The Leica as Teacher

[SiMPLiFY]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll soon be in the position of having one camera a single lens for a year when my MP and zeiss 50/2 arrive, though I'll admit to having ordered some porta alongside Adox cms 20! I have no experience of rangefinders or film, but plan on shooting street at night in my nearby city of manchester, and cant wait to make a start!

 

I hope you enjoy your new Leica! Perhaps we can help each other. I feel like a beginner since I have not picked it up or done darkroom work since 2008! I tested my camera today for accuracy and still need to develop the roll. I plan to begin my year on the 14th of August.

 

I hope you find

as inspiring as I have. I don't know if he's a member here but I find his work to be very poetic.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[myshkine]

This is a strange test. Photography has a lot to do with technical ability of course, but it is also catching the moment, creativity, inspiration, and very often luck. Imposing oneself a daily routine that resembles a military drill can bring all this? I don't think so. And BTW with all due respect I find the assertion that color can only be good for colorful countries a bit ridiculous to say the least.

[SiMPLiFY]

This is a strange test. Photography has a lot to do with technical ability of course, but it is also catching the moment, creativity, inspiration, and very often luck. Imposing oneself a daily routine that resembles a military drill can bring all this? I don't think so. And BTW with all due respect I find the assertion that color can only be good for colorful countries a bit ridiculous to say the least.

 

I agree with the creativity, inspiration and luck. I am also someone guilty of letting myself get so lazy that I have not picked up my camera for close to 4 years. I do need a year of drill to recall the skill and to get the technique so rote that it's out of my way. It will also serve as a reminder that it's important enough to me to make the time and the commitment to do it. If I exercise the muscles of actually using the camera, then hopefully I'll get back the passion and the eye I once had.

 

I personally prefer B&W. It's an opinion and you are free to find it ridiculous. I choose to focus on light and form with the exception of autumn, when the leaves glisten like jewels in the golden light, then it would be a sin not to use color. But this year, I won't.

 

I am submerging myself by choice. My only drill instructor is me.

 

Encouragement is appreciated. That is why I logged on.

[Scarlet]

If I exercise the muscles of actually using the camera, then hopefully I'll get back the passion and the eye I once had.

 

I make it a habit always to have a camera with me. On occasion it is only my telephone and as much as I dislike digital photos it is better than not having a camera at all. Mostly, however, I bring the TTL or the II. For instance, today I was in town to buy a garden hose and brought the TTL. Even took a picture.

 

Sometimes I just carry the camera around because I lack inspiration or I don't see anything that catches my interest. Still how could I know that before going out?

 

To paraphrastically corrupt Bilbo's excellent warning: "It's a dangerous business going out your door...there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” So better always bring a camera in case it turns out to be interesting.

 

/s

[SiMPLiFY]

Thanks Scarlet!

 

Bilbo Baggins! I often feel like a Hobbit so it was the perfect quote for me!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello 01af,

 

Could you explain something please:

 

I look forward to reading your Posts & I am sure I will continue to do so & continue to enjoy them. You generally have a good understanding of what you write about & a clear way of presenting your position. But: I don't understand the logical continuity of your Post this time.

 

I had said to Kathleen that: I had serendipitously found an APPLE (a 90mm lens) to learn photography w/. Your statement seems to be: If I had found a BATHTUB (a 21mm lens) instead, I would have learned photography just as well.

 

I don't see the continuity apples to bathtubs? Apples & bathtubs have many things in common, ie: Curvey lines & smooth surfaces. But in some ways they are different, ie: Some bath tubs weigh more than some apples & generally apples taste better than bathtubs.

 

Why would the serendipity that I found w/ a 90mm lens necessarily be repeated w/ a 21mm lens? Explain please.

 

It would appear that your line of logical continuity would be: Anyone can learn photography equally well w/ any lens. I have not found that to be the case.

 

What I said was: It was serendipitous that I had a 90mm lens to learn w/. It's a good lens to learn w/ & it teaches a lot. I further went on to say: W/ what I learned I went on to realize that the lenses for me were: Primarily a 35mm supplemented by a 135mm. I have not used a 90mm for years & said so.

