Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica M8 Revisted  (Read 43200 times)
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2007, 11:59:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
itīs back to this bloody TEAM thing that has turned fashion into what it is, something that doesnīt reflect the tight photographer/model relationship but merely represents what passes for some sort of trade consensus of what fashion photography is about, no, what fashion photography is.

It would be interesting to hear some feedback from the photographer about whose work/camera experience this thread is a result. Perhaps he doesnīt see any of this comment reflected in his life.

Sometimes the internet makes you feel like a dog baying at the moon.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Every photographer/ artist has outside influences, either direct from clients, editors, gallery owners, or just subconsciously from being visually bombarded by the 4 million images hanging in windows, stores and news-stands on Broadway.

Then you add in the thousands of comments/critiques you receive in your career, good and bad and it takes a strong personality to shake them loose so something even close to original can be produced.

It was that way during Stern and Kane's time and it is the same today.

Actually I know someone  well that worked with Art Kane  and as talented as his work was, it was anything but small production, not always intimate and rarely without pressure.

Also, every photographer is a reflection what what they put in front of their lens. Great, interesting and unique subjects inspire, less than great, interesting and unique subjects place the session into damage control, or a better description would be blandness control.

This holds true for every genre of photography, not just fashion.  Avedon's American West would look much different if it was shot at a mall in El Paso using GAP employees as subjects.

Also Avedon's West would have a much different look if the production values of crew, lighting and background were not added into the artistic mix.

I've heard forever about the purity of the image, and though I understand the statement, I know that  photography isn't a painting that only results out of the mind and hand of the artist and even if that was true, that is but one segment in an art that has many classifications.

Photography is a tangible record of a real moment, whether that moment is found, constructed or contrived and regardless of popular belief nearly all photography of merit is contrived in some way.

Yes sometimes the "Team" approach can be limiting, but that usually depends on  the "Team" and who is responsible for the room.  Everyone in my group I've worked with for years and in my view they have a very positive influence on the work.  Once again, great hair, makeup, styling and attitude inspires, and  . . . well you get the idea.

Also never underestimate how important a talented producer is to a project.  Stepping off a plane to waiting cars, drivers, equipment and resource is invaluable.  Nothing frees the mind like a smooth production where every contingency is planned for.

It can take years, investment, human equity and a hard earned reputation to assemble a a great "team" and more importantly to find clients that expect more from a photograph than what was done before on page 6 of your portfolio.

We are also a reflection of the attitude of the day.   An upbeat, excited room will produce a better result than a negative atmosphere and if not better, at least a whole lot easier.

There seems to be this misconception that fashion photographers come on set wearing a scarf, holding a fluffy poodle and only contribute to the photograph by pushing the button between sips of a low fat, low whip lattte and maybe that happens in some instances, but not on our productions.

We work like warriors and move the room to fit the subject.  If the model plays left and the lighting is set to the right, we move the room 180, rather than force the subject into something that probably will never work.  

The essence of professional photography is being able to produce the desired result on demand.  Sometimes, with some projects the bar is raised high and those are wonderful days.  Other times we're limited by  time, budget, or the initial directive, but the "on demand" part of this sentence should not be underestimated.

Maneuvering your way into having great subjects and resouce is an art in it's own right.

I have a reputation for shooting a lot of different work in a wide range of genres.  I do this by choice and for many reasons, some personal, some economic, but mostly because I really have never understood the difference between shooting farmers in Brazil or models in Milan.  To me it's  all just subject, light and background and a goal to produce an image with a final, positive result.

I work with a crew of one, or 25 and each require different management skills, but one style of production is no more or less valid or intimate than the other.

For years I've seen aspiring photographers thumb through a magazine or go online and respond "I could have done that if I had that model, that location, that budget".  

Maybe, maybe not, but  once an image is published it's pretty much road-mapped for everyone to see and emulate.   Having the original thought on the day and the ability to assemble the people needed is a much different proposition.  Doing it under the pressure of large expense, nervous clients and limited time, resets the dial to a higher frequency.

In my view, a photographer's jobs is more than just composition, lighting or direction.   It's learning how to read, respond and diffuse a whole mix of different situations, personalities and cultures and do it so the process and result are positive.

Working for clients in Japan requires a different  approach than communicating with clients in Paris, New York, or Chicago and the faster I and the crew recognize these differences the sooner we can get to the job at hand.

Few projects, personal or commissioned, come to pass without a long list of desires and objectives and acomplishing these goals is the biggest challange and has the greatest reward.

As I write this I have people working in three cities and two countries on production.  They stop their lives and go to work at less than a moments notice and I am grateful and proud beyond explanation to work with people of this character.

Crew such as this don't do it for the money, the client, or for me.   They answer to their own calling,  always at the expense of a "normal" personal life.



James Russell
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2007, 03:08:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I loved the article James.

Anything that can inject a bit of enthusiasm into our working life (or hobby) has to be a good thing.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2007, 04:34:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Well-written re-exposition of your point of view as stated in your site - there is nothing there with which anyone should be able to argue, but having agreed with what you say as being totally relevant to YOUR way of doing things, you have also to accept that yours isnīt the only way either. I donīt think you ARE saying so, but it could be inferred that you are perhaps heading there...

I have worked in fashion too, though my experiences were during the 60s up to the mid-70s by which time I had abandoned the genre in favour of designing, shooting and producing bespoke company calendars.

My fashion stuff took me to UK Vogue for whom I did promotional shoots in Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Portugal, Malta and other places now confused in my mind with the calendar work... thatīs not being smart-ass, just the truth: after a while the trips and people all become the same damn thing.

In all of those events, it was the ones where some representative of the īcompanyī had an input that things were less than they could have been. So you see, it is not always a TEAM that leads to best results - often, it can eff the entire thing up quite considerably.

I have already written here (at least I think it was here) that for me, professional photography was not a choice: it was a compulsion from the perspective that only through finding somebody else to pay for my dreams could they happen. And that was always how I did things - clients paid for me to shoot my little heart out.

The team thing is, in my admittedly insular view, a relatively recent thing. I quote part of a conversation with Lillian Bassman from David Baileysīs Models Close-Up:

īThe forties Harperīs Bazaar photographer Lillian Bassman has now returned to fashion images. "I donīt work with top models," she says. "They donīt have the kind of response to what I want. I want to be able to dictate what the mood is, what the pose is, but top models already know what THEY want. I never liked the hairdresser coming in or make-up people. I stopped doing fashion when the hairdresser became the star!" ī

From the same book:

"Photographs are better when thereīs a deep communication level. Itīs like an artist and a muse," says Penelope Tree. "When youīre working with a photographer, itīs like a dance of the seven veils. Youīre revealing a side to them that you donīt reveal to anyone else. Thereīs a sexual aspect and thereīs a trust."

Intimacy to that degree is not for public (read team) display - too darn emotional, devoid of the plastic.

Frankly, it boils down to your motivation, to the reason you work in photography. For some itīs the kicks and for others the business, a lucky few is able to combine the two.

If I may refer back to my fashion stuff for a moment - Iīd remark in passing that there was always a not-so sweet irony involved. People would pick me for "page 6 of your portfolio" to quote you, but never permit me to work that way. Kind of like hiring a dog but expecting it to moo. That was a very strong motivation to get out of fashion and into calendars. Also, the money was far more elastic!

So, to conclude, I thank you for your response and whilst accepting how it works for you (very well!) it is not the only way.

Ciao - Rob C

EDIT: this was originally about Leicas - thank goodness we are allowed to expand, to wander off at pleasant little  avenues!
« Last Edit: December 29, 2007, 04:38:57 AM by Rob C » Logged

Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2007, 07:01:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I loved James Russell's article !!!
Logged
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2007, 04:25:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It was that way during Stern and Kane's time and it is the same today.

