a shutter click when you take the picture, and a re-cocking of the shutter when you release the button. Very stealthy.

6. Menus – Love ‘em. Very simplified. Single level. No fluff.

7. Battery – Dang it takes a long time to charge, about 3 hours. So far, my best guess is that I will be able to take about 400 – 800 shots, depending on chimping. My best guess, about 700 as I’ve turned off the automatic preview.

8. DNG – Kudos to Leica for choosing DNG instead of some proprietary stuff. I normally shoot JPG, but the White Balance issue will cause me to shoot DNG … for now. I imagine that 99% of the photos that I take with this camera will be converted to B&W, so color is not an issue.

The other day I was in Due West, SC. Due West, you might say; That sounds like a little town somewhere way off the main highway, over yonder. Well, you’d be right. It’s the home of Erskine College. Tony was visiting the college … my goodness, is it that time already?! I remember when he was just a toddler and watching endless repetitions of Sesame Street!

Anyway, Vera and I were waiting for him to finish, so we decided to walk for a couple of hours, have lunch, walk a bit more. Well, certainly walking is her thing. She loves it. It was a nice day, about 70 degrees or so, not a cloud in the sky. I decided that I would walk with her and take my Leica with me and photograph the scenes, such as they were in Due West.

I almost talked myself out of it. After all it was shortly after high noon, the light was harsh and full of shadows. No “pretty” light here. I decided to take the camera and hope for the best.

Overall, I was pleased with the results. I got some decent shots, certainly this would nat have been a day to do portraits without a diffuser, but if it’s nice, deep shadows that you’re looking for, this type of weather will work.

Sometimes it’s just peachy to get away from what you believe will work and try some different things. Exploring. I think that the old school bicycle, basket and all, personifies this sleepy little town.

In my post, Exploring something new, Chris Klug asked:

Those trees really give the image some nice framing. I wonder: have you come to any conclusions yet about people and their love for Leica cameras? Any insights?

The bold emphasis is mine. Chris seems to have knack for asking those interesting questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but hey, it keeps me in business.

I’ve been pondering this since he asked, thinking about my own experience with the M6 since I’ve had it. First, a little side step.

When I was in NYC with Tom, The Photo Father, we were walking up 5th Avenue. I spotted a man with a Leica around his neck. Leica’s, it seems, to someone who knows about Leica’s are very noticeable. To those who don’t know, they seem to be nearly invisible. As we passed, I stopped, turned around and called the man back. Not only did he have a Leica, is was the brand new M9. Tom and I engaged him in a short conversation and found that he was from Spain. What I remember most, though, is that he said: I really like the M9. It’s cool. It’s digital, and it’s fun. BUT I will probably go back to shooting with the M6 because I like it better.

My own experience with the camera has been quite favorable. I wrote about it here in September of 2009. Nothing’s changed. Ergonomically, I like my D300 better. It fits my hand better, but nothing that I own, beats this camera for stealth. If I were to compare it the Olympus 35 LC, well, they both get the shot, but the Leica just feels better. It’s heavier, the controls are positioned better, and it just gets out of the way and lets you do your job. Take photographs.

I just read a post on T.O.P. called: Leica, could be worse. Mike asserts that Leica cameras are a Veblen good. A type of product that defies normal market trends. In other words, the desire for the good does NOT decrease once the price goes up. In some cases, it can actually increase. Well, personally, the M9 is priced out of my range and I have no desire for it anyway. I like my rangefinders to be film, I think.

I don’t own this camera because other people cannot own it. That wouldn’t make it more important to me. I bought it because I got a good deal; I could help out a friend, and I was very curious as to what was the big deal. I still cannot fathom what is the big deal other than my personal feelings that when I hold the camera, it feels like a quality engineered tool. Could I get the same shots with my Olympus? Absolutely. I have no doubt about it. I might miss a few more because it is so easy to upset the settings on the Oly, but as far as image quality and the ability to get the shot, I think that I’d be hard pressed to tell.

Personally, I think that people want to believe that it is better because they paid more for it. It’s kind of like going to a retail store and buying $100 audio cables and believing that you are seeing a better picture on your screen than I get with my $25 cables. Maybe you are. Maybe you’re not. Both are conducting electricity. One may have a little more loss than the other, but not so much as to make a difference to the eye. Also, more important, is the legacy that the camera has. History counts! During the time that it was made famous, it was certainly the best instrument made. Now, there are many other cameras that can match its abilities for far less money.

So, Chris, that’s what I think. Now, hang on for the contradictory statement: I don’t think that there is anything special, certainly not magical, about the camera, but I’m glad that I have one.

Let’s keep this short and sweet. Sometimes a scene grabs you and you have to capture it. I saw this as I was leaving work. It had been raining all day and was rather dreary when I left, sometime around 5:00 PM. Usually the parking spaces would be full and, as it was around 5:00 PM … let’s just say that good parking spaces were easy to come by.