 

Hello Scarlet,

 

Yes, A 90mm lens is harder to learn w/ (full frame).

 

Probably the easiest lens to learn w/ is a 35mm followed by a 50mm.

 

But, I was not telling Kathleen what I thought was easiest. I was telling her what I thought was best. Don't forget, Kathleen is like you: She is smart & eager to learn. That is why she is beginning this rigorous structure & doing it in B&W.

 

Doing things in B&W might even be more difficult than doing them w/ a 90mm lens.

 

Sometimes a harder to master teaching tool teaches you better. It sometimes also teaches you different things.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Photography has a lot to do with technical ability of course, but it is also catching the moment, creativity, inspiration, and very often luck. Imposing oneself a daily routine that resembles a military drill can bring all this?

Yes, it can, and it will.

 

 

I had said to Kathleen that: I had serendipitously found an APPLE (a 90 mm lens) to learn photography with. Your statement seems to be: If I had found a BATHTUB (a 21 mm lens) instead, I would have learned photography just as well.

If you leave out the apples and bathtubs then that's my statement indeed.

 

 

I don't see the continuity apples to bathtubs? [...] Why would the serendipity that I found with a 90 mm lens necessarily be repeated with a 21 mm lens? Explain please.

If you didn't think of apples and bathtubs then I guess the continuity would be easier to see. 35 mm and 50 mm are standard lenses—they are universal and hence, naturally fit many photographic opportunities. 21 mm and 90 mm lenses (on 35-mm format) both are non-standard lenses—there are more things you cannot do with them than those you can. That's why people often say things like, "I shoot 90 % of my pictures with the 35 mm and 10 % with the 90 mm/21 mm lens."

 

So when a non-standard 90 mm lens is all you have then you are forced to look for photographic subjects that match this particular lens, restrict yourself to these and ignore the others. To a degree, you can force your subjects into the narrow 90 mm framelines but in the end, the lens will always show in your pictures, the so-called "telephoto perspective" (which actually is a long-distance perspective). For some pictures, that's good, for others, not so much. You need to find those where it's good—which will sharpen your discipline and your decisiveness.

 

And the 21 mm lens is just the same, only from the other end of the spectrum.

[Scarlet]

I was not telling Kathleen what I thought was easiest. I was telling her what I thought was best.

 

But Michael, Kathleen has already selected her lens for the "project". Are you suggesting she should switch to a 90mm lens?

 

I agree with you though to the extent you say the more restrictive or limiting the lens the more challenging its use and the greater the learning curve. I'm always amazed to read posts here by newbie rangefinder photographers who have bought an M9-P with a Noctilux as their first Leica.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello 01af',

 

I specicifically used apples & bathtubs for clarity: Apples & bathtubs are similar to each other in many respects but different in others. Like the different seredipitousness quotients of the different focal length lenses I was referring to.

 

When you say: "35mm and 50mm are standard lenses - they are universal and hence, naturally fit many photographic opportunities." What you seem to be saying saying is: These are the lenses chosen by most people for a variety of reasons. Therefore: because people chose them: That "naturally" makes them fit many photographic opportunities.

 

?

 

Please keep in mind: Many of the reasons people have chosen to use 35mm & 50mm lenses & many of the reasons manufacturers have chosen to make 35mm & 50mm lenses have nothing to do w/ their "natural" ness in terms of the composition of "photographic opportunities". The reasons, to a great extent, have to do w/ manufacturing limitations & restraints historically present during the time period photograpy has been here. Photography is no different than the rest of the technological World. There is nothing more "natural" about using a spikey piece of metal to eat w/ than there is using 2 sticks.

 

The reason I recommended a 90mm lens for Kathleen was what I said: Rather than capturing a larger portion of what is in front of a person a 90mm lens removes part of the foreground. Removes part of what is above. It also takes away part of the sides.

 

It actually gives a person: Not the expanse of vision they see looking out of their dominant eye w/o moving their line of vision of a 35mm lens. Not the sharper majority of that scene like a 50mm lens. But rather: That major central core of that same total expanse as covered by a 90mm lens.