Actually I know someone  well that worked with Art Kane  and as talented as his work was, it was anything but small production, not always intimate and rarely without pressure.

a low fat, low whip lattte and maybe that happens in some instances, but not on our productions.

We work like warriors and move the room to fit the subject.  If the model plays left and the lighting is set to the right, we move the room 180, rather than force the subject into something that probably will never work. 

Crew such as this don't do it for the money, the client, or for me.   They answer to their own calling,  always at the expense of a "normal" personal life.
James Russell
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


James,

Top article and comments--great to see and hear your words of infinite wisdom on the Forums
again--please do not leave such a gap between the postings.

I know where you are coming from-- I  worked through the "Golden Era of Fashion/advt Photography" both in Europe  and the US having been assistant to Terence Donovan/ Elliot Erwitt/Annie Leibovitz--and printed B+W for Eve Arnold/David Bailey/etc and had the privilege to work out of Helmut Newton's Studio for a time.

Love your work-keep up the inspirational incitement for the Snappers of today.

I am semi-retired at present (I teach Scuba diving in Qld Australia-my sea change!) and am currently doing the Digital Manip and Colour Mgmnt for a 600 Page BIG BOOK for a top in his field Photographer here in the US (No not fashion)-It will be the same format and style as the Peter Beard BBook--I'm sure you've seen this at Taschen?

Ha--when I reg my Photo Studio in 1968 I called it TEAM Photographers Ltd--it remains today my Trading Corp name.

Best,

Des Williams

[a href=\"http://www.deswilliams.com/]http://www.deswilliams.com/[/url]
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2007, 04:44:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Des

Now THAT is some lovely fashion! I can see and appreciate the influences.

Rob C

Edit: having more time, thought Iīd let you know what appeals to me most in your site, and what I thought in general.

1.   In the catalogue section, the crossed legs: Barry Lategan for sure, as my own models of the time all adopted that position (without complaint from me, I might add).

2. Fashion, b/w: Helmut must have influenced you quite a bit!

3. Fashion: Gypsy Chic - absolutely loved it and it is my favourite kind of atmosphere, identity, theme, ethic, call it what you like - I just love those looks.

4. Rooms: you have a great touch there too - makes me feel a little one-dimensional...

5. Influences - I also pick up on some Clive Arrowsmith and all those fantastic guys that used to star in Linea Italiana, the best fashion productions I ever had the chance of reading.

Basically, wonderful work and you deserve whatever success you have.

Ciao - Rob C
« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 09:49:03 AM by Rob C » Logged

wilburdl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2007, 11:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I love Russell's work. I admire his attitude. I appreciate his words. I absolutely abhor his website. As special as your photographs are, everything about that site irks me (save for the new big photos). I don't want to suggest Livebooks, but please find something.

Great article btw.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 11:35:43 PM by wilburdl » Logged

Darnell
Editorial Photographer | Cartoonist
darnellwilburn.com
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2008, 11:21:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I love Russell's work. I admire his attitude. I appreciate his words. I absolutely abhor his website. As special as your photographs are, everything about that site irks me (save for the new big photos). I don't want to suggest Livebooks, but please find something.

Great article btw.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Man this is a tough crowd.

Websites....

I doubt if there are three photographers on this planet that are truly happy with their websites.

I know because I've spent enough to buy a small luxury sedan and could write a book on the trails and tribulations of working with  website designers.

Even today I have a deposit in place with who I believe is the premier website design company in the world, but have it on hold as I just cannot find one system that works for all devices, all clients, in flash and html and is easy to update.

So at the end of the day, I usually go to the simple system, which is html we do in house and can update quickly and a flash design that we use through folio link that also can be updated by the user.  I considered the folio link a temporary solution, though I've had it for the year and it works.  All our sites are reached from a redirect page from our main domain, [a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/]http://russellrutherford.com/[/url].

The html is important because of the I-phone and other hand held devices that don't play flash and I guess the flash is important because it's more formatted.

Still, the goal of a website is to get your photos out to the "client" easily and quickly and hopefully your message.

