Winter Break

Leica M3 + Nokton 50/1.5, Agfa APX100 in Rodinal

After I shot this roll, the kids asked to see the back of the camera looking for the pictures on the LCD!

"You want to see the pictures?" So they helped mix the Rodinal and process the film. Mikey was the timer, and Rica did the inversions.

Of course, they were instructed on proper handling of the chemicals. Like not to drink it or splach each other...

Later, we cut the negs, scanned and edited them on Photoshop.

Of course, when mom arrived they could not wait to tell her all about it. And how dad let them mix "dangerous chemicals."




This was a pretty amazing week. With that activity, the kids really got into it. We decided to drive to the beach the following morning to take some pictures. Rica surprised me - she wanted to shoot with film! A few posts down, you will remember that she took to shooting digital with the GRD in New York.

Well now, what camera to use? Mikey has his p&s from the cruise. He still loses stuff.

Rica brought me her camera - an old Chinon 35EE complete with box and flash that I got her several months ago from a forum member - which needed some cleaning. We cleaned the finder and tested the meter with a hearing aid battery. We stripped the old gunky light seals. Somehow, I could not for the life of me, find my replacement seals.

Now this was a problem. I had her try out some other cameras, including an Olympus 35RC. I wanted to give her something with full autoexposure for now. She settled on an SLR - a nice simple Canon T50 that I got as part of a package a couple of years ago on ebay.

It paired up nicely with a bright 50/1.8 SC FD lens. She picked an orange disney camera strap from my closet to go along with her new kit.

The following day, she was up and dressed by 8am.

We loaded some tri-x in each of our cameras, and off we went. It was freezing cold, expecially with the brisk sea breeze. The beach was deserted, of course, except for a big flock of seagulls. Mikey was back in the car after 5 minutes. Rica was bundled up in a scarf, bonnet and gloves, and finished her roll.

We warmed up with some hot chocolate and a big breakfast at Copper Skillet, the local diner.

That afternoon, we processed the film (in HC110). This is a new combo for me, and the negs were a bit grainier than I liked, but who cares? This was a perfect day.




Rica's photos:

I wish I had her eye for composition when I was 9.

A very RARE picture of her daddy. Yes, that is snow on the beach.

I put together a flickr set for her. I have a feeling there will be many more to come.

Dynamic Range

Monopoly
Leica M3 + 50mm Summicron, Agfa APX100 in Rodinal

I took several shots of this scene with a Nikon DSLR. It was an exposure nightmare. I was bracketing, using the spotmeter, checking histograms on the LCD. In the end, it was a choice between blown-out highlights or blocked up shadows. I tried to save it on Photoshop with masks and layers, but still ended up very frustrated.

The same time the following afternoon, the kids were at it again (yes, I know, they have JUST discovered Monopoly). I remembered that I had a few more shots left to finish the roll of Agfa APX-100 in my Leica M3. I took an incident reading off my daughter's face, and fired away.

Leitz Summar

Here are a couple of ordinary shots with a 1934 vintage uncoated Leitz Summar 50mm lens. One was taken with a leica IIIF and Plus-X film, the other with an R-D1.

Perhaps you can tell one from the other. But for me, they both show off the lens' character beautifully. And they look pretty close.

I love how the RD1 files do not look artificial or digital. I guess the term used to be 'plasticky' but nowadays, after you spend megabucks on a digital body, I think the term is "3D."

Sometimes

...I just look at the play of colors, or the way the afternoon sunlight glints off the leaves. Nothing special, nothing in particular, I just look. And for some reason, my eye just keeps getting drawn to a little nub when a leaf once was.

Parting Shot

The Minolta Autocord is truly a fine camera. The legendary lens is sharp. The innovative loading kept the film plane flat, a groundbreaking departure from the Rollei design. And despite its age and cosmetics, mine was a well-functioning sample. Cosmetically, it is a bit rugged, but with my hippie strap, it looked totally cool.

It was simply a matter of the right camera at the wrong time. I tried to content myself with scans from the lab, since my dedicated film scanner is only for 35mm. My enlarger in the darkroom is a Leica Focomat, also for 35mm.