 

If you go to any major museum of the World & stand & look @ paintings from the artists's intended viewpoints you will see: Some paintings are done from the perspective of a 50mm lens. Some from that of a 35mm lens. But you will also see that many, not all, but many of the great paintings of the World by many of the great Masters of the World are done w/ the perspective of more or less a 90mm lens.

 

Sometimes less, in this case: Less of an angle of coverage, can be more.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[01af]

I agree with you though to the extent you say the more restrictive or limiting the lens the more challenging its use ...

Yes, definitely.

 

 

... and the greater the learning curve.

Not necessarily. Please note that Mike Johnston did not suggest any particular lens in his original proposal. He just said, one lens. If someone uses a 90 mm lens then more power to him ... or her. But he did not suggest that using a standard lens was fine and choosing a non-standard lens was even better. Using just one lens for a year already is a sharp restriction, so no need to make it even sharper by selecting a "difficult" lens. By the way, most people that I heard of who followed Mike's proposal used a 50 mm lens. Kathleen has a 35 mm lens, she wants to use it, and that's as good a lens to use for "the Leica year" as any other lens, period.

[LucisPictor]

Although I think that is an interesting approach and I admire his endurance.

But I also wonder why I should restrict myself so much.

 

The majority of my pictures show my kids. And I would kick myself if, just because I wanted to use "the Leica as a teacher", I missed a wonderful image of one of my kids which is no problem to take with a suitable lens.

 

I often carry too much around and I have realized that too many items in the bag can avoid shooting at all. But a combination of 28, 50 and 90mm (or similar, like 24, 50, 135) is the minimum that I would like to have.

[SiMPLiFY]

I have kids so I can understand what you're saying. They're all grown up now and scattered around the world. I don't think I would have wanted to miss school plays, birthday parties, vacations ... documenting the family milestones. They truly hated B&W so I had to use color.

 

Now I want to get back into my photography as a serious form of "self expression".

 

Michael recommended it for the young in his article. I also think it is a good exercise for us empty nesters who used to love it but then life happened.

[01af]

Therefore: because people chose them: That "naturally" makes them fit many photographic opportunities.

I disagree. Standard lenses do have something natural about them. Think of the extremes—say, an 18 mm lens and a 600 mm lens. They have very specific vistas, and you would never mistake a super-wide-angle shot for a super-telephoto shot or vice versa. Lenses in the middle of the range, however, have neutral vistas ... to the extend that some even feel they were "boring".

 

We might argue where exactly the "center of neutrality" is. Is it a specific point, or a certain range? And if the latter then does the range include the 90 mm focal length? After all, 90 mm is not 600 mm; it's not too far away from the usual suspects of what's "normal". A hundred years ago, photographers considered any focal length between once and twice the format diagonal as normal. For the 35-mm format, that would be the range from 43 mm to 86 mm ... but if so many people also consider a 40 mm or 35 mm as "normal" then we might just as well extend the range a little to the other end, to include the 90 mm too.

 

To me, "normal" lenses on 35-mm format are 35 mm, 50 mm, and 75 mm, with the range of 40 - 50 being the "normalest". The 28 mm is the first lens that is obviously wide, and the 90 mm is the first that is obviously long.

 

 

It actually gives a person: Not the expanse of vision they see looking out of their dominant eye without moving their line of vision of a 35 mm lens. Not the sharper majority of that scene like a 50 mm lens. But rather: That major central core of that same total expanse as covered by a 90 mm lens.

So you're suggesting a 90 mm lens because it's easier, rather than harder, to use?

 

 

If you go to any major museum of the world and stand and look at paintings from the artists's intended viewpoints you will see: Some paintings are done from the perspective of a 50 mm lens. Some from that of a 35 mm lens. But you will also see that many, not all, but many of the great paintings of the world by many of the great Masters of the World are done with the perspective of more or less a 90 mm lens.

Sure. But that's not reason enough to suggest it as the best lens to use for Mike's "Leica year". The best lens always is the one that someone wants to use. Just because you, in hindsight, feel the 90 mm was best for you, it doesn't mean it must be the best for anyone else.