It's interesting, client's rarely have the time to review page after page of information and when we get the first call they usually ask questions that are answered on the website, even simple ones like, "where do you work".  On the other hand photographers that read these forums will send me detailed information from my website down to mentioning punctuation.

I guess clients have less time than photographers.

Given all of this nothing is more painful than selecting imagery for your site.  When I have a break, or I'm on a long flight I'll pull up our website and decide to rip 2/3's of it down to show a more singular vision.  Invariably, the moment I'm ready to do this I get a call from a client that is booking us because of that one photo, usually a happy smiley person running on the beach.

So I usually just drop the thought of change and go on to more important business.

Though if getting to the perfect website is hard, poll three agents, clients and photographers on the perfect portfolio.  The results of that will keep your head spinning for a few years.

James Russell
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2008, 01:41:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I didnīt find anything wrong with your site; in fact, it looked pretty good. My only gripe was not peronally with you, but just a sadness at the changes in the fashion industry from what used to be a model/photographer deal to a group identity one. Is all! In fact, I seem to remember pointing out that your site was designed for CLIENTS and not other snappers, that the more positive the symbolism the more confidence-inspiring it would be, which for a client is most important.

Reminds me of the Ferris Beullerīs Day Off movie, where his buddy is offended by him referring to his old car as a piece of shit, and FB responds, by way of apology, by saying itīs better than his p.o.s. because he doesnīt even have one.

I know how he felt!

Have a good 2008.

Rob C
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2008, 09:18:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didnīt find anything wrong with your site; in fact, it looked pretty good. My only gripe was not peronally with you, but just a sadness at the changes in the fashion industry from what used to be a model/photographer deal to a group identity one. Is all! In fact, I seem to remember pointing out that your site was designed for CLIENTS and not other snappers, that the more positive the symbolism the more confidence-inspiring it would be, which for a client is most important.

Reminds me of the Ferris Beullerīs Day Off movie, where his buddy is offended by him referring to his old car as a piece of shit, and FB responds, by way of apology, by saying itīs better than his p.o.s. because he doesnīt even have one.

I know how he felt!

Have a good 2008.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Once again, if a photographer is shooting with a crew of 3 or a crew of 20, this doesn't mean that either style is less or more intimate, directed, or the photographer's role is diminished in any way.

There is a definite place for both types of production.

In fact with a large crew the photographer's role and importance is usually expanded rather than marginalized, because it takes a strong personality to direct the process.

When working with a good and familiar staff, the photographer directs the crew in the same way the model is directed and on the days the crew is large this has to be done decisively.

Nothing will take the energy away from a shoot more than a photographer that isn't sure of the direction he/she wants to go.

The process really is; think it, construct it, do it and move on and a great crew does this almost through osmosis.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the golden age of photography has passed, in fact I believe today is the "golden age" of our industry and though I've heard throughout my career about the "good old days" the "good old days" are in the past and the past is nothing more than a learning experience to build on.

With digital capture and professional crew we can effect looks and imagery in minutes, maybe hours that previously took a day.  We can quickly show a "polaroid" to all parties (or none)  to explain quickly what needs to be changed, added, or taken away and we can explain this in great visual detail.

I work with crew from around the world and usually my native tongue is not understood, (actually since I'm a Texan even "English" is not my native tongue) but it is still very easy to visually direct the shoot, with very little data lost in translation.

Working this way allows the photographer to get the base idea in the can and explore other alternatives.

The purpose of all art, commercial or personal is to move forward and adapt to changes to try to present something that is unique and grabs the viewers attention.

Crew size has little to do with this, other than to speed and ease the process.

Getting back to the original point of this thread, a camera like the Leica does add an intimacy to the process and just something about it's size and operation seems to place the thought that this is art more than just a technical exercise.

James Russell
Logged

Russell Price
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2008, 09:53:15 AM »
ReplyReply

To a working professional, I can see the need for a Leica to keep you fresh and to not fall into stagnant patterns.  I use to use a beat-up M4 in Nicaragua along with my trusty Nikon F and F2's.  

