Re: [Leica] Landscapes

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

Hi Alastair,
Of your Japan photos, I think my favorite is probably that of the
schoolgirls photographing the deer, and I think I like it because it
suggests Japan as it is, not as the tour guides would have us believe: It's
a land of cherry blossoms, temples, formal gardens and sushi, but also of
pachinko parlors, Toyota 4WD Mega Surfs, golf courses and Poccari Sweat. The
Tokyo Tower images are probably my least-favorite, simply because I have
images very much like those (especially the view from the base, looking
upwards) and probably so do countless other visitors. In the case of my own
photo, I felt it was wanting because it conveyed no sense of place, time or
scale, and, aside from the fact that our eyes associate the blue background
with sky, there's no sense that we're looking up. As a purely abstract work,
I didn't find my image to be too compelling. These days, when I find myself
looking at a fairly conventional view of a famous landmark, I get a real
kick out of tossing in some unexpected element into the scene.

I love wide-angle lenses, particularly strong ones (including fisheyes), but
feel that these are some of the most challenging optics to use well, because
there's a tendancy to attempt to capture the whole of a place in a grand
(but visually weak and cluttery) panorama with obviously uneven
illumination. Nevertheless, I do own a 30mm fisheye for 6x6 and feel I ought
to see what happens if I haul this about as my only lens on a some
outings--so demanding of careful camera placement!

For landscapes, there's no question that I prefer the Hasselblad to the
Leica, because I like to compose on the much larger viewscreen, and favor
the waist level finder. But...I admit I got to the scene a lot more
refreshed when carrying the M-system, and if I could have only one system,
I'd go with the smaller gear.

What I look for in a landscape:
(1) Some sort of emotional appeal, negative or positive alike. I have made
many pretty images of scenes which I did not care for personally, and this
attitude shows up in the final image--a sort of beauty which goes to the
back of the eyeball--and no further.

(2) How to capture the mood on a small celluloid rectangle, using a limited
array of optics? Perhaps it turns out that the whole of the scene can be
summarized by capturing a single element. Snip away all elements which do
not contribute. I want a 110F or 120 Macro!

(3) Contrast levels! Everyone talks about wanting more contrast, but in
fact, some excellent color photos exhibit very little variance--maybe 1-1/2
to 2-1/2 stops! Careful composition, with attention towards surface textures
can really fool the eye in a most pleasing manner, as can the use of
contrasting colors, in place of differing brightness levels.

(4) Okay, I'm a sucker for praise, and have also begun leaning towards
images which are self-explanatory, though I admit a number of old favorites
will probably cause 85% of the population to go "Errr, ummm" but for the fun
of it, I hope to exhibit these sometime.

Style: I've been impressed by the caliber of works displayed by LUGers (I
love Tina Manley's child with scrawny dog picture!), but have personally
found that, when I attempt to incorporate someone else's style into my own
work, the results leave something to be desired, probably because I have
have captured only some of the more obvious superficialities.

Diverging from the topic somewhat:
For what it's worth, I've run across an interesting flatbed scanner which
includes transparency adaptor, for $150! Some mention is made of a 35mm film
carrier, but I've found no indication one way or the other as to whether
it'll do other formats as well. It's the Plustek OpticPro 9636T
(www.plustek.com). I hope to have a closer look when it hits CompUSA.

Jeff