As I walked to my car, I saw this tree and the pattern that it had worn in the paint on the wall behind it. Or perhaps the tree has protected it from the fading effects of the sun. I didn’t investiage. I started to ignore it, but felt that I simply must take this shot. I went to the car, grabbed the Leica, took about 3 shots, and went on to shoot other things.

Perhaps my mind was receptive:

A very receptive state of mind… not unlike a sheet of film itself – seemingly inert, yet so sensitive that a fraction of a second’s exposure conceives a life in it. — Minor White

Why I took the shot, I may never know, but I felt that I could not ignore it. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this.

Within a few days of arriving in Charleston, I remember thinking: OMG! What is that smell? There must be a paper mill nearby. Sure enough, there was, right in the same neighborhood where I worked. Great! People who had worked in the area for some time assured me that I’d get used to. They assured me that I wouldn’t even notice after a while. Well, they didn’t say exactly how long that would be. I imagine, now, that it is on the order of years, as 18 months have passed and I can still smell it.

Perhaps, though, I only smell it now on the stronger days. I don’t seem to remember smelling it everyday, though, in the winter time the smell is less pungent because of the lower humidity and temperature, I suppose.

I’ve been looking for other, non beach, venues to shoot. Charleston has a few parks, but mostly tourist spots where you have to pay $25 or more to get in. I was looking for a spot a little less quaffed, tony, and more everyday folksy. I wanted a spot that would be a challenge to photograph or that I could take some time to explore and have to work at it a bit.

Since we moved to a different building this past summer, instead of being about 2 blocks away from the paper mill, I have to drive by it every day. It never ceases to capture my attention. It seems to have so many different looks depending on weather condition. I have a feeling that I’m going to find some good locations from which to photograph it, but not at the moment.

Right next to the plant there is a very small park. The park is just big enough to have a playground, small restroom facilities, a place to launch your boat, and, of course, a few trees. It is bounded on the western side by a busy street, a chain link fence and some oil processing company to the south, and a river occupies its north and eastern edges.

On the way home from work, I decided to stop by. What I noticed was that, for sure, the smell of the mill was strong. Also, no matter where you went in the park, you saw the mill. You can see it from the playground; it’s reflected in the water of the river. It’s everywhere.

At first, I tried to find some framing that didn’t include the plant, but was unsuccessful, save for shooting macros. So, decided to try to incorporate the plant into the shots. Add to this that highway I-526, a major Charleston highway, runs right above the park and it’s support structures can be seen in most any framing attempt.

Over the next few posts, I’ll be using photos from this park. As a matter of fact, the photo from yesterday’s post was taken in this same park. Also, strangely, I’m eager to return, despite the smell. It appears to be an interesting place to photograph.

Up until recently, most of my photography has been of places that had few or no people at all. Of late, as you know, I’ve become quite interested in people and photographing them. Thinking back, I believe this to have always been the case, but I had to get over, or perhaps manage is the better word, a number of insecurities, of which I have many. I refer, often, to Craig Tanner’s The Next Step creativity workshop. I think that it was the jumping off point for me to begin to explore my photography.

Photographing landscapes vs. people is quite different. I’ve always been an early riser, so getting out, enjoying the sunrise, the quiet, and the bug-free environment was pretty easy to do. Also, the thing that I liked best was that there was no one around. I had the place all to myself, unspoiled, untouched. Getting out and photographing people is just the opposite. Unless you want to photograph joggers, you needn’t get up so early. You need to go where the people are … when they are awake! I think that I’ve always enjoyed people watching, now people photographing.

As I’m out with my camera, shooting film, I have no chance to chimp. This is a huge advantage, I’ve found. Well, chimping, I think, leads to missed shots when you have your head down looking at what you’ve done, things are changing there right in front of you and you are missing it. Also, there is the most pleasant surprise of getting out the negatives and seeing something that you didn’t remember photographing or getting something that has so much detail that adds to the story that it’s rather breathtaking. I’ve been pleasantly surprised a number of times. I’d be concentrating on a theme, say the vibrancy and diversity of the Harlem sidewalks and just happen to take the photograph at the right time to say something else. Serendipity, to be sure.

Reaction
Though I have very little experience at photographing on the street, I do follow the ‘ways’ of the street photographer: f/8 and be there. On the street, there is very little time to focus, auto or manual. You see something, you frame it quickly, snap, snap, snap (maybe), and that’s it. You either got it or you didn’t. Contrast this to the methodical way of landscape shooting: arrive early, pick a location, set up, wait for the light to get right, shoot. Of course, this is probably an over simplification, but you get the idea. From a compositional standpoint, street photography probably doesn’t follow the ‘rules’, or guidelines. The object is to get the shot.

