Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> ...but there are also others which I frankly do not understand: > http://www.heninger.org/gallery/2004/augsmattering/pages/ny2004_%2001.htm > http://www.heninger.org/gallery/2004/augsmattering/pages/ny2004_%2016.htm > http://www.heninger.org/gallery/2004/augsmattering/pages/ny2004_%2019.htm > What are you trying to convey with those? Sometimes tilt and unsharpness > serve their purpose, indicating dynamism and movement. But in the case > of these three, I really only get a sense that they were accidental > exposures. > > Please do not take it the wrong way, I really want to understand your > reasoning behind these images. No offense taken, and I'm glad you asked. Several of those in that gallery were shot in a different style than I normally shoot film. I've shot digital like this a bunch (more on that in a second). In essence, I was holding the camera vertically with a wide angle lens just above the knee. The camera, hanging from its strap and one finger on the shutter. Its like hipshooting only lower. I wanted to get a feel for what my M and Hexar could do at that level. Frankly, most were a bust, but I did like these for the dynamic feel they give. They were shot on the move, freely in an Egglestonesque manner. They represent a vignette of the larger scene in front of me, which I leave to some chance in what I get by not framing it properly. In fact, its very much like how I grew to learn to use the digital camera weaknesses as their strength - lag times, bad viewfinders, bad resolution and try to squeeze something different than perfect framelines and such. Make some sense?