Re: [Leica] Compositions and different focussing systems (was 75'lux focusing)

["Gareth Jolly" <garethjolly@bigpond.com>]

>Chandos said:
>
>>If this is plausible, then it make sense when Leica users claim that they
>>see something in Leica images that they don't see in Nikon or, say, Canon
>>images, and when SLR users dismiss this as nonsense.


Eric said:

>I reacted to say this is nonsense. Maybe he didn't mean optical
>differences, but the implication here is that there is no difference other
>than visual cues it was done by a rangefinder.

I have to say that I did not interpret Michael to say that focussing was the
only difference between a rangefinder and SLRs, when it came to influence on
composition.

> I stated that when people
>refer to the Leica look, it's much more than that. That the R line has the
>"Leica look" as well. It's a matter of what people mean by that phrase that
>caused the misunderstanding.


I certainly agree with you on this, but I think your original post took this
a step further.



I said
>>My personal tendency is not to greatly change the composition once I have
>>focussed.
>

Eric said:
>In this case, I could see how using a rangefinder would make a difference.
>But it's not anything that could be called "The Leica look." It's more like
>weakly composed pictures. What if the thing you're focusing on is at the
>edge of the frame? Too many picture are weakened by placing the subject
>smack in the middle.
>
>>My personal view is that a greater influence on composition is the fact
>>that, with an M series, you can see outside the frame of the shot you are
>>taking.  For myself, this leads to a far greater power of selection over
>>what is in and outside the image.
>
>How do you square this with the previous statement? Sounds like you're more
>sophisticated in your compositional skills than you implied in the earlier
>statement.


You've identified something which I skipped over Eric.  I said that for 3
reasons.

Firstly, you can get lazy.  Or I can.

Secondly, some pictures happen quickly.  You don't necessarily have the time
to recompose.  You are trying to catch a fleeting moment.

Thirdly (and this is probably more revealing about me than anything else) -
I become concerned with my Nikon about recomposing too far from the point of
focus.  This might simply be an illusion, but I am less concerned about this
with my Leica.

Now - no doubt there are a number of factors on composition that I am
jumbling together here which also influence the above.  The first is being
able to see outside the frame.  This enables me to recompose with the Leica
far quicker than with my Nikon.  The second is the excellent performance of
Leica optics - both in shots on wide apertures and in the bokeh.  It makes
you less concerned about the above.

>The problem with Chandos' post was he compared apples and oranges and I
>thought he was comparing apples and apples. What do I mean apples and
>oranges? He mentions Nikon and Canon, when they don't make rangefinders.
>They used to, and I submit those cameras (which are the contemporaries of
>many cameras in use today by LUGnuts) have the same "look" compositionally.
>Thus to call that the "Leica look" is inaccurate. But that never stopped
>anyone.


I agree that Michael tended to use Leica as a generic term for rangefinder
and Nikon and Canon as SLR manufacturers alone (which, as I understand it,
they are today).  But I took that as read and didn't take offence at it.

I also agree that the Leica 'look' (or an M look) involves more than
focussing and qualities inherent in rangefinders.  Obviously, much is to do
with the optics.

But, speaking for myself, I do identify something in the compositions which
seem to flow from the M series as part of the 'Leica look'.  In doing that,
I am not trying to denigrate Leica SLRs - it's entirely a personal reaction
involved in moving from a Nikon to an M6.

Eric wrote

> I would challenge anyone to show me which pictures
> that Sebastiao Salgado shot with his R6s and which he shot with his M6s.
> Unless they were in a magazine article that said what he shot with. You
> might get lucky with some photos, knowing he uses a 60 macro, but other
> than that, a 28 is a 28 in the right hands. Any differences are going to
be
> subtle, and not reliably determined. It would be interesting to see just
> what an objective test of people looking at his pictures would come up
> with. But I bet he'd not be interested.

Interesting point.   It might also be interesting knowing which photographs
of a small selection of Salgado photos were taken with Ms and Rs, then
comparing the compositional differences.

Of course, examining shots with a 28mm R vs M would be to way to test
Michael's thesis - given that the 28mm extends to the full frame of an M and
therefore eliminates that variable.  Have to say, though, that it would be
bordering on impossible to determine the differences.  Something you can
probably only speculate on when you're doing the composing I suspect.

>So why am I making a big deal out  of this? (I have no life).


Must be me as well then.

Gareth