[Leica] First Exhibit, Pictures from Burma

[petertresize at yahoo.com (Peter Tresize)]

First Exhibit,   Pictures from Burma

Thai On Clinton, a restaurant in the lower east side
of New York will be exhibiting 12 of 
my photographs from 16 August to 31 October.  It's my
first exhibit... 

I've followed the LUG  for some time now, and have
learned from others' experiences. Of the 12 photos in
the exhibit, most were taken with a Leica M6 or M7.
Depending on the lighting conditions and style of
photography, perhaps the equipment can be secondary to
the quality of the scene or subject, but as this is a
Leica forum, and I enjoy using the Leicas, I thought
I'd give some details of my experiences.

After progressing from point and shoot cameras, to a
sigma 28-200, to a Canon Eos3 with the 2.8L zoom
lenses, I've been happy to stick with the Leica M
cameras for the past few years, and since last year
have been using the Leica R for 100mm to 280mm for
certain trips.  I've chosen to use Leica lenses
because of the balance between sharp infocus areas,
with graphic out of focus areas. The contrast and
colour also seems better. In normal light, using 5.6,
I don't think I could always tell the difference
between my Canon and Leica images, but at wider
apertures and in difficult lighting, I'm much happier
with the results from the Leicas.

New Leica vs old Leica lenses:  For landscapes, crisp
details our to the corners of the image area are
appealing, but for portraits, I generally prefer the
older lenses. The main problem with the lenses I have
from the 60's has been flare issues. I like to shoot
into the light, while this is usually possible with
the current lenses, the older lenses are more prone to
have flare problems when shooting directly into the
light. The modern lenses' results, seem more realistic
and less dreamy. There has been much discussion about
sharpness etc, but essentially, it comes down not to
MTF charts, but if we're happy with the results of our
efforts. Perhaps the lenses pre asph, have the best
balance between sharpness and out of focus renditions,
but this is subjective and depends on whether the
subject is a person or landscape...

Noctilux: I've been using it a few years now, and it
is one of my favourite lenses. I have a summicron, and
appreciate it's focusing distance of .7 meter, light
weight, not obscuring the viewfinder, innocuous
appearance, great contrast and resolution for
landscapes,  but the Noctilux is able to translate a
scene into something more abstract. Perhaps this
result is not to everyone's taste, but as Gary
Winogrand said: "I photograph to see what things look
like photographed"  This is particularly relevant to
the delicate  image rendition of the Noctilux. At 5.6,
I can't see the difference in the results of the cron
or Noctilux, but at 1.0-1.4 it is clear. And the
difference between f1 and 1.4 or 2 in low light often
allows 1/30 instead of an unusable 1/15 or 1/8th. Edge
sharpness and vignetting in the right circumstance can
help accentuate the subject in the centre of the
image. The jumping cat was F1 at about 125 or 250th.
The young novice nun was F1 @30     The monks walking
was with an ND filter so F1 or 1.4 could be used. 

The 180 2.8 apo has become one of my other favourite
travel lenses lately, for landscapes and portraits
from a distance. It's small and light enough for
travel and handheld work, the results are great when I
do my part correctly. For telephoto scenes, the 180
2.8 and 280 f4 have given results I could never get
with my Canon 70-200 2.8 L  or 2.8 IS L.  It is not
fair to compare directly a Canon Zoom to a Leica
prime, but now most of the time, I would prefer to
lose the flexibility of the zoom, for the result of
the prime. In some circumstances I can see the use of
the zoom, but for now I prefer to use primes.
However.... looking at James Natchwey's great photos,
and having seen the film War Photographer, he does
beautiful work with his Canon L zooms, there's nothing
to criticize in his work because of lens choices,
whether zooms or primes...

I've found I like to use Fuji Astia colour slide fim,
there may be a Kodak equivalent, but I've tested them.
I found the Astia has a nice balance of colour,
without too much contrast. After scanning, it is
easier to add, than remove contrast. Scanning is an
issue now, as most labs I've contacted don't seem to
do traditional printing anymore. Slides are scanned
and then Lamda prints are made. I found Provia has a
blue magenta cast in highlights that are overexposed,
where Astia remains more neutral and balanced. Velvia
may be great for landscapes, but it's contrast is
harsh on skin tones. All good films, but just a matter
of selection for the subject matter.

I'm still learning, and happy to try new things.
Despite the trend towards digital, I recently bought a
Rollei TLR and have really enjoyed trying to use it so
far... a different aspect ratio, and the ability to
view on ground glass has been an interesting way of
perceiving the photograph about to be taken.

Photonet Folder    
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=609152&include=all

Web link to the restaurant (includes a map) :  
http://www.thaionclinton.com/   
photos and information in the events link


Thai on Clinton
6 Clinton Street
New York, NY 10002  
212.228.9388