ramblings --

I recently purchased an old 1955 Rolleicord. the first roll of Kodak TMY that went through it yielded the image I had always imagined. not to say I haven't mined a few good images with my Hasselblads, but they all had a clinical look to them. too sharp, too characterless perhaps. this Rolleicord image, stopped down to f5.6, had an olde-tyme glow to it. much like the older Leica images I see, there was something transcendental, beyond that governed by optics and light.

I frequently find myself at Barnes and Noble bookstore, spending a good deal of time perusing the photojournalism offerings of mostly Leica photography. I noticed that the Leica images I was attracted to were taken in the 50's and 60's, long before the ASPH lenses and CAD designed optics. reading Elliott Erwitt's 'Snaps', I found this to be true, that later images started taking on the same appearance as the usual Canon and Nikon faire and that the magical glow had diminished.

of course, I was judging the image on its essence and not overly concerned about ultimate sharpness, edge definition, or subjective bokeh rendering. the early images just 'snapped', not from resolution but perhaps from the lack of it or those intangible qualities that pulled me into my Rolleicord image. and yet, the overwhelming discussion here, is the pursuit of qualities that may come at the cost of something else. that something, an amalgam of unknown, slips away or gets displaced as we strive for perfection.

I read Leica Fotografie, which contains some of the poorest photography imaginable, mostly produced from modern Leica lenses. it looks generic, sterile, common. it almost leads me to dismiss all this worry about resolution, aberration, and ASPH geometries, and prospect for that glow that sets those older images apart.

I realize my thesis is replete with generalizations, however, it is quite apparent to these eyes that the improvements in Leica optics have not necessarily honed that Leica edge that pulls us in. at least not for me, and I ask if others feel the same when they view images borne through Leica glass over the last half-century.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 21, 2001

Answers

and Happy Holidays and bodacious light to all.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 21, 2001.

Daniel: I must agree with you about Leica Fotographie. Because their images are so poor I chose not to renew my subscription. Some of the subject matter is horrendous. Poor photographs caused by a variety of factors, the main one being the photographer!I have an old Rolleiflex and the photos do have a certain something. This is the reason I enjoy using the older Leica lenses from the 1950' and 1960's especially. These older lenses have a quality all their own which I find appealing.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), December 21, 2001.

Speaking of the magazine, I have to also agree. I have most issues dating back to about 1954(?) with only a few breaks, and I must say that the earlier issues have some of the best photography I've ever seen. Lately, and especially since they adopted the larger, standard format (8x10 size) beginning last year, the photography kind of stinks.

Speaking of lenses, I just can't figure out how or why, since the Tri Elmar at f/4 is better on paper and in MTF graphs than the 50 summicron at the same opening, somebody would choose it over the cron based on superior image quality, and not select the cron because of it's two stop advantage. How much better could the image be, really, when you look at the essence of the image? I think the two stop advantage of my cron far outweights the TE.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 21, 2001.

Why is it surprising that a 1955 lens would make images like...a 1955 lens? I go along with Yogi Berra: "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be". I'll take that clinical look from modern lenses...it's called sharpness, contrast and lack of aberrations. A few fingerprints on the UV filter and I can get that 1955 look from the latest lenses. I still have my original set of LTM lenses (1950's), my original set of Nikkors (1960's), M lenses (1970's), and a Rollei 2.8F Planar from 1963. I keep them in perfect working order, although they are basically retired from daily use.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Tony: One chooses the 3E because it has 28 and 35 along with the 50 in one lens with no obvious sacrifice in image quality over the individual lenses. The trade-off is speed, and for that reason I carry a 35/1.4ASPH as well, though someone might prefer a 28/2 or 50/2 or 50/1.4 as an adjunct. If limited to only one lens, I will still choose the 50/2 without a second thought.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

I always get flamed for doing this, but what the heck - I called this post a rambling after all. I used to own a guitar amplifer design company. I had a laboratory and made a small fortune designing amplifiers. within the pursuit of electrical excellence and elegance, I could design circuitry that met the most stringent of specifications. my initial amplifier designs were indeed, for the most part, characterless, without an identifiable signature, cold, sterile, and all too common sounding. my consternation came from how good the older amp designs sounded and behaved, and how my high-tech noodlings waned.

my success came from adopting a holistic view of all the parameters and understanding that they were all interrelated, perhaps in ways I couldn't readily identify. true, guitar amplifers utilize distortion products, whereas I cannot claim that bad optics make better pictures, but I do feel that something can manifest greater than the sum of its parts. my ears told me this is true, and my eyes see much the same when I view Leica imagery.

Jay's assessment is valid for him, but this is not to say that these same images retaken with his modern lenses with those endearing qualities he mentioned, are better. and that is my point. we make assumptions that are not necessarily based on the images themselves and how they affect us. if all lens designs tend to converge toward optical perfection such that Leica, Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss optics become indistinguishable, then it is understandable, as in my guitar amplifer analogy, that we will start looking for qualities not so easily defined nor refined once we discover something has been lost.

I am not saying photography with modern lenses is inferior. I am attempting to say that Leica mystique and its emotional induction may rise from something far removed from what is generally sought after here, and the ensuing debates regarding resolution.

the images tell their own stories, with a resounding voice.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 21, 2001.

"A few fingerprints on the UV filter and I can get that 1955 look from the latest lenses."

I very seriously doubt that.

I don't doubt that the more modern lenses have higher contrast, higher resolution, higher "performance" in general. However, the overwhelming majority of what I shoot are pictures of people, most often at wide apertures with a very blurred background. Most of the ways in which the modern lenses are "superior" are either irrelavent or undesirable for my uses.

If ultimate "sharpness" is a primary concern, I'll just use medium or large format mounted on a tripod.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 21, 2001.

While I generally agree w/Jay's point re: nostalgia, I happen to like the look provided by vintage lenses, particularly Zeiss glass--they may not be as "true to life," but I think they can still produce pleasing images. Since I like to do a lot of night photography, the biggest advance brought by modern lenses to my eyes is flare suppression & that's probably more the result of (fairly old) multi-coating technology than anything else.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 21, 2001.

I think the main difference with the better vintage lenses (compared to modern glass) is they are lower in contrast due to the more simple coatings, but still can be very sharp. A large format shooter who sells and collects older cameras told me there was a renewed interest in many of the classic large format lenses these days, as the low contrast /high resolution characteristics can sometimes produce better results in terms of tonal range, shadow detail etc. Newer isn't always better under all circumstances.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 21, 2001.

I too find the rolliecord w/xenar to be wonderful! At 5.6 or 8 it is a killer...good at other apertures too.With the rollie closeup lenses prints to 20 x 24 to die for.I still have yet though to see a Leica lens better than my 50mm dual range from the 60's in resolution and overall feel. But I like high resolution more than high contrast.And ...I havn't tried them all(lens). I don't own it but the 75mm seems to be a real winner too. But I'm thinking of going the opposite way with a noctilux soon!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

Well, I'll toss my two-cents in since we're all just rambling anyway ;-)

Ah, the merit of the timeless M camera! If you want, you can shoot with some of the sharpest glass available for a 35mm camera today. Yet, if your heart yearns for the nostalgic look of the old masters, you can have that too by using glass made over half a century ago. But best of all, if you are undecided as to which style suits your fancy you can also have both, interchangeably on the same roll of film, and with little effort on your part...

:) Pax,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

Ditto to what Jack said. Why the fuss? Get every lens from every era and shoot to the heart's content. On the other hand you can do a lot in the darkroom. When I want that nostalgic look I use warm Portiga Rapid grade 2.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 21, 2001.

Hi,Daniel:

I definitely share your point of view. If I want sharp images, I'd use my R4 with recent generation Cron.

When I want old Leica look (i.e most of the time . . .) I use my M3s with 1957 / 58 lenses.

In fact, being able to use older simpler smaller all-mechanical gear and still get results worth seeing is THE main reason I bought my older cameras and lenses. And I'm happy still trying to do it ! Really happy indeed !

Cheers, Daniel. Good post IMHO.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), December 21, 2001.

Daniel: I took my M3 to the office today to get a few shots of my secretary. I took the 1953 collapsible Summicron, not my '80's current formula one. I wanted the somewhat lower contrast, slightly softer look. For architecture, I'd make the opposite choice.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 21, 2001.

I am rather amazed and disappointed in the lack of common sense this group has contributed to this "pursuit of magic-old vs new". Not a single person has mentioned that the beautiful "old" Leica images were shot with Kodachrome X, or 25, or 64... or possibly Agfachrome. The "look" of the image has much to do with the color palette of the film... and less to do with the improved sharpness/contrast or lack of "bokeh" that so many of you mention.

If you doubt this logic for a second... take a roll of Velvia (reality on steroids) or Provia 100F (if you can stand the green cast) and shoot a roll of this with a new lens, and a roll with the 50's or 60's vintage glass you speak so highly of. You will find that both sets of images will leave you very little to gripe about. They'll both look rather shitty.

Take the same images on Kodachrome (or even Astia... if you want a higher asa with the best color fidelity any modern color slide film can achieve) and you will have that "look" most of you seemingly covet.

Fuji did an interesting study while Velvia was being designed... they asked pro's and amateurs what they wanted in a film: true color fidelity or more saturation... ( and more vibrant colors)? The group responded "truer color fidelity." But Fuji didn't stop there. They next sent out two prints: one with the most accurate color they were capable of producing and the other with colors so vibrant they jumped off the printed page. With these prints they asked "Which one do you prefer?" Guess which one won? Velvia was born and a film which was designed for product shots was quickly adopted by photographers (their numbers are legion).

I am constantly amazed at the photographers who wax effusively about the incredible color fidelity of Velvia. They don't have the creative eye or talent to achieve beautiful composition with films like Kodachrome or Astia... so they shoot Velvia in their attempt to let garish color do all the talking. Personally I hate the look of modern films. Hyperrealism leaves me cold.

