Popular Post onasj Posted December 8, 2017 Popular Post Share #1 Posted December 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) For those who haven't seen this yet: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/24/candid-camera Happy holidays! 23 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 Hi onasj, Take a look here Perhaps my favorite article about what it's like to shoot an M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Deliberate1 Posted December 8, 2017 Share #2 Posted December 8, 2017 Lovely article. Thanks for posting. The following excerpt is a splendid example of design by chance: According to company lore, he [barnack] held a strip of the new film between his hands and stretched his arms wide, the resulting length being just enough to contain thirty-six frames—the standard number of images, ever since, on a roll of 35-mm. film For reasons I cannot explain, the reference to the "36" brought me to an example of numerology with deep religious significance. In the Jewish tradition, the number 18 has elemental meaning, and is the numerical equivalence of the the word "chai," which means "life." It is a portmanteau of the eight and tenth letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Those of the faith often make donations in increments of 18 for that reason. Consequently, it may be said that a roll of 35mm film, equal to the spread of Barnack's arms, is not just a single but truly a "double chai." Given the wondrous output of all those little machines over the years, who could doubt it. Cheers. David 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Posted December 8, 2017 Share #3 Posted December 8, 2017 Thanks for posting this . . . an excellent read. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted December 9, 2017 Share #4 Posted December 9, 2017 It's too bad that the redoubtable Mr. Barnack wasn't Buddhist - a standard roll of 35mm film might have been 108 exposures... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 10, 2017 Share #5 Posted December 10, 2017 For those who haven't seen this yet: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/24/candid-camera Happy holidays! Thank You. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letin Posted December 14, 2017 Share #6 Posted December 14, 2017 Thanks for the article, great read! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted December 16, 2017 Share #7 Posted December 16, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Excellent article! Thank you for sharing! Albert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinyTempo Posted December 16, 2017 Share #8 Posted December 16, 2017 That was a great read. Thanks for sharing! Markus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 16, 2017 Share #9 Posted December 16, 2017 It reinforces how dramatically the world of photography, and Leica, has changed in the mere 10 years since I first read the article. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted December 16, 2017 Share #10 Posted December 16, 2017 Hello Everybody, The 36 frames of double the format (18 X 24) of the movie film that Oscar Barnack had been using comes to around 1.5 meters. If you leave some room for an appropriate leader. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders Posted December 16, 2017 Share #11 Posted December 16, 2017 Great article. Thank you for sharing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted December 17, 2017 Share #12 Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) I think my favourite thing about that article is the font they’re using! It’s gorgeous and makes a huge difference to readability. I’m sick of boring vertically-compressed fonts that infest the internet including this very site! Capital letters should be twice as high as lowercase! On this I’m objectively correct and I won’t have it any other way! . A bit of personality or subtle serifs also help, though there there are nice sans-serif fonts for certain applications. I seriously think I can read decent fonts about twice as fast as awful and overused ones like Arial. It’s certainly more enjoyable when they’re not squashed flat and devoid of all life. Edited December 17, 2017 by Simon 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evikne Posted December 18, 2017 Share #13 Posted December 18, 2017 I think my favourite thing about that article is the font they’re using! It’s gorgeous and makes a huge difference to readability. Adobe Caslon I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now