[SiMPLiFY]

The directions say: "Pick a single-focal-length 50mm, or 35mm, or 28mm. It doesn't have to be a "good" lens—anything that appeals to you and that fits the camera will do"

 

I am one of those people who just wants to follow the directions.

 

I need to do this project at home. I've lived here for so long that I have I just quit "seeing it". Auto Pilot kicked in at some point. Like driving the same route day after day for years.

 

I thought the 35mm would be the most versatile for interior work as well as work outdoors. My life is pretty boring and monotonous so I hope I am able to "see the light" this year.

 

I start on my birthday ... 3 days to go! I'll be 52 and so will my camera.

[SiMPLiFY]

Johan took all of

at home. I just love his work! You can feel the love he has for this woman too. (wife - girlfriend)

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Scarlet,

 

I was suggesting Kathleen consider a 90mm lens not because it was more difficult or more limiting but rather because it would produce a different type of image.

 

There is no "correct" angle of coverage.

 

A photo taken w/ a 90mm lens is not harder or easier. It simply covers a different angle than a 35mm or 50mm lens. It looks @ a different portion of the World & sees it in a somewhat different manner.

 

None of the focal lengths represent a value judgement of "right" or "wrong".

 

When you go somewhere there is no universally "proper" picture to take.

 

That you are looking @ a greater or lesser expanse of the scene in front of you does not mean it is "truer" or "more accurate". The 3 focal lengths simply see different parts of the same World different ways. It is your personal decision to choose what most suits you in which situation.

 

This is a time period historically when there is more emphasis on wider angles of coverage for a variety of reasons. To a great extent this is unrelated to the images being created or captured. I am simply suggesting an alternative & saying that choosing it or not choosing it is NOT a value judgement.

 

I am suggesting a slightly different learning experience.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[SiMPLiFY]

Help me to raise my confidence to the point where I dare to do what is difficult. I don't get a lot of encouragement from those closest to me. Thanks!

 

Persistence is my middle name though. So with or without it ... I'll manage.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Kathleen,

 

Happy Birthday to come.

 

I didn't read all of the things about your assignment & was commenting not realizing your choice of focal lengths was constrained. Certainly, for me, a 35mm lens is the easiest to use & is the way I mostly see the World. It is the one I would choose for myself.

 

I misunderstood your original assignment. I originally thought it was for you to explore & investigate & learn what the best choices are for you personally in terms of how you see the World.

 

I am sure you will do very well w/ a 35mm lens. Not because it would have been my choice but because all 3 you are allowed to use are do-able altho I personally find a 28mm lens including too much of what for me is outside of what I personally would like included & I find a 50 mm lens covers either not enough or too much of what I would like to record.

 

Please remember: My suggestion of a 90mm lens was as a teaching vehicle because altho it does introduce some constraints it also proviides a number of solutions which is why I recommended it.

 

Also, as to confidence: You seem just fine.

 

Whenever you need it: Just think of this Forum as your cheerleader & ask.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Broadside]

I wish I had the choice. My M4 & Summaron 35mm/f3.5 is all I can, or ever likely to be able to, afford.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello 01af,

 

Historically what has been a "normal lens" within the photographic industry has been pretty much determined by what manufacturers could provide @ various time periods historically given degree of technological development, cost paramaters & so on.

 

In the 19th century, when available optical glasses were more limited & mechanical prooduction techniques were different, lenses considered to be "normal" focal lengths tended to be longer. In the 1st 1/2 of the 20th Century "normal" lenses got a little shorter. After WWII "normal" lenses began getting even shorter. Today a 35mm lens in full frame is pretty much considered "normal" wheras not that long ago it would have been considered "wide".

 

Interesting because not that long ago a 90mm lens would have fallen into the paramaters of "normal" or @ least nearly so.

 

Given that: Why should your personal parameters, because they fall within today's boundaries, be the arbiter of someone else's individual choice?

 

As to a 90mm lens being easier: Sometimes it is. You learn that by using different lenses in different circumstances.

 

As per the value of a 90mm lens: I learned it from experience. Please look up the definition of hindsight.

 

Thank you for repeating what I said throughout these Posts: The best lens to use is the 1 that is the best for you. If you remember: I suggested using a 90mm lens to find out which that might be.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael