[Leica] Re: Leica Sex

["M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" <meb@goodphotos.com>]

I wrote:
> > I didn't shoot this as 'art' but as documentary shots that a couple wanted.

to which Steve LeHuray asked:

>To me the bigger question, since you were hired to do the
>"project" (don't we love that term?), did the "client" ask for dark, fuzzy
>pictures?

Actually, this is exactly what they wanted from this "project" (job, 
assignment, task, shoot, session, whatever).
We went over several examples of what they were looking for well ahead of 
the time. Everything that they showed me as an example that they liked best 
was high grain, high contrast, B&W and available light.

Yes, I could have used Colour Neg and setup my PMC studio lighting with an 
RB67, but the location was tight and spontaneity would certainly have 
suffered from the "Cerclunk/POP, whine, shoopsnick, zipzip" each time I 
made an blinding exposure and had to re-cock the shutter and advance the 
film. We also would have ended up with something far more graphic, in that 
studio lit coulour images would have had to be retouched to remove every 
blemish and blush spot or I'd have had to have a cosmetologist on site to 
touch up any such unattractive aspects on the subjects body itself and then 
had to pose them so as not to smear the makeup. Would have looked far more 
unwieldy and most likely would not have been representative of "them" in 
their minds. (Not to mention, I have NO experience in posing or 
choreographing two other people in such activities.)

As it was I chose the Leica with a moderate wide angle lens, high speed B&W 
no flash and I was able to just stand aside and quitely 'snick, zip' 
without interrupting them at all and the B&W covers up the vast majority of 
'defects' that subjects immediately pick up on when they see their images 
for the first time. (At least this is true with normal portrait work in my 
experience. Soft light is preferable to most subjects to harsh reality.) 
The elastic mark from the female's stockings still stand out and I admit 
that this is something that I should have tried to address. Still the marks 
aren't a natural 'defect' so she seems to have over looked them.

(I should note here as well, these are fairly low res scans from the proof 
prints on my very cheap "Info" brand $30 scanner. I was 125/2 but the 
proofs are sharper within the shallow DOF than they appear online.)

Thanks for the comments Steve.

Carpe Lumen,
Michael E. Berube