[Leica] Contrast WAS IMG: PAW 35 dlridings

[hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)]

Daniel, firstly I absolutely agree with you that you shoot with what you 
have with you.
I would love to accompany you shooting film along one of your stylish 
country paths.  Not meaning to nit pick. Sharing photos and
discussing them is for me, one of the best LUG activities.
You may know that I am very much an advocate of the most modern and 
contrasty Leica lens formulations. For me their ability to
defeat veiling glare in back-lit shots is a very positive quality. Yes I 
know the Elmars LTMs are revered, being associated with
some huge talents and exciting photographic history. I was just looking at 
your shot in my mind's eye and evaluating whether I
thought the Elmar's rendition added to the mood of the shot (for my personal 
taste). I'd be pleased to shoot that one sparkling
sharp with deep shadows and clear detail in the shadowed areas, for example.
I see what you mean on the pic of Ewa. Is she beseeching the heavens for 
rain for her garden??
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/Vic/MV27.jpg.html>
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/Vic/MV29.jpg.html>

Cheers
Hoppy
 

-----Original Message-----
Subject: [Leica] Contrast WAS IMG: PAW 35 dlridings

G Hopkinson wrote:
> Daniel, charming scenery. You haven't entirely sold me on the old Elmar, 
> except maybe the shot of the curtained window. Lovely
> subtle tones work well there. Do you prefer the softer contrast and 
> veiling for the atmosphere in the contre-jour bicycle shots? 
> Cheers
> Hoppy

Such philosophical questions you ask!

I never thought of it that way. I don't walk around with a lot of 
equipment so it is rarely the case that I use one lens over another 
because I "prefer" it. It is usually just what I have with me. I always 
have the Leica IIIf with me, no matter what. Even my wife notices if I 
get into the car and she doesn't see it. She'll make a remark that I've 
forgotten something.

I use the various stuff because I still have a childish fascination for 
things photography. Never really grew up :-)

But ... now I'll get philosophical ... I do prefer low contrast to high 
contrast. I can always add contrast, but it is hard to take away. I 
don't have a comparable shot from this week, but if you look in my shoebox:

http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/Shoebox/2007v35/07v35-0015.jpg.html

There's one of Ewa. It's not even a high contrast scene. But the 
background is almost gone to black.

That was a higher contrast rendering Nikkor (28mm AIS).

The most modern Leica lenses I have are from the 1970's, so I can't say 
much about them.

But it just dawned on me. I have a similar shot taken at the same time 
of the day on the same path:

http://www.dlridings.se/paw/2007/13.html

I wouldn't say that a modern (17-55 Nikkor) lens does so much better.

There are certain situations that are simply going to wipe out on you. 
Your choice is not in lenses, but whether or not you take the shot.

I take the shot.

Best,
Daniel