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

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 01:00 PM 4/16/99 -0400, you wrote:

>owned a number of Canons and, in fact, still work with a VI-T.  If
>anything, I should argue that the idea of "leica look" is comparatively a
>recent construction that is contemporary with the ascendency of SLRs--one
>that through its vagueness and subjectivity eludes exact
>definition--certainly no description that I've seen here or elsewhere
>adequately conveys any precise meaning (is the "Leica look" the cold fusion

You are probably right. Not SLRs, though, but modern lens design by Leica. 
The Leica look is there in the rangefinder lenses as well as the SLRs. It's 
a family resemblance. And it isn't precise, but when I introduce 
professional friends to Leica lenses, their positive reaction is the the 
overall performance of the lenses. Not the bodies, not the focusing. 
They're all SLR users, so the rangefinder focusing is actually a bit "in 
the way" because they're not used to it. But the universal praise for Leica 
lenses that I've experienced in this group can hardly be quantified, but 
it's there.

>of the camera world?).  I'll also argue, until someone presents me with
>contradictory evidence, that even the phrase itself--"Leica look"--is of
>comparatively recent origin.  As I go through my old editions of Morgan and
>Lester, I see discussions of the technical capacity of Lecia optics (these

Morgan and Lester. That's ancient history, isn't it?

>Within this context, I'd argue that few RF photographers of the 40s and 50s
>called particular attention to the optical quality of the lens as Eric
>seems to employ the notion.  Rather, they moved more or less promiscuously

Actually, the 40s and 50s are precisely the era when Leica lenses did not 
benefit from any technological superiority in lens designs. I seem to 
remember Marc pointing out they did not benefit like the Japanese industry 
from U.S. help in rebuilding. It wasn't until later that Leica lenses took 
the lead again with raw optical performance that they are know doing better 
than ever. So your conclusion is obviously correct, because there wasn't 
any advantage to any line optically back then. So people were free to 
interchange lenses based on preferences for individual performance 
characteristics. But we cannot put Nikon lenses on Leicas any more. So the 
times they are a changing - er - have changed.


>Instead, I argue, this generation of photo-journalists broadly established
>a body of work, most of which was made with RFs, that exhibits a unique
>style of photography that we now associate principally with Leica, but that
>was, in reality, an artifact of the RF- based technology at their disposal.

I think it has as much to do with extremely slow wide and long lenses 
forcing them to use moderate focal lengths with faster speeds. Back then 
50mm lenses were very popular for reportage. Gene Smith complained about 
having to use a 28mm 5.6 (or was it f/8?) lens for indoor available light 
shooting, thus the birth of the phrase - "Whatever light is available."


>All of this is to say that if RF constitutes one way of *seeing*
>photographically, then I shouldn't expect to see considerable difference
>among images composed using an SP, VI-T or IIIf (or M-3, for that
>matter--though here's where the question of framelines becomes interesting).

Yes, right. Notwithstanding my point above, I concur.


>signify if juxtoposed against the un-Leica (ie: SLR);  but I'll stand by

But this is incorrect. Leica SLRs are very Leica-like.

>the main speculation of my original post.  RF users must develop techniques
>for framing and focusing their images that SLR users need not employ.

Not framing. Anyone who doesn't frame their pictures for the best 
composition, regardless of whether it's an SLR or rangefinder isn't 
shooting for the best result. Focusing only in that using a rangefinder 
might slow one down because of the lack of focusing aids all over the 
viewfinder.


>This
>doesn't make SLR users inferior; I merely say that using an RF and an SLR
>engages different sets of cognitive processes, that one reacts to their
>respective visual fields uniquely, and that this has consequences for the
>final "look" of the photo.

While this may be true, 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. So why am I making a big deal out 
of this? (I have no life).

>Nevertheless, I propose that this notion of RF as a "way of seeing" is *a*
>way, not necessarily *the* way, to get at what we mean when we say it
>"looks" like it was done with a Leica.

And I'll end with, that is going to be just as subjective as what I'm 
talking about.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

My computer's sick. I think my modem is a carrier.