Re: [Leica] Four new PAWs

[Karen Nakamura <mail@gpsy.com>]

>It would appear that I'm breaking some unwritten rule here, but 
>let's pretend that you've been shooting PAWs for 2.5 years... ;)

All right, a comment from Martin! My life is complete. No more photos from now!

>I like the still-lives best, very nice contemplative mood.  My 
>favorite is the window shot, you're right, the tonality of the film 
>is great.  This photograph 'works', although I can't quite put my 
>finger on why.  After looking at it for a long while, I noticed that 
>there appears to be a slight clockwise tilt to it.

Yes, I'm really puzzled at why this photo looks so differently. 80% I 
can attribute to the lens. It's also frame #2 on the reel, and frame 
#1 was destroyed in the developing process when the end of the film 
slipped off the reel. So maybe there was some funky chemistry also 
going on with frame #1.

>The other one (basket) has a slightly disturbing/busy background.  I 
>find my eyes scooting over towards the pile of wood all the time, 
>when they should be looking at that lovely range of tones in the 
>basket.

Hmm.. now that you mention it, I agree. Perhaps I'll burn the background more.

>The shot of the woman at the bottom of the page is the kind of shot 
>that I would take too and that I've come to discover doesn't work. 
>It's not a portrait and it's not an environmental portrait -- it's 
>something else.  The relatively shallow depth of field, the 
>half-figure, and the shooting position means that the person (in 
>focus) is completely disconnected from their surroundings (out of 
>focus).  As such, the background almost distracts more than it 
>supports the picture.  (In this particular picture, I keep on 
>finding my eyes seeking out the out-of-focus person behind the wall 
>on the right.)  You could use that to tell a story -- but in this 
>picture, that story isn't present.

Yes, I'm not happy with it too. The contrast is bad. Her expression 
is ... not period... it's an odd photo.

>
>
>I love the environmental portrait -- but they're tricky as hell to 
>pull off.  Your week 7 antiques dealer works, as does the week 3 
>construction worker.  Not that it's an environmental portrait, but 
>the week 6 doll collector is just freaky good (have you tried it in 
>B&W?)

I have to meet up with Mr. Doll Man. He's a regular at the antique 
circuits I frequent (which is where I pick up all these darn 
cameras). I'd really like to interview him to find out more about 
him. The photo has a million possible stories behind it, most of 
which seem dark. I'd like to believe that he's just an old guy who 
likes dolls.

>I disagree with you on the Meinecke guy shot: I prefer the left one, 
>because his face is not in such a contorted angle, but the right 
>shot is better framed.  A third shot combining the best qualities of 
>these two would be the winner.

I agree. I think I'll try to go back there for another shoot, but the 
second time around may take away from the naturalness of the first. 
Part of the problem was that I had brought my 35mm Jupiter, but 
didn't bring the viewfinder. So I was framing 35mm using just the 
50mm viewfinder and guesstimating. Next time, I'll bring the right 
viewfinder. :-)

>
>
>All these PAWs (yours and others) are teaching me a lot -- mostly 
>they teach me that the difference between a good photograph and a 
>great photograph is terribly small, that it's in the details, and 
>that to get the great photographs, you've got to shoot A LOT of film.

Yes, and a lot of frames of the same subject. I kick myself a million 
times when I have one good frame of a subject, but there's just one 
little thing that should've changed. I'm now trying to train myself 
to take at least 10 shots of everything, even in my street 
photography. It's hard and subjects start to get antsy around the 4th 
shot, but it's improving my photography.

Karen
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html