I thought you might enjoy this site with some nice M6 shots by the Nichols

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature1/ zoom4.html

Cheers,

AA

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), April 11, 2002

Answers

I think your link does nor work. Can you please verify? Thanks! W.

-- Wolfgang (wgressmann@aol.com), April 11, 2002.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature1

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

Great photos on the NG site, and lots of information about shooting.

fyi, you can use Google to find others: simply type wooismyid@deletethis.yahoo.com), April 11, 2002.

leica M6 site:nationalgeographic.com

...is what I meant.

-- JM Woo (wooismyid@deletethis.yahoo.com), April 11, 2002.

Thanks, John - one days I will know how to poperly work this computer - maybe once it has a lens?

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), April 11, 2002.

The intersting thing here is that at least ONE of these shots was made with a Canon EOS and zoom. Test yourself. Can you - without peaking at the technical notes - identify the camera used from looking at the picture?

I was fairly sure of the Canon shot - but couldn't swear the other shots were Leica-made without checking, although there were hints.

I've also seen Nichols' own website with many more shots from megatransect - and many more Canon B&W shots. His personal vision is so consistent that often a pic I'd swear was Leica would turn out to be Canon SLR - and occasionally vice versa.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 11, 2002.

Just added to my favs..thanks

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 11, 2002.

i dod notice what andy was talking about. one thing to note, the EOS picture have 2 other variables from the leica shots. it was shot using a flash (as opposed to available light) and the film was Tmax 400 (not Tmax 3200). christ i'm a geek.

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

And we like these photos why?

They seem fairly mundane to me once you look beyond the exotic subjects and locale. And they are surprisingly flat, considering that they were shot on TMZ.

Worst of all, he cut off those people's feet in the last shot. Totally unnecessary. A half step back and he would have had it all.

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), April 11, 2002.

Keith how can you judge a photo on a low res computer screen.Also depends how it was,or what was used,to scan it.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 11, 2002.

"Keith how can you judge a photo on a low res computer screen.Also depends how it was,or what was used,to scan it."

How about content and composition? Or can't those be judged adequately on a low res computer screen either?

I don't see anything particularly special in the NG photos referenced.

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), April 11, 2002.

I think the missing toes are more than made up for by the wonderful compositional moment with the arm, and that eye, in the bottom photo.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 11, 2002.

Excellent work, although the black and white is a bit hard to read sometimes. I would have preferred colour myself.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 11, 2002.

just in case somebody wants to check out more of Michael Nichols work you can see it at his site here: http://michaelnicknichols.com

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002.