Tools
I’ve been rather pleased with both cameras, the Leica M6, and the Olympus 35 LC. Both are good rangefinders; both deliver the goods easily. I like the Leica a little be better because the location of the controls makes more sense and it is easier to keep them set where you want. I find that it is very easy move the aperture on the Oly and that I have to always make sure that it is set right when I take it out of the bag. I believe that you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between which images came from the Leica and which from the Oly. I cannot. I only know because I use different film in each.

I can certainly understand why a rangefinder is the right tool for the job on the street. It’s inconspicuous, quiet (though not really necessary in NYC!), and the nice clear viewfinder with the frame lines makes it really easy to frame things up, and fast to use. Add to that, you can see elements that are about to enter your field of view and perhaps avoid, or include them at your discretion. With an SLR, you only see a maximum 100%. With the RF, you get maybe 120% – 200%, perhaps more, depending on what lens you have on.

Anyway, it’s just allowed me to express myself in a different way. Who knows what’s next? I certainly don’t!

The doors closed and we were off sailing through the darkness, the occasional light flashing by at high speed. It seemed that we’d been rocking and rolling along for a while. Suddenly, in the light, I saw a station flash by, 106th street. We had passed our intended disembarkation point, 86th street. When the train finally came to a stop, we were at 125th Street, the beginning of Harlem. Tom asked if I wanted to go up and have a look. I most certainly did. It was a nice ‘mistake’, if you believe in those types of things, but since I don’t believe in mistakes, I was supposed to see this.

I must admit, forthwith, that my mind is as polluted as the next person’s with the Hollywood portrayal of Harlem, or anything else for that matter. Make no bones about it, this used to be a rough place, very rough; however, after New York’s good fortune to have two back-to-back good mayors, the city as a whole is in much better shape and is demonstrably safer. If I believed what Hollywood showed me, I would have exited to a city that was filled with drug dealers, heroin addicts, pimps, and all manner of criminal activity with each and every face being black.

This was not what I saw when I exited the subway. The subway exit is at 125th Street and St. Nicholas Avenue. I had never been here before, but knew about it. It seemed familiar in name. I’d heard a few raps back in the day that mentioned that particular corner. Turning the corner, looking to the right, I could scarcely believe my eyes. There it was, the Apollo Theater. One of the most well-known black venues in the world. So many famous people have graced the halls of this theater: James Brown, Fat Joe, Michael Jackson, Lauren Hill, Gladys Knight, Chris Rock, Bill Cosby, Dave Chappelle, just to name a few. I could certainly go on about those who have been born here, lived here at one time or another, or that live here currently, but you get the picture!

The streets were alive. There were all types of street vendors selling oils, African jewelry, all manner of clothing, and even bootleg videos and music. The sidewalks were filled with the sounds of old-school hip hop as well as R&B. No longer is Harlem a black-only thing; there were people represented from all races, each going about their own business.

Harlem has gone through many cycles, some good, some bad. Right now it is at the beginnings of gentrification. Yuppies are moving in, buying property, putting up expensive stores that the local residents have no interest in or cannot afford. This causes the property values to rise as well as the associated property taxes. Further, rents start to rise. Soon, the people who’ve lived there all of their lives can no longer afford to. The face of Harlem starts to change. There are some groups who are trying to fight it, yet, others who applaud it.

It was very difficult to choose one photo out of the many that I took that represented my feelings about Harlem, complex though they were; however, the photo at the top of this post seems to do the trick. Pictured are:

Malcolm X
Barack Obama
Nelson Mandella
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Each, a hero in the black community. Each offering a ray of light, hope, and strength. In case you cannot read it, the banner says: Welcome to Heavenly Harlem.

Note: These images mark a first for me in a few ways:

1. This was my first trip to Harlem
2. This was my first time using Ilford HP5 (ISO 400). I shot it at 800.
3. Naturally, this was my first time developing HP5+. I really liked the results!
4. I didn’t use the Leica for this. I shot all of my Harlem images using a Olympus 35 LC from 1965 or so.

This image has been hanging around in my camera for a couple of weeks now. I didn’t finish the roll until today. I’ve been wanting to tell her story, but wanted to wait until I had developed the picture. So, here it is:

This is Coco. She works for Bluegreen resorts, a timeshare seller, but not a very pushy one. She works in downtown Charleston at a place that was, I guess, formerly a camera store. It was called Kamera Korner. I was out shooting one day and noticed that my Leica’s battery had died. No light meter! Oh well, I’d have to wing it! I have since learned to place the shutter speed dial on “B” before placing the camera in the bag. If the shutter button is depressed, the light meter will not come on. Or, I could not cock the shutter, but I like to be ready!

I rounded a corner and happened to spy a store called Kamera Korner and figured that they would have batteries, but lo and behold, there was nothing there but the name, Coco, and lots of tourist information. Outside of the former store stood Coco. To say that Coco has personality would be, well, quite an understatement. Let us just say that she is vivacious and has much effervescence. She’s downright bubbly!

