Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My 2 euro cents, I,m an amateur in the french sense meaning i like what i,m doing. So for me the pleasure a particular method gives is very important since it,s my hobby. It could be the blindingly fast (and razor sharp)focusing of an f5 with a new 80/1.4, just holding a noctilux (or nocturnal)and thinking wow this is a f1! or performing any sort of processing wizardry to get the results. In my line of work we have many ways of doing things and when somebody asks " how shall i work this?" ,most of the time the answer would be. whatever makes you happy Also lets not forget these days it,s possible to shoot the constellations hand held with a small vcr at 40 times digital zoom.I doubt that a noctilux would even produce an image recognizable as stars under those conditions.I,ll try tonight though just for the heck of it. Dont get me wrong I love the Leica but there are so many excellent systems . Look at the F.Lanting books shot with big Nikon,s I think it would be awesome to play with those big hunks of glass. So it boils down to budget.The more you spend the more you play. I know the pictures wont get any better though. have fun simon - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Trade off between film and lens speed > > Me: > >> Sometimes with available light pictures, we have a choice of using an > >> f/2-ish lens and fast film, or a very fast lens and slow film. > >> Ted--and anybody else--how do you deal with these trade-offs? <<< > > Ted: > > Hi Peter, I don't think about them and never have. If I'm shooting in > > near darkness and very low light situation I use the film that will > > fill the bill of the assignment and if that means pushing 3200 to 6400 > > or a stop higher I just do it. Or if I've thought I might use a slower > > film if I happened to have some in the bag, the chances of that are > > usually very slim. I'd give it a try. > > Ah, OK. The way you praised Steve's use of slow film with the Noct, I > thought perhaps this was something you yourself did regularly. > > > Sometimes with available light pictures, we have a choice of using an > > f/2-ish lens and fast film, or a very fast lens and slow film. > > Ted--and anybody else--how do you deal with these trade-offs? <<< > > > When I got the Noctilux I never considered any others after, no matter > > how many wiggilies per mm they cut. I don't take pictures to consider > > the wigglies per mm, I take pictures to make a living and get more > > assignments or photo projects > > Actually, I'm not all that concerned with wigglies per mm either. In > Steve's picture, the girl in the center looks like her eyes are about to > pop out. It's the combination of her expression and the way the eye is > rendered on the film. And the general texture of that shot is lovely. I > thought to myself, "Wow, I'd like to be able to get that effect in an > available light shot." So I just wanted to explore whether it was the > lens or the film that was most responsible. > > Also, for those of us who have ordinary incomes and are not professional > photographers, Leica equipment is very expensive. I buy used, and I've > got a couple of lenses that are about my age. They work, but I could do > better. The question is whether a Noct is worth it for me, or whether a > 50 Summilux would be sufficiently higher quality than my Nikkor to justify > the price. > > Actually, once I get shooting, my methods are pretty straightforward. > It's 1/60 or even 1/125 at whatever f/number exposes right until we get > down to f/2.8. Then I open the lens wide, and then go with whatever > shutter speed works. > > > http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/charlie_xmas.htm > > http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/paula_harpo.htm > > > My immediate and first impression of Charlie is.... his eyes and face > > are out of focus as I see it on my screen. It appears you focused not > > on his eyes but somewhere on the lapel of his jacket. By the way that > > may not be the case in a real life print. > > > Paula is better from a focus point of where it should be and I like > > the shot.. Why? Hell I just like it as it's neat! > > I tried to focus on Charlie's eyes, but I may have missed slightly. > That's easy to do in that light with f/1.4. I've got the Leica 1.25x > magnifier on order for just this situation--turning my .72x M4-P into a > .9x will make focusing more sure. > > I do like the Paula shot, too. I guess that with all the sharpness freaks > around the LUG, I'm getting paranoid that if you can't see eyebrow hairs, > it ain't sharp enough. > > > Pete look at the picture, who the hell cares about the out of focus > > bokeh thingies as it's a damn fine photo, Paula and dog! That's the > > content and that's what 999.99999% of people look at.. the content! > > And does it give them a nice twitch in the gut because they see you're > > a very talented photographer at capturing nice human moments? Of > > course that's what they see. And that's what counts in the end. > > That's what it's all about for me, too--capturing human moments and > expressions. That's why available light B&W is my first love in > photography. Now, you want to see my favorite shot from that evening? > It isn't the sharpest either, but I love the way little Claire was > clowning with me, and how the reflections make you wonder who is where for > a moment. I can even straighten out the window edge if that will improve > things. > > http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/claire_surreal.htm > > Thanks again for the comments, Ted. > > --Peter Klein > Seattle, WA > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html