Do yourselves a favor and shoot some Kodachrome (before it disappears) in early morning or late afternoon light. If you truly appreciate the qualities of what you all claim to be "old Leica glass as opposed to new", you will be so pleasantly surprised that you will never go back to the hyperrealistic garbage which passes for slide film today. You will also find that the new Leitz APO glass will blow your minds in the way it renders color with Kodachrome.

One final note: buy several rolls of Kodachrome and test one roll with a grey card (along with a white and black card on either side. KR-64 has a tendency to be green when it is first released. As it ripens (outside the refrigerator, please...), it will become neutral. Later... it will shift toward magenta as it grows old. Shoot some flowers close up with a neutral roll and you will have the color you miss in the old Leica Fotografie magazines.

If Ernst Haas could only speak...

-- lawrence beck (stork@lawrencebeck.com), December 22, 2001.

You know, Lawrence, I'm so utterly lacking in common sense that I was thinking about differences in tonal rendition that are evident in b&w images--I wasn't even thinking about the color palette. But then, I switched to Ektachrome films from Astia because I didn't like its magenta cast; guess I'm also lacking in taste.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 22, 2001.

TMY?

Have you tried running a roll of Verichrome 120 through that old Rolleicord? Actually I too acquired a 'cord with a Xenar about 10 years ago, and spent a summer taking pictures in the streets of NYC with it. That old time look is, well, not duplicable with modern lenses or film or filters. It is unusually sympathetic to human subjects, IMHO...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 22, 2001.

There is charm in Daguerrotype, that is why there are still Daguerrotype fans

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 22, 2001.

as usual, I did not make myself abundantly clear. I was merely speaking about ubiquitous B&W Leica images that surprisingly do not improve in concert with improvements in optics. and yet, we trade our old lenses in on the new, and assume that the few parameters now improved will benefit the image. with my eyes, I do not see this reflected in the imagery around me. I don't believe it is nostalgic, but simple imagery. the premise is that the heart and mind responds to something else besides ultimate sharpness that we value so highly. also, it is possible that we compromise this magical, ethereal quality that we find so difficult to define, in our pursuit of pushing the resolution envelope.

I recently read the Leica Fotografie article on the design of the 28mm f2 ASPH. my vision of hundreds of old men and women in white coats, mixing optical magic in huge steaming vats with wooden spoons, German photographers hand rubbing the cooled glass to perfection, was shattered by the reality of a handful of optical experts, headed by a youngster with a doctorate, all networked to a CAD system. I thought how their pursuit of optical excellence may not leave room for that magical quality that lets so many Leica images breathe. the 28mm f2 seems to be the hot lens right now, so perhaps they have captured it, or my notion is flawed. it is not nostalgic; it is a quality of imagery that my mind and eyes embrace, and one that is easily lost.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 22, 2001.

Don't romance the older lenses. I can't speak about the ASPH, but the newer generations of lenses are much improved in every respect. That "glow" you're speaking of is otherwise known as flare, and "those intangible qualities" might just be a lack of microcontrast and sharpness. Go ahead--shoot with a Summitar for a few days and mark my words: you'll be very happy to get back to a Summicron.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 22, 2001.

Yes, Daniel, Quality. Cannot be defined, therefore no MTF can be truly reflective of the final image. Some lenses just do that. I don't know what make them do the things they do. Old amps do that, and old handmade violins do that too. I see what I like, and use what I really like. Nothing to do with nostalgia. Nothing to do with vintage too. The rather newish 135 Elmarit is very pleasing in my opinion. Can't comment on those new ASPH glass since I don't own any, but I like my Summitar very much, though it flares when I'm not careful.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, very refreshing.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), December 22, 2001.

we'll always need bad lenses, just to set a reference.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 22, 2001.

One more observation: You are entranced by the romantic and the mystical and seem to think that art contains something mysterious and intangible; but from my experience in the matter, art is created rationally and soberly, with painstaking attention to detail and, yes, technique. Inspiration usually comes far in advance of the shoot; and then, because the ground is well prepared, something emerges from all one’s efforts. The critics, who are paid to be romantically and mystically entranced, vomit up reams of ponderous art-speak about what was essentially a very simple and straightforward process, albeit one that required years of dedication, discipline, study and practice.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 22, 2001.

I'm with Peter 100% on this. So often one hears: the best images were taken with this or that lens by HCB, Capa or whoever fifty years ago. If that lens was good enough for them, it's more than good enough for anyone of us, etc. Funnily enough, those guys didn't have access to the cutting edge optical technology we have nowadays, otherwise I'm sure they would have gone for it. It wasn't a choice on their part.

As for the quality of modern photography, I believe there are far better photographers around now than there were then. Our expectations and ability to interpret photographs have developed over the years and good photography now is generally far more sophisticated and visually literate than it was fifty years ago. It's just that the old guys have had fifty years to build their brand.

If you have what it takes to make excellent photographs, you'll do it with whatever lenses, but probably you'll want to use the sharpest stuff that makes your images stand out on the light table, and which won't give you appalling problems with unpredictable "glow", otherwise known as flare. As Peter points out, the famous "glow" was nothing more than unresolved aberrations, and it certainly never made a bad snap into a good one.

Progress really does exist in photographic technology. It is very tangible.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 22, 2001.

I don't need to be lectured by Peter or Rob, and their obtuse ponderings and thread-bare rhetoric were anticipated, but so well- worn I thought we might escape their obvious slant. no one on this forum needs this pedantry that is served as an insult. as a newcomer to this forum, I can assess that most everyone understands your gospel regarding art, artist, tools, vision, inspiration, perspiration, ad nauseum. we truly get it. get it?

it is not a romantic notion as a musician, to draw my bow across a three-hundred year old cello and hear some magical quality that escapes its modern brethren. it's real. as a photographer, it is not a romantic notion to feel the same way about light lifting off an image. it might be flare, it might be magic dust swept from the floors of Bavarian monasteries, and it might be as simple as a personal preference of how great photographic prints are rendered. it has nothing to do with technology or this dubious assertion regarding visual literacy.

no argument against Rob's assertion that photographic technology is moving forward. the question remains, when you view the product of these advances, are you more emotionally pulled in by their results? do you require explanation of the lens used to assess its beauty and evocation?

glow is glow, magically induced or not.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 22, 2001.

I think as photographers we have a tendency to put both too much and too little emphasis on how much the equipment influences the final quality of the image.

I tend to think that in general any sort of romantic quality in older images is more a product of the time they were made and the people who made them than whether or not the lens was multicoated.

On the other hand, there are a lot of fine arts types who explicitly go after nostalgic old style images by using old lenses that are falling apart or toy cameras or what not. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.

I still think it has more to do with the photographer than the equipment.

Analogies to musical instruments don't really hold up IMHO, but I don't have the time or the space here to get into that.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), December 22, 2001.

Those beautiful b/w images gathered in the first decades of Leica photography certainly remain beautiful today, I agree.

However, part of that recognition of beauty today feeds itself on posterior cultural interferences and historical interactions between viewer and picture. We KNOW who shot this, when , where, and even why. Or we feel we can safely guess, based on our knowledge of the issues of the time.

The attitudes, the clothes, the cars, the urban fixtures, the country side's aspect, the smoke, the smog, the coal heating dust, etc, date the image, and are interlaced with the imaging chain that ended up fixed on the print we still view today. That is because we have always seen those times through those prints. Just like the way our brains view the end of the 19th century seems to require some dose of "vignetting", whatever you do, because vignetting is one of the dominant characteristics of mainstream 19th century prints.

The 20th century has been fixed in our minds through prints that depended on emulsions, chemicals, printing techniques and optical designs that belong to their time and have evolved with it.

The introduction of 35mm photography, and the reign of the Leica, have simultaneously translated into a deterioration of the average image quality (smaller format, more magnification, less tonal gradation, more grain, less detail ,etc) and into the production of thousands of key images that would not have been shot through previous techniques.

But photography has not stopped evolving with the introduction of the Leica or of the tri-x. It has kept evolving, and the reality of the last quarter of the 20th century is translated into images that are mostly in colour, more and more saturated, with gradually disappearing grain. Our children's vision of that part of the last century will be based on that imagery. It will be it.

So, Daniel's quest is certainly interesting, but seems to me to lead to the re-introduction of dated artefacts rather than "better" imagery. This is the recipe for nostalgia.

Very soon, grain will, for all practical purposes, completely disappear, replaced by dye clouds on one side and pixels on the other, generating prints integrating all the other signatures of the digital chain.

The same may obviously be said on the publishing side: the newspaper presses of the Thirties do not offer the same image quality as the offset presses of the Eighties or of today's digital printers. Same for moving pictures of course: can we imagine the Spanish Civil war in high res digital colour video?

The images of the coming decade will be based on the coming decade's media and technology.

In 20 years time, Daniel's kid might start a quest to find ways of regaining the "olde-tyme glow" so typical o the 1990's, and curse about the overwhelming "hyperreality" conveyed by the imaging techniques that will be used in 2022....

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthzar@hotmail.com), December 22, 2001.

I'm with you, Daniel. As Ernst Haas once said to Bob Schwalberg, who was enthusing over the latest camera innovations, "Ach, Swapselberg, how is it that cameras get better but pictures do not?"

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), December 22, 2001.

I'm inclined to think that some of the difference we attribute to old vs. new lenses is bound to be due to the difference between films then in use, vs. the ones we have now. Today's films have thinner emulsions. They are sharper, with better edge effects, and so on. But I think that the old thicker emulsion films probably had a gradation and tonality that's harder to come by now. Even Tri-X isn't the same film it was in 1960.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 23, 2001.

Daniel, I'll make sure to agree with anything you say in future to avoid hurting your obviously fragile feelings. I had thought you were throwing this open for discussion, obviously not. Sorry about that.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 23, 2001.

Daniel, FWIW, I'm with you and Erwitt 100 per cent. Rob- I love your pictures, I really do but I have to say I disagree with a lot that you write (does this make me logically wrong, somehow - I'm not sure..) Take a look at the Marc Riboud china pictures. Is the gentle tonality of these pictures of no consequence to their beauty? Are contemporary photographers better than those from the 40's/50's/60's? Well, if the ability to produce memorable pictures is the criterion to judge talent then clearly no is the answer. We have moved too far towards ideas-based photography (see Paul Smith etc). These snaps are great to look at for a few moments - but I see coffee tables covered in the works of the old masters when I go to peoples houses (DAH and McC are notable exceptions to this rule). As for "building a brand" - us youngsters are the experts at that nonsense... Lawrence - you are so right about film choice. I reckon the demise of kodachrome is/will be one of the great losses for colour photography. Even a loon like me would admit that film choice is more important than lens choice..Well, almost always...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 23, 2001.

Daniel,

I remember your asking this very question 2 or 3 years ago on photo.net. The range of answers in that broad forum was curiously similar to the ones in this thread.

If memory serves me correctly, I observed that modern lenses have less design 'magic' because of their extremely high and consistent fidelity. With older designs, and in older times, heuristic design approaches sometimes worked magic, and more oftentimes created junk, so the special lenses really stood out, back in the 1930s,say.

I think I also contended that 'magic' sound counts for a lot more in musical instruments (including speakers and amps) than in photography, because graphic, emotive and literal qualities of an image greatly dominate the eye, over mere image quality (above a certain primitive minimum of optical fidelity).

So 'magic' lenses count for little with most photographers and viewers alike, but for the few fine-print aficionados, for whom these subtle qualities count for more than the 'content' and literality of the image.

For the rest of us, the visual experience of a photography in other dimensions simply overwhelms what the lens 'looks' like.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 23, 2001.

Steve, please _do_ disagree with me! That's what discussion is about, isn't it. Thanks for the thumbs up for my snaps.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 23, 2001.

About present photographers and the old guys, my personal belief is that the acceptance of the wide angle as a normal lens opened photography up enormously. It enabled photograpèher to build a style in which the interest of the picture is distributed over the frame, in contrast to the HCB etc style in which a single subject dominated the interest of the photograph. I'm not a photo historian, but that's my instinct about it. Masters of this style? Mahendra Singh, Raghubir Singh, Ragu Rai, (funny, three Indians) Garry Winogrand and many others. I think it's a more sophisticated style, something I try to keep in mind in my own photogaphy, not always with the degree of success I'd like. This is the kind of thing I mean (or at least, would like to mean!):

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 23, 2001.

I disagree totally that HCB's style is to let a 'single subject dominate the interest of the photograph'. Surely HCB's wonderful skill and vision is manifested in the interplay and composition of the varied subjects which come together to be so much more than the sum of their parts? (His portrait collections not withstanding!).

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 23, 2001.

Well, I'm thinking of the iconic pictures like the family picnic. I recall vaguely seeing some stuff shot in Mexico in the 70's (?) which was more freestyle, so to speak, but mainly his stuff has a single focus of interest. I think it's clearly different from Raghubir Singh's style or Winogrand's. Of course, it's the whole that counts, even in Bresson's work, but I think there's a clear progression through Frank, Friedlander, Winogrand to a more distributed type of composition.

Just IMO, of course.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 23, 2001.

Sorry to disagree again Rob, but surely the picnic on the bank of the river Marne shot illustrates my point perfectly?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 23, 2001.

daniel -- Sorry, but it's your ponderings that are obtuse and your rhetoric that is woefully threadbare. I make photographs-- a lot of them--and I don't spend much time in philosophical masturbation over how or why.

Exactly what do these musings accomplish? Do they somehow prove that you are sensitive, intellectual, thoughtful? And what do the answers accomplish? Do they help you make better photographs?

Many years ago I was a member of a play writing workshop. I remember a guy who waxed endlessly and, to be honest, quite eloquently, about writing and his theories about the theater. His play stank. Then there was a guy who came up to the front of the class, mumbled a few inaudible words into his beard and sat back down. His play was brilliant.

I’m always posting photographs as well as my site address, so people can see for themselves whether or not my ideas are backed up by successful work. Why don’t you do the same?

Peter Hughes Photography

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 23, 2001.

Giles, I thought you might say that! I know that the subject fills the frame pretty much in that image, but what I was meaning was more a composition in which various things are going on independently in the frame and none of them dominates. I recall a shot by Mahendra Sinh (part of his lamentably unpublished and virtually unknown Thar desert work) in which a couple of women are hauling water out of a well, two old guys are chatting and someone else is working on a moped engine - or something like that. The point was that each of the various things that are going on are equally important, there's no main subject. I think HCB would most likely have made three separate (and maybe beautiful) pictures of that situation rather than a single, more overall image.

Similarly (not to imply anything about the quality of the image) the shot I posted above was intended to have a number of areas of interest. I find my eye wandering over it in a restless way rather than zooming in on a particular feature. I hope it works for others as well!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 23, 2001.

I am just throwing out ideas to chew on. a departure from Alfie bashing I suppose. a prodding to think deeper. and my point regarding you and Rob, is that we need to raise the bar; give the audience their due credit and not bog the discussions down with the same old saw 'it's not the tool it's the craftsman'. we all understand this, and can now peel the layers back and discuss our images and tools at a deeper level. it is an evolutionary process, and promotes growth on the forum. no feelings hurt, though I thought your comments were only meant to derail the dialogue. apologies.