I toyed with the idea of getting an inexpensive flatbed scanner. but I am afraid I will just constantly dismay at not realizing the full potential of the larger negative. This has been a nagging problem, even with 35mm. When I shot some velvia slides recently, I was shocked to see the disparity between what I saw with the loupe and projector, versus the scanned image on my computer screen. And this was with a dedicated film scanner.

A new enlarger? I think the direction I am heading is away from that.

I am happy, however, that the person who bought the camera is a photography teacher in Massachussetts. This camera deserves to be put to good use. And if a student or two gets hooked by this little old wonder, so much the better.

A Cozy Place

The Quest

Photography is an expensive hobby, everybody knows that. Why is that, when, with the advent of digital, a good film SLR and zoom or good standard lens can be had for very little money nowadays? Even DSLR prices have come down significantly. With digital, you don't even have film and processing costs. Why then?

The problem lies when the hobby turns into an obsession with gear. I have seen it happen over and over again. It is not a new phenomenon either. I remember, years ago, when I would read incessantly about which were "the best" lenses for XXX camera brand, there was always an oldtimer who proferred the admonition to "shoot with what you have" and that the search for the "best" lens was an expensive, futile quest, often leading back to where you started. Of course, I did not listen. I don't think anyone does. This circuitous quest is, I think, something most have to go through themselves.

The first stage is usually an obsession with brand. Canon makes the best digital sensors. Leica makes the best lenses. And so on. Everyone knows that, right?

At least back then, everyone started with a Pentax K1000. Then "upgraded" (a bad and expensive word) to Canon or Nikon. From there, the allure of German makers Contax/Zeiss and Leica.

The second stage is an obsession with specs. Camera specs. "This is a good entry level camera, then you can upgrade to a midlevel Nikon F100 once you decide what features you need." Well, what features do you really need? I know I need a shutter speed dial, an aperture adjustment ring, a shutter release, and ok, maybe even a meter. But at that stage, I spent hours poring over camera specs, to see if I should spend a little more and get mirror lock-up and 1000 zone matrix metering instead of "only" 200 zones. Inevitably, this is the stage of reading magazines like Pop Photo and Shutterbug.

So now you've got your camera and a decent kit zoom. Then you realize that your vacation photos don't look like those pictures in the National Geographic. You read more, this time on the internet, since the guys at Pop Photo favorably endorsed your kit zoom (what don't they?). Of course! I need a new lens. I need a "pro zoom." This is typically "fast" with an f/2.8 fixed aperture, covering the focal lengths I need from wide to telephoto, and weighs at least a pound.

Ok, now we are talking. At this stage, you now realize that you cannot possibly travel or go on a shoot without "covering" every possible focal length. So you buy a similarly fast superwide zoom, and an even heavier telephoto zoom. So now, you would have, typically, something like a 16-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and 80-200/2.8 (of course with IS or VR) in your bag.

You start experimenting with low-light shots and realize your pro zoom doesn't quite cut it. You need a fast prime lens. You start with a 50/1.8. Then another "upgrade" to a 50/1.4 for "those times when it is f/1.4 or no picture." You will hear this again and again in this "quest."

Wow, the narrow dof really makes a difference. You figure you need something similar for portraiture. An 85/1.8 is within your budget. Then an 85/1.4 or better yet, if you shoot Canon, an 85/1.2. For times when it is f/1.2 or no picture...

Same thing with wides. A 35/2 for shooting street. Then a 35/1.4. For indoors - a 24/2.8 becomes a 24/2, becomes a lusting for a 24/1.4.

Sharpness is king at this stage. The end-all and be-all. You are obsessed with MTF's. You spend hours looking at photos online, to see which lens is sharpest. 100% crops of corners.

Some will go on to a larger format.

You are taking pictures, mostly of the same subject, not because of the subject itself, but just to compare the lenses you have.

Then you figure, changing between the myriad lenses in your (now really heavy) bag can be a hassle. And what if the camera breaks? You need a "back-up" body. Typically, you also justify this by using different film in that body - maybe faster, maybe black and white, maybe both.

And there you are, with your big heavy bag full or pro equipment, shooting photos of your kid in the backyard. At least you have a back-up handy.