Reading James Russell's comments on the M8 is interesting and a bit perplexing.  You can't help but learn something from this experience of how this big-production ad guy found some grace by using a Leica.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2008, 11:19:33 AM »
ReplyReply

James -

Going by your protrait, you look a fairly youngish guy - maybe the īgolden ageī passed before you hit the big-time.

Asked to put a date on it, I would think that it seemed to exist, from a British perspective, early 60s and peaked, possibly, mid-80s.

From personal experience, the fashion part took a downhill ride after the big fuel crisis of the 70s. Prior to that, there was a hell of a lot of fashion work, much of it sponsored by fibre manufacturers  like DuPont etc. but that died almost in a single season, putting huge pressure on the clothing trade to seek out its priorities and guess what - photography, as ever, took a beating.

Because there are still stars in the photo firmament doesnīt mean squat: there always are and always will be stars, but a truer perspective is one that measures across the board - through from newspapers, fashion, advertising and stock. Stock started to bomb not long after Tony Stone Worldwide became Getty - a numbers race seemed to get underway, followed by ever more mergers and the excess photographers finding the Dear Johns come tumbling through the post. This, with Getty, Corbis and Jupiter with horns locked seems to me to be nothing but a supermarket war: cut prices until thereīs a last man standing scenario, at which moment prices will rocket. And all of those stock guys will become employees or starve.

During those magical years, you could hardly go to an airport without bumping into a photographer and a couple of models going off somewhere on a shoot - the Bahamas, Greece, Sardinia, Corsica - you name it, some little group was taking the Kodachrome for a spin. Not such a lot of trips seem to be happening anymore. I donīt know anybody going off with girls to do stock these days; I donīt think any of the major newspapers employ staff photographers as they used to.

But then, these sorts of conversations can go on for ever and are all, inevitable, measured by personal experiences whch can cloud the issues more than not. However, that said, I still think that the period referred to as the Golden one has been and is long gone.

Nothing to lose sleep over...

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 06, 2008, 11:21:07 AM by Rob C » Logged

DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2008, 12:02:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James -


From personal experience, the fashion part took a downhill ride after the big fuel crisis of the 70s. Prior to that, there was a hell of a lot of fashion work, much of it sponsored by fibre manufacturers  like DuPont etc. but that died almost in a single season, putting huge pressure on the clothing trade to seek out its priorities and guess what - photography, as ever, took a beating.


Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ha Rob,

Yes Indeed the Dupont de Noumers Catalogues-- Tons of knitwear mainly-- I shot one late 60's in Ireland--at  Powerscourt Castle near Dublin owned by the Slazenger family.

We had Jean Shrimpton/Celia Hammond/ Primrose Austen/Pauline Stone(Who was with to Laurence Harvey at the time,he was in Ireland shooting Of Human Bondage)

Some of the great Models of that golden Age.

Des W
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2008, 03:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ha Rob,

Yes Indeed the Dupont de Noumers Catalogues-- Tons of knitwear mainly-- I shot one late 60's in Ireland--at  Powerscourt Castle near Dublin owned by the Slazenger family.

We had Jean Shrimpton/Celia Hammond/ Primrose Austen/Pauline Stone(Who was with to Laurence Harvey at the time,he was in Ireland shooting Of Human Bondage)

Some of the great Models of that golden Age.

Des W
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't personallly know this period, but to me the past is a mixed bag.  The goodness of it is learning from some very great and thoughtful photographs, but it's the past and regardless of the state of the "industry" today, the present is all we can really shape.

I actually don't even want to see MY past photos, as I am more concerned with what I am producing now, or want to produce tomorrow.

For me, I don't have a master plan, other than to make an effort to move forward and going forward in this business is like moving a building by yourself.

Everyday you push on one side , the the other side, then the center and some days, some weeks, it doesn't look like the building is moving, but if you do it right at the end of the year the building has moved down the block.

For me and my partner that is the real challenge.

