RE: [Leica] RE: AF & auto exposure

[Jim Laurel <jplaurel@microsoft.com>]

Jim,
I generally agree with your perspective here.  I must admit that 12 years of
using automated cameras has taken its toll on my photographic skills.  I
began using an M6 and R6.2 in part to strengthen my technique.  And it has
worked.  I am now generally getting better exposures with the M6 than with
my EOS1n.  This is because I'm a whole lot smarter than any 16-segment
matrix meter at determining the correct exposure for a given scene.  My
composition is starting to improve again.  At last, I am starting to really
think about photographs as I frame them and choose the exact moment, rather
than just whizzing away in program mode.

However, whether or not situations requiring AF are "very rare" for the
photograher depends on the shoot.  In the rafting shoot, I was able to leave
focus and exposure over to the camera, so all my attention could be
concentrated on the composition.  Getting the right moment is really tough.
That's why so many of the great documentary photographers have advocated
using hyperfocal settings with preset exposure -- because it frees you from
worrying about those things.  Capturing the right moment takes all your
attention.

As I said in a previous post, I learned on this rafting shoot, that you have
no choice but to have absolutely accurate focus every time.  Alot of great
white water exists in canyons, in shaded areas.  So, there you are with your
E100VS, handholding a 1:2.8/300mm lens at around f3.5-4.0 and 1/1000 from a
moving boat.  Under these conditions, for all practical purposes, there *is*
no DOF.

- --Jim

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brick [mailto:jimbrick@photoaccess.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:26 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] RE: AF & auto exposure


If you do not understand the science of photography, you will want a
computer programmer in Japan to form the image on your film.

If you do understand the science of photography, you will want to control
all aspects of forming the image onto your film.

This is why moving back and forth between Leica 35 and Linhof 4x5, is a
piece of cake.

People too often forget the basics of photographic science. They "think"
that they need AF when normal DOF will work better. They "think" they need
autoexposure, when a simple dumb meter will tell them far more than they
ever need to know.

Most of the "bells and whistles" that the EOS/F5/M9/etc. tout are sales
gimmicks. Someone who really understands the science of photography, knows
instinctively how to produce magnificent images of all subject matter, with
basic photographic instruments.

Look at all of the award winning View Camera, Hasselblad, Leica, etc,
photographers.

Autofocus is a good thing. For that "very rare" occasion that it could be
the difference between getting a usable image or not. I contend that this,
in reality, is indeed a rare situation.

I believe that the majority of successful professional
industrial/commercial/illustrative/fine art photographers still use the
science of photography to create the majority of their images. It is the
amateur photographers who do not understand photographic science, that
drive the "auto" photo Modus Operandi.

Computers are good, when used intelligently. Use them as an assistant, not
as the absolute. When we give up control of our basic knowledge, to a
computer, we have fallen for the marketers hype.

No thanks. I'll use the most basic equipment that I can get away with
using. That way I'm in complete control. Not some computer programmer in
Japan. If I make a mistake, it is my mistake. I won't be pointing fingers
and distributing blame.

My simple oratory is "Learn the science of photography. Apply the science
of photography. Control the making of your images." You'll be much happier
knowing that the work you produced, is actually your work.

Jim



At 06:52 PM 6/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Those car analogies have never made any sense to me. People, (boomers, 
>their parents and their kids) still queue and wait three years for a 
>Morgan. The fact that big US cars have lost their soul, size and shining 
>exuberance somewhere in the Seventies did not translate that well in market

>shares. Many people I know are ready to pay a high premium for an exc 
>Fifties US convertible, nobody I know is ready to pay a premium for an old 
>Toyota. So what ? So nothing ! Or, let us say that it would be a huge 
>mistake for Leica to loose its soul. I know you refute the idea of soul in 
>machinery. You'll therefore probably never understand why anyone would pay 
>a 15 year old Citroen 2CV more than what it was worth new. Not comparing 
>the Leica to the 2CV though: those analogies make no sense ;-)
>
>Alan