At this point in the game, you start wondering - "What makes Zeiss and Leica so special (read expensive)?" You decide you need an adapter, and go get some german lenses for your canon.

Then you find yourself intrigued by the whole "mystique" surrounding rangefinders. Usually this is because, at this level of being a "serious amateur" you start reading photography books. No longer the "how to" books you graduated to from Pop Photo. No. Now you are obsessed about the "decisive moment." You decide you need to be invisible and get more connected to your subject.

You have reached the zenith of technical gimmickry, and now you are on the downward spiral of ascetism. You shun lightmeters, preferring to guess the exposure by eye. You carry a cheatsheet in your pocket. Nosirree... just give me the basics - aperture, shutter speed, wind lever, focus and shutter release.

You wet your feet with a compact 35mm rangefinder. The Canonet GIII QL17 and Yashica GSN are popular choices. Not only is your photo sharper than your kit zoom, it may even be sharper than your heavy pro zoom. You are liberated by the experience. The simplicity.

"How can this 30 year old camera make sharper (usually 4x6 drugstore) prints than my plastic wondercamera (with the 1000 zone matrix meter and all-important mirror lockup)?" You get hooked on vintage equipment. They are much, much cheaper than your pro SLR equipment. Ebay becomes your friend. So does the mailman.

After you have gone through every possible cult fixed lens RF, you now decide you need interchangeable lenses. Russian Zorkis, Feds, and Kievs come next. The lenses are good! The bodies are unreliable. You move on to modern Voigtlander Bessas and vintage Canon rangefinders like the P. At this stage, you are reading internet sites like Karen Nakamura's and Dante Stella's, discovering the vintage cameras.

You find like-minded people online. "I am not alone in my gear lust." You buy and sell with your new friends. You feed each other's vices.

You spend a bit more money on your lenses. You progress from FSU to vintage Canon and Nikon RF lenses. Oh... the quality construction! The beautiful glass. Maybe Leica is better? An older LTM does not cost much more...

You hold your first leica lens. "Oh my God, now I understand."

You start accumulating standard lenses: Summitar, Summar, Elmar, Summarit.

You get an old Leica body - an inexpensive Barnack. Another "Oh my God" moment.

35's and 90's follow. And viewfinders.

Now you need a modern, reliable body. An in-camera meter "may" be useful, you concede. You are getting tired of the squinty finder, and accessory VF's. A bigger, brighter viewfinder is needed. And easier film loading than the barnack. A bessa.

From there, you decide to spend a bit more money, but Leica is too much. Best bang for the buck - CV lenses. More recently, another slightly more upscale choice was added - Zeiss Ikon.

From here, if you choose to continue on this quest, there is only one way to go: the Leica M.

You may start with an "inexpensive" lens, typically 50mm Summicron, to mount on your Bessa or other. Maybe an older collapsible or rigid. Then a more modern formulation. You "definitely see" the difference in your photos. The clarity, the "glow," the rendering, how it paints with light. The magic.

Or you may decide to start with an M body for your fast accumulating FSU, CV, and Canon/Nikkor glass. You probably start with an older one - M3 or M2. You hold your first M body. You wind the lever. You click the shutter. You almost pee in your pants.

"Oh my God."

From there, it gets bloody, $$ wise. Different focal lengths - 15, 21, 24, 35, 75, 90. You are hooked. You are shooting in low light, hand holding at obscenely slow speeds. You need faster - Summilux or faster. "For when you need f/1.4." Maybe a newer M body. More reliable, right? The older M becomes the back-up.

Hopefully, all this time, you have been shooting, and shooting. Learning. Improving your craft. You have also been honing your darkroom/photoshop/printing skills. Your photos are well-received, sometimes even admired. You may have even sold a few prints.

And then one day, it hits you. You wake up to the realization that your multitude of gear actually has been getting in the way of your development as a photographer. Much the same way as it would if Pete Sampras used a different tennis racquet every day. Or Schumacher drove a different car on each race.

"Less is more."

"You need to be one with your camera."

Zen.

So... you need to pare down your equipment. To keep only the best. The ultimate. But which one is "best?"

