Leica SL2 or a Fujifilm GFX or...something else just for headshots in studio.

[irenedp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

Interesting re the level of detail off your 110, given it has a really high reputation as the sharpest of the GF lenses in recent years; the recently introduced GF 55mm also seems to have very strong reviews.

The 110 was working well with the 50s. When you changed to the 100, an adaptation to the firmware of the lenses was needed. I did it. The 32-64 worked very well. The 100-200 was so much off that I sent it to Fuji and it came back better but not perfect. And the 110 was fine, but I never had the impression of the superb lens that I’ve always heard about it. It might well be that my copy was slightly off. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Pieter12]

11 hours ago, irenedp said:

they are staged to the extreme detail, as are Crewdson's, but in both's work there is always the artifice that the subject is 'spied'. The subject is not looking at the camera, they're not 'aware'. That is a trend that started in painting in the 18th century. 

You can look at "a view of an Apartment" or "morning cleaning" by Wall. Or anything by Crewdson (who is deliberately pictorial). The characters are not looking at the photographer, they are supposedly doing their thing, and the photographer is just an 'unknown' observer, whom they are not (theoretically) aware of. 

Of course I am not trying to imitate either of them. Someone might look at the work when is finished and think "this is Leibowitz" or "this is Wall". Everything in photography has been done before. But the reason of "not being aware" of the photographer, is that I want these families "doing their usual thing", however they would be in their living room on a normal day. It will be staged work, but I want this staging to resemble at least remotely their reality.

I look forward to seeing the work. I hope you will post it or a link when you have some shots.

[Jon Warwick]

On 3/14/2024 at 4:10 PM, irenedp said:

The 110 was working well with the 50s. When you changed to the 100, an adaptation to the firmware of the lenses was needed. I did it. The 32-64 worked very well. The 100-200 was so much off that I sent it to Fuji and it came back better but not perfect. And the 110 was fine, but I never had the impression of the superb lens that I’ve always heard about it. It might well be that my copy was slightly off. 

After using for several years both the GF 63 and GF 50mm on the 100mp camera, I'm currently trying out for the weekend the fairly recently released GF 55mm f1.7 lens. That lens from Fuji is a big jump in resolving power from the other two older lenses, flawless edge to edge, and even at f1.7 it's wonderfully sharp and with very smooth bokeh. If there's a "blue ring" equivalent  in the land of Fuji, the 55mm might be it IMHO. It's remarkable how lens quality (even reasonably priced ones like the GFs, at least compared to Leica) keep marching on and improving in recent years.

Edited March 16, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[irenedp]

The 55 mm may be a little short (44 mm in ff), but for sure it would be very usable. I don't think the S4 will offer compatibility with GFX lenses. I am particularly interested in the new T/S line. The 30 mm looks enticing.

T/s lenses are a great option for panoramas and for interiors. I have the Mamiya shift 50, and the Leica 120 t/s, but would like a wider one. 

I am considering swapping my 4x5 Linhof for a nice barely used technical Cambo camera. In that case -because that camera allows for a digital back adapter-  I could also use the IQ4 back with a wide Rodenstock lens. (And yes, I know that Phase has the XT camera -btw, manufactured by Cambo- and new minted Rodenstock lenses, but that is in a different price range). 

Edited March 17, 2024 by irenedp

[mikelevitt]

On 3/14/2024 at 8:22 AM, Jon Warwick said:

Interesting re the level of detail off your 110, given it has a really high reputation as the sharpest of the GF lenses in recent years; the recently introduced GF 55mm also seems to have very strong reviews.

Yes.  My 110 is my sharpest lens, with a very contrasty modern look.  The S lenses are much more of a classic look.  I'm getting consistently perfect face/eye detect focus on the GFX bodies - but only after I turned on the AF boost which is strangely in a power conservation menu.  Before that I had to have a LED in the studio as the model lights on my profoto and broncolor strobes were not bright enough for the GFX.   It is very weird, but effective.  The GFX100II seems to focus a bit more consistently too.

[LocalHero1953]

On 3/14/2024 at 4:04 PM, irenedp said:

I would love to see it. I have been interested in Crewdson’s work since photography school. 

There was a retrospective of his work at the Arles festival last summer. Given that it lasted till September, the framed prints (enormous) may have stayed in Europe and been on show in other places.

Elsewhere I wrote this comment after seeing the retrospective "I liked Geoffrey Crewdson’s Cathedral of Pines when I saw it at, I think, the Photographer’s Gallery. But seeing the two projects he’s done since then I get the impression that, though he has a great eye for composition, and the technical production is wonderful, he hasn’t had a new idea since. His earlier Fireflies is interesting, but……".

I admit that my judgement, as someone who couldn't approach his concepts and technical skill, is arrogant, and others may take a different view!

Edited April 13, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[irenedp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cathedral of the Pines is interesting. In some ways it improves over Beneath the Roses, in others it hints of stagnation. I haven’t seen his latest work but agree that  Crewdson might be repeating himself. 

What interests me of Crewdson’s work is, besides his creation of stories -which always are about loss and despair, and sad lives-, his decided bet on the fictionalization of photography as an imagined territory, or as a representation of (but not) reality. It happens of course through the creation of scenes, his selection of neglected small town sceneries, and also by taking his photographs aesthetically to that undefined territory between photography and painting.  Instead of using the photojournalistic style, he makes it deliberately unreal… but we all know that there is an underlying reality. 

I think his themes may be turning repetitive, and that might be linked to his sudden fame fueled by a top gallery as is Gagosian. Suddenly Crewdson is not only a photographer or the director of the Photography program at Yale, but a celebrity. Becoming a celebrity is seldom a good thing. 

[LocalHero1953]

31 minutes ago, irenedp said:

the fictionalization of photography as an imagined territory, or as a representation of (but not) reality

You're probably also familiar then with the work of Julia Fullerton-Batten, which I also enjoy.

[irenedp]

yes, am familiar with her work. I also enjoy it

[Jon Warwick]

13 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There was a retrospective of his work at the Arles festival last summer. Given that it lasted till September, the framed prints (enormous) may have stayed in Europe and been on show in other places.

Elsewhere I wrote this comment after seeing the retrospective "I liked Geoffrey Crewdson’s Cathedral of Pines when I saw it at, I think, the Photographer’s Gallery. But seeing the two projects he’s done since then I get the impression that, though he has a great eye for composition, and the technical production is wonderful, he hasn’t had a new idea since. His earlier Fireflies is interesting, but……".

I admit that my judgement, as someone who couldn't approach his concepts and technical skill, is arrogant, and others may take a different view!

Yes, it was a good display in London of Cathedral of the Pines. Still large prints but smaller scale (for Crewdson, at least, when compared to Beneath the Roses or his subsequent Eclipse of Moths). Is there some repetition? ….imho, there can certainly be similarity of style, and even exactly the same location (eg, using the same “taxi depot” for images in Beneath the Roses and Eclipse of Moths?), but then again, the resultant photos - despite the same location - can end up feeling quite different. In some ways, when he moved from the technical challenge of shooting in rapidly fading twilight on his 8x10 and moved over to digital, his images now (to me) feel even more perfectly composed than before, perhaps aided further by going back to the familiarity of some of the same locations. Still, one of my favorite projects by Crewdson was arguably the lesser known Sanctuary, which is smaller scale and black and white, so he has showed he can do other subjects too …Sanctuary had very calm and beautiful images imho. If you’re into Crewdson, I found the movie called Brief Encounters was really interesting in understanding the artist and includes following him on location for Beneath the Roses.