I had offered a similar topic for discussion on photo.net years ago, though it was concerned (as I recall) with the synergy between components. talking about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, I thought it of interest to possibly identify combinations of body, lens, film, that combine to form something greater than the individual parts. it was derailed and nothing of import surfaced. I still think it is quite interesting.

we all have motives, we all have justifications for perusing photography forums, and I suspect we all prospect for something different. Ernst Hass apparently said what I took paragraphs in attempting to convey. The cameras are better, the pictures are not. I am talking photojournalism, and this of course is a huge generalization. I was targeting the most popular topic of discussion on this forum. do others note that the qualities of these modern optics are not visible in the average image, and in fact, there appears to be something lost as we progress. the comments about film truly hit the mark. it is the combination of many factors that govern what reflects from the print.

I labeled this post as a rambling. that is all it is meant to be. I welcome the ramblings of others, as that is what I feel best serves the forum. for my photography, I don't use the forums as an advertising venue Peter, but I compel you to note the coming issues of FLYING magazine where one of my images will grace the cover. I take thousands of pictures too, and have a studio overlooking a river and forest, that is larger than my first home. photography is my life, and it is what I love to do most. I also love to fly, play music, write, and share any knowledge I may have gained with others. I have no problem persuing all endeavours at the same time.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 23, 2001.

Rob:

I'm no photo (or art) historian, either, but I think in photography as a whole (not just 35mm format) there have always been those who prefer wider angle views w/multiple subjects in addition to those w/a more telephoto, "portrait"-like focus, so I don't believe there's really been any "progression" to a more "sophisticated" style. The same came said of painting (or literature, e.g., Faulkner v. Hemingway). One style may be more popular @ a given time, but that has little to do w /any "improvement" in the arts. But, then again, I don't really believe that art progresses the way technology does, it just changes along w/society. To get back to Daniel's thoughts, I think we can all agree that new lenses provide a different look than old lenses, but I think whether 1 is "better" than the other depends on what the *photographer* wants to achieve & that's something that will never be uniform.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 23, 2001.

It enabled photograpèher to build a style in which the interest of the picture is distributed over the frame, in contrast to the HCB etc

I'm no photo historian either, but while I share Rob's appreciation for the type of photograph he mentions, it's not new. There has been something of a reverse effect even, and it's most noticeable in war photography. If you look at 19th century war photographs, there is often a broad scene showing the scope of war, in the same sense Rob's photograph, or the others he references, show the scope of life. I'm thinking of the photographs Beato, for instance, with epic scenes of destruction and loss of life. By contrast, the images of war favored now are often close up, showing individual heroism or suffering. It's a societal effect.

I'm inclined to believe that this reflects a change in our social values rather than the availability of specific equipment, and I think that many other changes in photography have resulted from similar changes. The really big changes in the nature of photographs have come from disruptive rather than evolutionary changes. Color film comes to mind, and I think that digital will have the same type of effect.

To bring this back to the original question, I completely reject the thesis that the relatively insignificant changes in optics have any significant bearing on the changes in photography. Any changes that might result from that are microscopic compared to the societal changes that impact photography (and any other art.)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 23, 2001.

I'll let this drop since nothing will come of it apparently. I will ask others to read the archives and note the angst that surfaces consistently regarding selling an older lens, taking a financial loss, and buying the newer replacement. the question, is why? other than an understandable internal tug to buy the latest, can we substantiate that decision through difference in the qualities of our images, or are we reacting to something different? this question was borne, as I had described, from looking at Leica photography and noting that images from an earlier time appeared more appealing to me, and carried a quality that added to the image. as I progressed in time, the Leica images started losing this signature, and began looking much the same, as if taken from any modern lens, Nikon, Canon, or Zeiss. I suspect it is a combination of factors. optics, films, and perhaps slower films that mandate the use of larger apertures that promoted this particular look that pulls me in.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 23, 2001.

I will ask others to read the archives and note the angst that surfaces consistently regarding selling an older lens, taking a financial loss, and buying the newer replacement. the question, is why?

I've certainly noted this and it is usually from people who are not photographers but equipment freaks. Photographers I know often lament the lack of familiarity with the new and how it will take time to get to where one was with the old, but not about problems with the character.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 23, 2001.

Peter - your language seems very aggressive to me, if not to say bullying. If we all followed your reasoning to its conclusion there would be no thread at all. While it may or may not be fine to "get rid" of undesirables, the level of aggression on some of these postings is excessive to my mind. Surely if a question is beneath answering, a more appropriate course would be not to write anything. Merry blooming christmas!

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 23, 2001.

photography should provoke questions. good and bad photographers should ask them in their pursuit of improving. good forums should allow them. the readership needs to assess their contributions and choose to participate or remain silent.

I do not own a Leica. I did just return from Mexico with David Alan Harvey, Miguel Gandert, and Yolanda Andrade. I was in awe with the way their Leica was an integral extension of themselves. it was invigorating to the spirit, to see this passion for photography, and the strong connection between photographer and their camera. it was an honor to sit in the San Miguel de Allende sunshine talking to David Alan and watching him break from conversation to image making all in a heartbeat. within the duration of time I needed to focus my Hasselblad, he had consumed a half-roll of film and caught the essence of the moment. I want that too, and my journey begins. a few questions surfaced ...