Another realization: there is no "best." Best is what works. What you are comfortable with. Which gives you the result you are after. Consistently. And since you have the luxury of being an amateur - best is what is fun, what gives you satisfaction.

Now you are shooting photos for what is IN the photo. You realize that the subtle differences between lenses that (usually only) you and your equally geeky online camera friends noticed are not really what is important. A lot of times you (and they) can't even tell these apart.

What I consider my "best" photo so far is a beautiful photograph. A lot of people admire it online, and even more love the print. Lovely light, beautiful subject, good composition. A case of being in the right place at the right time. Something non-repeatable.

I shot it with a plastic camera and a $60 zoom. With cheap ISO 200 drugstore brand color film. Processed in a 1-hour lab, scanned and converted to black and white on photoshop.

Many people assume I used a Leica camera and lens, and wax poetic... I have been too amused to correct them. I remember that as a lesson in what is actually important, and what are just foolish pretensions of gear fetishists.

A good photo is still a good photo even if shot with "lesser" equipment. Conversely, a poorly composed picture cannot be saved by a $2500 Asph lens. Try it - let your ten year old son shoot with your leica's (get insurance) and shoot with a Canonet. If your pictures suck, guess what, YOU suck.

You are still shaking your head? "A good photographer will make a better photo with better equipment" is another thing you will read on the internet. Usually on Leica forums. Ok, ask yourself:

a) Are you that good?
b) If you answered "yes" to a), do other people think you are good or is it just you?
c) Do you think Winogrand's photos would look better if, instead of an M4 + Canon 28/2.8, he used an MP + 28 Summicron Asph? How about if HCB used an Asph Lux instead of his collapsible summicron? Or Capa with a millenium Nikkor 50/1.4? Can you distinguish which shots Ralph Gibson took with a pre-ASPH vs ASPH Summilux, and if so, is one better than the other?

If you think "yes," you need to renew your subscription to Popular Photography.

Or maybe you are shaking your head because you think you are immune to this "disease?" A simple test: Ask yourself, if you won the lottery tomorrow, what one camera and lens would you buy? Enough said.

So what stage in this vicious cycle are you in? Are you coming, or going?

Of course, the usual disclaimer applies: YMMV. Your experience may be different, especially if you have will power and self-discipline. But I have seen this happen (to different degrees) enough times and at different levels to believe that this must be some rite of passage. After all, I don't think any "serious amateur" I know is still shooting (only) with his first camera (and has not "upgraded.")

A fun but expensive quest. And we didn't even get started with digital!

Just remember, like the holy cup, the "Grail" is within. YOU make the photos. But of course, you won't believe me. You will need to figure it out for yourself. I told you so.

PAW = Pain in the Ass in the Winter

I think this whole Picture-A-Week (PAW) thing is paying off, mainly as an incentive to get off one's duff. Especially now that it is very cold out. Talking about cold, yesterday I made plans to head out early this morning. I was planning to walk along the beach, which should be quiet and deserted this time of year. The kids were coming along, and I had charged some NiMH AA batteries for the Olympus for them to use.

However, it would not be so. Early this morning, the furnace conked out. We huddled in the family room around the fireplace, and with a couple of space heaters blasting away. After the service guy fixed it, we were just too frozen to go anywhere.

Later today, I went around the outside of the house to open the faucets and drain the pipes. There's a stream running around our property, about a couple of hundred feet into the woods from our house. It was partly frozen, and the ice was reflecting the sunlight very nicely. I had been browsing through Paul Caponigro's Masterworks from Forty Years this weekend, and I have to say, your frame of mind does influence what your eye tends to see.

So, there I was in the woods, in my pajamas and a heavy coat, in 20F weather. If not for the extra oomph of incentive to shoot this week, I would have had my feet up beside a nice cozy fire, like a normal person on a cold Sunday morning.

Personally, I think Caponigro's best photographs of New England were the ones he took around his home in Redding, Connecticut. I wonder if he shot those in his PJ's?

Click HERE to see the photos

First R-D1 Photos

I am having a lot of fun with the R-D1. So far, I have only used the 35mm Summicron ASPH on it, as a normal lens.