When I walked over she greeted me with a smile and we struck up a conversation. She was interested in my ‘old’ camera. While we talked, she continued to offer potential customers discount tickets, etc, as they were walking down the sidewalk. As I have noticed with most street vendors, or businesses, most people will give them a wide berth.

Coco told me that most people ignore her, some are very rude, others cross the street. She said that it didn’t bother her because she has a pretty thick skin and if someone was rude to her, she knew how to be rude back to them ‘in a nice way’.

While we were talking, a young man from Hyman’s Seafood Restaurant, a couple of doors down, came by. Coco stopped him and suggested that I try one of the free hushpuppies that he was giving out. I did and it was fantastic. Probably one of the best that I’ve ever had, honestly. She, as you can see, helped herself to two. She says that she probably eats at least a dozen every day that they give them out. She also made the guy give me a discount coupon to the restaurant, which I have in my wallet.

We had a great conversation and then just as quickly as she appeared, she disappeared, back into the Kamera Korner for a break or something. I went on about my business and continued to shoot without batteries.

Most of my shots were pretty spot on. I guess that I had a good idea about the light.

If I leave work at 5:00, I can get downtown at about 5:30, which leaves me, technically, about one hour to shoot, but it turns out to be much less than that due to the numerous buildings that happen to be there. Not that downtown Charleston has any large buildings, it doesn’t. It’s just that the angle of the sun is so low by the time that I get there that I have maybe 30 minutes to shoot. Perhaps I’ll have to load up with higher speed film, or, dare I say, get to work earlier so that I can leave earlier. Hmmm? I’ll have to think about that.

Not only is it the sunlight factor, it seems that most every day this week, I’ve had something that I have to do right after work. Today, I have to come back to the apartment to pick up a FedEx overnight package, sign some papers, and return it. The apartment closes by 6:00, which usually means about 5:45. So, were I to come here, get the package, and attempt to go downtown, it wouldn’t work. Downtown is 45 minutes from here. Sigh. Yesterday was my volunteer day, so that was out. Maybe tomorrow evening I’ll get to go and shoot. We’ll see.

I’m chompin’ at the bit here. I feel the need to get out and shoot, but life just is not cooperating. Sunrise isn’t until 7:30 AM. I would get up, go downtown, and do some morning shooting, but for the most part, there are only joggers in the morning. Not much to see. Also, traffic coming out of downtown and going towards work is nightmarish. Not a good way to start the day.

Oh well, I’ll get to do a lot of shooting next week when I go to visit Tom, The Photo Father. More about that later! I ought to put myself in a massive backlog of film needing to be developed. At least I hope to!

Continuing on with some more thoughts based on the Gary Winogrand video, I’m wondering if a picture is really worth a thousand words. Gary Windogrand said:

The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.

In one respect, I would say that yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but only in describing how something looks. I would have to agree that you can get little or no story from it. QBP rather solidified this point for me in her comment yesterday where she said:

For me, it depends upon what is presented. I think a photo can be as impactful, if not more, than someone’s writing. I was recently reading a blog where the author had written a series about a farmer who had to close his farm due to the corporate competition. He could no longer keep up. Although the writing was quite impactful, I found myself turning away and skipping over some of the many photos he’d taken to document the event. It was powerful, the sadness and emptiness captured in those photos. Painful.

For me, that ability to hit an emotional nerve with either the reader of the word or the viewer of the photo makes the difference.
–QBP

From what I can infer, she read the article, or at least part of it, then went to the photos. By the simple act of reading the article, or even the title of the article, she had context, was able to gather feelings about the article or situation, then looked at the photographs, which just added additional impact, allowing her to add her own narrative and feelings about the subject. If the pictures of the farmer were not included in the article, I would say that the article would have much less impact, but certainly more impact than photos alone; however, I would say that if the photos were in a spread by themselves, well, they would have just been photos of some farmer and no one would have a clue as to what they meant. Therefore, no narrative ability whatsoever.

I could go back to my photos of the poetry reading. Without the context of the poetry reading, the photos might hold up on their own, but as what? As I write this, I’m hit by another thought. This is probably why I’m not so attracted to photo-only blogs. There’s nothing to go along with the photograph to help me along, to frame it, I suppose. I want context. I can appreciate a pretty picture, or perhaps a disturbing one, as much as the next guy or gal, but give me some words with it and it takes it to a new level!

In the end, I guess that I’d have to agree with Winogrand 100% that photos have no narrative ability by themselves. Probably some of you would disagree. I’d like to hear your take on it. Can a photo stand entirely on its own as a narrative piece? I’m not talking about can a single photo evoke an emotion, I know that it can, but can it tell the entire story? Should it be able to?