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 23, 2001.

I was in awe with the way their Leica was an integral extension of themselves

How many rolls a year do they shoot? How many rolls a year do you shoot? How can you automatically attribute it to their camera type?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 23, 2001.

If all lenses were the same, consumers would demand new products to set them apart. In fact, they already do. Why else would people buy filters or soft focus attachments like the Zeiss Softar filter?

All images are subjective; everyone's taste varies. Unlike painting, there are fewer variables with photography. Painters do not merely try to depict reality; they try to interpret it. Some photographers try too, but their palette is more limited: such and such a lens, such and such a film. Sometimes the image is manipulated by computer to imitate a painting - which does not seem especially creative to me (I prefer the real thing).

The point is, differences are more subtle in photography, and many non-photographers would be hard-pressed to tell which lens had been used for which photograph. This is especially true of modern lenses, as has been stated.

Old lenses appear to have a more "rounded" quality, something that used to be known as "plasticity". That is what I enjoy about the old, oft-discounted Summar lens I use with my IIIa. It has good resolution but contrast is less - not necessarily a bad thing, especially for portraits or scenes which are very contrasty anyway. It definitely has that glow. No, it would not be suitable for everything, but then I can always use a different camera and lens.

I used Elite Chrome Extra Color (usually I find enhance films OTT but the results were quite pleasing, especially in overcast light). So who says you can't uses new films with old lenses? The main thing, surely, is to go for the look that you, personally, find satisfying.

I agree many, many old pictures taken in the 50s or before are excellent: engaging, dramatic, visually and emotionally rewarding. And I bet photographers did not obsess about lens resolution charts and lines per millimetre before they took them. The world, after all, is not flat, like a lens resolution chart.

What is wrong with the musical analogy? Musicians treasure old instruments, but with much technology, the assumption always seems to be that new is invariably better. It isn't. But academic discussion won't produce converts, nor should it. Before dogmatically condemning old lenses and technology in general as being unuseable in today's world, I recommend actually trying them and giving them a go, even if just for fun - you might be surprised.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), December 23, 2001.

> How can you automatically attribute it to their camera type?

sigh -- I am beginning to understand how this works. I ask the questions based on my travels, my associations, my equipment, and my photography, and my efforts, and others hide in the bushes at a distance with poisoned darts. how easy it would be if we could reverse roles.

I set out on the streets of San Miguel with my Hasselblad 203FE. it didn't work at all. like driving through the el jardin with a Ferrari, it was too imposing. I grabbed my Holga and my Spanish dictionary and Mexico opened up for me. in talking to these great photographers, I discovered the small size of the Leica, the fast lenses, the un-imposing character they presented were a necessary ingredient in capturing the spirit of San Miguel and her people that I so deeply wanted. David Alan didn't yield a Fuji, and Yolanda didn't tote a Hasselblad. they both had Leicas and their faces lit up when asked about them and they could not contain their enthusiasm for and love of Leicas.

based on that experience, I have put my two EOS-1v's, my two EOS-3's, and all the EF lenses up for sale. I need the fast lenses, the low weight, and the small footprint that the Leica offers. I am tired of large and slow auto-focus lenses. we all go down a road, and over the years we discover the fork we need to traverse. I am not selling my Hasselblad's nor my Technikardan. I am going back to San Miguel next month with an M6 and sense of discovery. I encourage the same for all of you.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 23, 2001.

and before the darts start flying, last weekend I rented a Hasselblad Xpan and evaluated the Mamiya M7. beautiful cameras both, but f4 lenses fall short. once you identify what you want to accomplish photographically, the equipment needed starts to call out to you, and it is just a matter of listening.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 23, 2001.

In reference to Jeff's comment (paraphrase) asking Daniel why he automatically assumes it's DAH's Leica (brand) and not the fact that DAH probably shoots 14000 pictures in a day, let me just offer my own ramblings, not really much to do with the orginal question, but so what. There are a lot of successful photographers who use a Leica M camera. There are also a lot of successful photographers who use other cameras from other manufacturers. Perhaps both groups shoot many, many times more frames of film in a week than I will in my life, I don't know. One thing I am as sure of as I am of a bump on the head after being hit with a coffee cup being thrown accross the room, is that, as Daniel eluded to, DAH's comfort and "oneness" with his camera isn't merely "oneness" with just another tool that he has gotten comfortable with. Most people who don't use a Leica M camera on a regular basis will argue with me on this point: No other camera becomes an extension of the human eye and mind like a Leica M. This is due not so much to its original design, but rather to what the M has been discovered to be by all those who are truly successful with it. It's not really the lens optics, but they are certainly of high quality, and they have always offered good performance and imaging character for their time. It's not that they're overbuilt (90% of an M is the shutter mechanism, filling the interior like a grand piano in a doctor's examination room). In simple terms, I think what Daniel was talking about with DAH and his Leica it's the camera's usability. And I don't think a Leica M's usability becomes easily apparant to most who pick it up and use it for a few months or years.