It's lowlight performance has been excellent - rangefinder handholdability and ease of focusing plus good performance at high iso. This shot was taken at iso 800, f/2 and 1/30. I like the results. Film-like, for lack of a better word. It does not scream digital.


Plus I get to play around and get images that I never would have gotten with film (duh, since I shoot black and white film 99% of the time).

Epson R-D1 First Impressions

No, I just can't justify spending an obscene (to me) amount of money for Leica's new M8.

As luck would have it, I came upon a very lightly used Epson R-D1 from an RFF member who was "upgrading" to the M8. Even the R-D1 was much more than I wanted to spend back when it was introduced a couple of years ago. Well, not anymore. Yes, refurbs of the R-D1 go on sale from time to time online at the Epson store (and they sell like hotcakes). However, the R-D1 had a known QC problem, and I had always been wary that refurbs were the once defective units sent back to Epson for one reason or another. In Darwins view, not the fittest.

Well, anyway, thanks to the R-D1S and now, the M8, very good used samples of the older RD-1 can be had at moderate prices. And since these have been "tried and tested," this may be a way to obtain one with less risk of getting a lemon. And if you are lucky, you may just get one that is almost new. Plus some goodies like extra ($$$) batteries and memory cards. Of course, if you are not the type who has to have the latest toy on the block, then it is always nice to have someone else eat the initial depreciation. As Gene Wilburn so eloquently put it, ahh... "the joys of bottomfeeding."

The difference between the R-D1 and the newer R-D1S? Mainly an updated software... a free download from Epson UK (mine came with the updated v2 software). The older R-D1 also had the advantage of having the RF adjustment screws easily accessibly simply by removing the hotshoe. With the R-D1S, the top plate has to come off. A daunting affair.

Back on topic, my R-D1 came this week. Cosmetically, it looks brand new. Funtioning perfectly, with no misalignment of the finder. Initial tests showed a few dead pixels, but after running the dead pixel mapping function in the new software, these were history.

I have been very, very impressed so far. It feels well-built, with a substantial magnesium alloy body. The rubber surfaces grip well. The funky analog guages actually work very simply, and with one glance, you have all the important information (WB, Image Quality, exposure left on card, and battery charge) on hand. ISO is adjusted like film speed on the Bessa, by lifting an outer ring on the traditional shutter speed dial. The dial also incorporates exposure compensation settings for when you are shooting in AE mode.

Here are the things that make the R-D1 unique, and appealing to me:

1. You can go about shooting all day without ever having to go into a single menu.

2. The thing I hate most about using digital is the small viewfinders and godawful tunnel vision that plague DSLR's other than the fullframe Canons. With the Epson, it is no different than shooting with a Bessa R3a - a bright, lifesize 1:1 finder.

Only the area of the framelines have changed to accomodate the 1.5x crop. My 35mm Summicron is now an effective 50mm. My 50mm is a portrait lens. I don't use the 28mm focal length much aside from the excellent ones built into my Ricoh GR-1 (and GRD), but that would give, roughly, a 40mm.

This is what I miss most, since 35mm is my favorite focal length. To get it, I would need a 24 or 25mm lens, and an accessory viewfinder. I have not tried this combination yet.

3. The R-D1 feels and handles like a rangefinder film camera. That means I can reliably shoot it handheld at 1/15 sec, I can use my M- and LTM- lenses, I can carry it all day without being bulky, obtrusive, or intimidating. In short, I have the same pleasurable rangefinder experience, with the "advantages" of digital.

4. All would be for naought without the results. True, the R-D1 has only 6 megapixels (funny, most people thought that was enough last year), but the results are very nice. Black and white shots have a smooth range of tones. Not too contrasty or oversharpened. Not "plasticky" or unnatural. To my taste, it gives results similar to newer, less grainy film emulsions like TCN or Neopan.

These past few days, I have been using the R-D1 almost exclusively with the LCD flipped closed, and in a leather halfcase (in case I get the urge to chimp) borrowed from my Hexar RF. I can also do away with the case, and attach a Photoequip Unigrip with no need of modifications.

It was not long before I forgot that I was shooting with digital. Until I had to crank up the ISO from 200 to 1600 between shots. Nice.