Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/24

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

Subject: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 11: All square
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)
Date: Fri Mar 24 21:49:07 2006
References: <44239069.3020802@nathanfoto.com> <1DB01619-257C-419B-853D-DBFBA83AD98A@mac.com> <44245D37.2060100@nathanfoto.com>

Nathan Wajsman offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] Nathan's PAW 11: All square


> I am still working out whether the way I photograph is different between 
> film and digital. Most of the images I have made with the Hasselblad have 
> been on tripod (the portait of Michiel's father-in-law is the only 
> handheld image in the PAW), so in theory it should be more deliberate, 
> with more attention paid to the composition etc. Whether that is the case 
> is for you guys to judge.<<<<

Naw Nathan,
Hell it doesn't make any difference in your shooting simply because the 
Hasselblad is just another camera bigger than 35 or digital.

Your eyes don't change because it's 2 1/4, you'll see the same great photo 
moments you've always seen and posted. You'll just be spending more money on 
film and developing-printing time.;-)

It in no way changes how you see. If you don't let it and think you have to 
do things differently because... "WOW I'm using a Hasselblad!"  Bottom line? 
Sooner, than later, you'll lose interest and want to get back to using a 
real man's camera! ;-)

When I was shooting Leica's and Hasselblads, some days I'd shoot all 35, the 
next I'd work with one hassy on the left shoulder and a 150mm lens, on the 
right shoulder another with the 250mm lens, and a Super Wide C hanging 
around my neck. :-) Heck I used them no differently than 3 Leicas, the only 
pain in the ass was running out of film faster! :-(

99% of the time I used Hasselblad it was hand held in the same manner as the 
Leica's without any thought of "gee whiz I better use a tripod for this 
bigger camera." Sure when I had to shoot a subject requiring a tripod I used 
a tripod. I also pushed the 2 1/4 film the same as 35 film, never occurred 
not to.

If I needed 800 Tri-x for the Hasselblad I simply set the hand meter for 800 
and shot away with never a mind it was 120 film or different camera.

Quite often the subjects of the assignment were similar in nature so why 
would I change my equipment handling manner? It just never occurred to me to 
make any changes in how I saw, what I saw or how I handled the cameras.

Eventually the Hasselblads went the way of the dodo bird and I picked up a 
couple of extra Leica bodies and lenses.

Hey when an editor would tell me I should shoot 2 1/4 or bigger on a 
particular  assignment because they might want to blow it up big. I never 
bothered, used the Leica's. When they raved about the material later I'd 
tell them it was all shot on a Leica. ;-) Some never believed I could get 
the quality from one of those dinky little cameras that I did. :-)

Have fun, because if you don't what's the point of doing it.:-)

ted





In reply to: Message from nathan at nathanfoto.com (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Nathan's PAW 11: All square)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Nathan's PAW 11: All square)
Message from nathan at nathanfoto.com (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Nathan's PAW 11: All square)