Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug, There are two images I didn't see at first that I have to put into my favorites list, even surpassing the two I mention below: "Northern Hawk Owl fledgeling" and "Bullock's Oriole" ( both on your Ordering page, but the former seems to be missing from your Birds pages). WOW. Astonishingly beautiful. And one was even taken with the Nikkor. :) Take a look at these LUGgers, if you haven't seen them already: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/NHOW.HTM http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/BUOR.HTM http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/GRASS.HTM http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/INBU.HTM Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Honemann [mailto:danh@selectsa.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 1:57 AM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: RE: [Leica] lenses suited for b&w vs. color > > > Doug, > > Interesting observations. I would have guessed just the > opposite, but that's probably due to the subject matter I shoot > in b&w vs. color. I use the former (tri-x or delta 400) for > candids, on the street and indoors, and the latter (velvia or > provia f 100) for landscapes and nature. I want the slides razor > sharp, to the point where I'd prefer seeing every blade of grass > and every drop of dew on each blade. But I don't mind the candid > b&w prints being a bit soft; I don't mind if skin blemishes and > wrinkles don't show up. :) > > I was just having another browse through Winogrand's _Man in the > Crowd_ and noticing how grainy and soft many of the images are, > and how I don't care one bit. What is there is an amazing tonal > separation--blacks are _really_ black, and whites incredibly > bright. His use of the 28 in crowded city streets lends a depth > to the photos that has my eye overlooking graininess, softness, > and edge distortion. > > And of course it helps that he's a master of composition with an > incredible instinct for the decisive moment. > > In the color/nature arena, your images are gorgeous and stand > with the very best. The "Submerged Log" is a lovely image, but > my favorites of yours happen to have been taken with Leica glass > (sure, you could take the labels away and I probably wouldn't > know the difference, and it could very well just be > coincidence--but let's pretend <g>): "Denali National Park, > Alaska" (purple grasses) and "Indigo Bunting" are simply > incredible. Although I have to admit the "Dwarf Dogwood" shot > with the 50/2 Nikkor-H is plenty sharp, too--and beautiful. > > Dan > > > Me experience with weaker lenses is that they may be marginally > > acceptable for color, especially where the photo is more about > > color than about image detail, but with B&W I can't hide the > > lens' faults behind pretty colors. > > > > The old 300mm Nikkor-P is a good example. It had very noticable > > lateral chromatic abberation which I could hide with > monochromatic images: > > > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/HBIRD.HTM > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/SUBLOG.HTM > > > > With B&W it was much more difficult to hide the color fringing > > because monochromatic photos often look drab and lifeless as B&W, > > while B&W photos (mine, anyway) had to rely more on detail and > > contrast to be successful. > > > > Doug Herr > > Sacramento > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt >