Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Suggested Leica Reading List- EQUIPMENT
From: Marshall Hunt <huntmc2@fuse.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:21:13 -0500
References: <B65FF4F7.32F6%howard.390@osu.edu>

Ah, the exuberance of youth!  Remember he died in 1962. 
People didn't use a wide-angle lens like that back then,
because (A) nasty distortion at the edge of the frame (B)
you would be whacked by a cane. Example: 1964 German photo
annual in only  2 out of 92 photos was a wide angle used to
get close, instead of for effect.  The LTM and M3 were set
up for 50mm as the widest frame.  The later M2 sold only
about one-third as many as M3. 

Martin Howard wrote:
> 
> Marshall Hunt related the following:
> 
> > "The worst enemy of the good picture is the unimportant
> > feature. ...You will immediately find that wherever you can
> > leave something off, the picture will always be improved,
> > never suffer...Question:How much can I leave out of the
> > picture...The step from the 50mm to the 90mm field of view
> > leads us to the essential, to a concentration on the motif.
> > The characteristic 90mm field of view to which the use of
> > this lens educates us will often make us change our camera
> > position, by examining the field of view through the
> > viewfinder... until the picture is perfect....This is why it
> > demands increased discretion from its user.  This is why I
> > have called it a teacher." He also mentions decreased depth
> > of field, small size, ease in isolating the subject from its
> > surroundings, ideal for portraits.........and then mentions
> > it can be used on the Visoflex II at infinity.
> 
> Oh, this is SUCH nonsense!!  As though the ONLY reason for using the 90mm
> was that it leaves out more than the 50.  And as though the ONLY way to
> leave out unimportant stuff in a picture was to use a longer focal length.
> 
> The problem with "uninteresting" stuff in pictures isn't that it's there,
> it's that it's TOO PROMINENT!  If you've got too much uninteresting stuff in
> a picture taken with a 50, the answer is probably to get closer, not
> necessarily to switch focal lengths.
> 
> Alternatively, switch to a 35mm or 28mm and get EVEN CLOSER: make the
> interesting parts LARGE and the uninteresting parts small.  Look at
> "Workers" by Salgado.  Lots of it shot with a 28mm.  You'd get nowhere NEAR
> the impact if it had been shot with a 90mm.  Switching to a 90 cuts context
> and often the interplay between the main subject and its context is what
> makes a good photograph.
> 
> The "discretion" he talks about above applies in no greater measure to the
> 90mm focal length than it does to any other focal length.  The whole passage
> above is characteristic of someone who's gained some shallow understanding
> of an issue, found a single working solution, and then proclaims that to be
> a universal truth.
> 
> Bah!
> 
> M. (There -- feel much better now that I got *that* out of my system ;)
> 
> --
> Martin Howard                 | It isn't an Information Superhighway,
> Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU   | it's an Information Railway. Only the
> email: howard.390@osu.edu     | barons control speech, not transportation.
> www: http://mvhoward.i.am/    +-------------------------------------------

In reply to: Message from Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu> (Re: [Leica] Suggested Leica Reading List- EQUIPMENT)