I submit that the fact that a large number of successful reportage, street, art, candid, and even fashion photographers who don't use a Leica M, or who have never used a Leica M, is the basis for maybe 40 times the amount of "writtin on-line fuss," (over what is discussed about other camera brands). I submit that those who are successful with a Leica M camera know something that those who aren't successful with the M don't know. I think it's this: To that group of successful M photographs, no other camera -- ineed no other tool is as transparant as a Leica M. No other camera can so quickly become a part of the photographer. No other camera has more of a potential to work as a photographer's assistant than a Leica M. It is only a tool (Yes, Jeff, it's only a tool!! :-) but as has been said before, it is more "only" a camera than any other camera. They called 7-Up the "un-cola." The Leica M is the "un-camera."

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 23, 2001.

[pfft, pfft-sound of poison arrows]

Why did you take the Hasselblad, Daniel? It reminds me of a friend of mine, a professional photographer, who saw my then brand new Rollei 6003, briefly took leave of his senses, borrowed it on the spot and went out street-shooting in NYC. I caught up with him minutes later and found a large mean guy with an even larger and meaner dog ttempting to feed my friend the Rolleiflex piece by piece.

Being courageous, I immediately saved my camera from the bad man.

Which leads me to a question. With all due respect to the greats (DAH, et. al) what is it they can teach that is independent from the equipment they routinely use? Can David Alan Harvey or Steve McCurry (a Nikon user) teach you what to do with an 8x10 field camera in the Streets of Santo Domingo? Or are their insights and wisdom [somewhat] circumscribed by the types of equipment they know? Can a Carl Weese teach you how to shoot in clubland in London?

Artistic or scientific talent and teaching talent (and I hear all of these guys are very, very good) are different things, as any college professor will tell you.

Maybe you would have profited from a course with Phil Borges, Dan. He uses a Hasselblad in the field to make his pictures. Are you acquainted with his portraits?

And welcome to Leicaland-you've been nibbling around here a while. Which leads me to yet another question. I've been a big city dweller all my life.

I've never really used Leica M in a pastoral or rural setting-which I gather is where you live But Leica M=people photography. True or false? [pfft, pfft not intended].

Rob, I am woefully ignorant, having approached photography through the medium of camera advertisements, but there is a technical term in Western painting for what you describe. Tableaux, perhaps? Renaissance paintings of these huge scenes of various people labouring at various tasks come to mind...

Two great pictures, by the way. Love them both.

Dan, thanks for a great thread. Breathes some life back into the forum after a patchy spell. Look, its even brought Tony back into the fray. And thats always good.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 23, 2001.

I mean Daniel, of course. Apologies.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 23, 2001.

I went to Mexico to meet up with my hero Keith Carter, to taste Mexico, and refine my Hasselblad Flexbody technique, of which Keith is the master. the others were there leading workshops of their own, and it wasn't until my initial attempts at street photography that I began to understand what Leica was all about. yes, I keep flitting along the outskirts of Leicaland, but those Hasselblad hounds are always hungry and expensive to feed.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 23, 2001.

Mani, yes it's specifically Breughel's Icarus Falling that I see as the apex of that style. I'd love to do a book about Bombay (again!) in that style. The idea has been tugging at me for quite a while.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 24, 2001.

Icarus Falling:

Thanks for the clarification Rob. Hope this works and is illustrative...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 24, 2001.

Now _that_ is a nice picture!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 24, 2001.

And it has a kind of _glow_ too...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 24, 2001.

yea I say, tis a great picture if only the edges were sharper.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 24, 2001.

And it didn't exhibit nasty wide-angle distortion...

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 24, 2001.

He really should have tried Reala and a different printer, colours are totally off-might have been wise to spring for a Lightjet print...Surprisingly, the paper seems quite archival. Oh and a little fill-flash might have helped the shadow details.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 24, 2001.

Daniel, You mention watching the effortless way in which DAH broke from conversation to take a picture. This is really an issue of his highly developed intuition, not his camera type or the era in which his lens was made. The photographs you admire were made by artists who are able to anticipate a moment. A Leica won't make great street photos for you just like a Steinway won't compose beautiful music for you.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), December 26, 2001.

I very much understand this. I was reacting to how much a 28-70mm f2.8 autofocus lens weighs, how slow it is, the beating you take toting it across your body, and how imposing such a monstrosity looks. it is one thing to sit in the lounge and compare notes about each others 28-70mm or 70-200mm zoom (nice) and a completely different reality when you see your compadres on the streets with a TTL flash attached and looking exhausted. the Leica (M/R) looks really good once you see such a sight and note the reaction of their subjects.

> A Leica won't make great street photos for you just like a Steinway won't compose beautiful music for you.

please read this thread once again --

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), December 26, 2001.

Daniel, I've been on vacation (Mexico) so I couldn't respond quickly. It seems to me that your desire to switch to a Leica is informed more by nostalgia than by practical needs. I know or know of numerous great street photographers who shoot with everything from Canons to Mamiya RZ67's.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), January 07, 2002.