James Russell
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2008, 03:38:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To a working professional, I can see the need for a Leica to keep you fresh and to not fall into stagnant patterns.  I use to use a beat-up M4 in Nicaragua along with my trusty Nikon F and F2's. 

Reading James Russell's comments on the M8 is interesting and a bit perplexing.  You can't help but learn something from this experience of how this big-production ad guy found some grace by using a Leica.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Leica is the only camera I own that I use on every job, though never specifically for any job.

It is something that I pull out and shoot with and it always gives me a different perspective, kind of like a thought polaroid.

It's hard to explain, actually I can't explain it.

James Russell
Logged

Russell Price
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2008, 04:04:41 PM »
ReplyReply

A lot of pro shooters wrote Leica off when the Nikon and Canon digital cameras were released.  It was camera for every type of shoot.  It is a "personal" camera.  I carry my trashed-out M4 with me everywhere I go.  Just me, the M4 and an old 35mm Summicron.  

It has been around the world with me and I have surprised myself when editing my film alongside slides produced with the Nikons or the Canon 1n's.  I could always pick out the Leica chromes.

The M8 has been harder to use.  The loss of thirty percent of the frame bothers me a bit but I am getting myself adjusted to it.  

It seems like Leica is experiencing a "rebranding" of its brand.  Pro shooters are using them again and even though the M8 is not perfect, it is a very fine camera if you understand its limits.

I have always considered the Leica more of a tool for journalism, corporate or editorial photographers.  Using it for catalog fashion or retail shoots must take some art directors by surprise.  

Given the nature of production shooting, it does not seem like the size or brand of the camera is very important anymore.  

Do you shoot it tethered?  Or do you use it to explore a subject?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2008, 04:06:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ha Rob,

Yes Indeed the Dupont de Noumers Catalogues-- Tons of knitwear mainly-- I shot one late 60's in Ireland--at  Powerscourt Castle near Dublin owned by the Slazenger family.

We had Jean Shrimpton/Celia Hammond/ Primrose Austen/Pauline Stone(Who was with to Laurence Harvey at the time,he was in Ireland shooting Of Human Bondage)

Some of the great Models of that golden Age.

Des W
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, Des!

Nice to find somebody with a good memory too!

I think it really was special in those days. I started in pro photography working in an in-house industrial unit in ī60 and it wasnīt until ī66 that I had the resources to get out of industrial and into fashion which is what Iīd always wanted, and to try it on my own - never been an employee since, which in later life turned out to have been a bit of a mixed blessing: nothing to match huge retirement pensions! But then, Iīd never have made an accountant or broker so it doesnīt count.

But the true point to telling about this, is that it was very much down to the times: in the early- to mid-60s one really did believe that anything was possible, that you could DO IT if you tried. And many of us did try and some got lucky and survived. But you always believed it possible.

I started with a second-hand Rollei T, an Ekakta and a humble Gnome enlarger. Okay, they were replaced after a while with a new 500C and Nikon F whilst the Gnome rested on its laurels as the Durst took charge. But existing and working as a pro in fashion and advertising on a budget was possible. I did it for long enough before life got a bit more comfortable. Hell - I even had a large gentīs umbrella painted white with a bared domestic light bulb as modelling light and a portable Braun in a shoe as flash! It damn well worked, better perhaps than some of the proprietary units that followed, except that I couldnīt fold the painted brolly and take it anywhere... made me quite good at available light fashion, though!

As I said, special times, those 60s, and I often wonder how todayīs young people ever find the money to start a business - equipment is so expensive, you need so much of it and fees seem to have either stagnated or gone downhill, Iīm told.

Jean Shrimpton was the second love of my life - the first one was BB who I managed to shoot in my first year on my own. Still have the negs and a couple of prints from then plus a treasured thank you note from her for some prints I sent her. Kind of tough that, shooting your perfect woman so early in a career - what can ever thrill like that again? Answer? Nothing. Sadly, the Shrimp was never to be, but I did get to shoot some nice ladies when I turned to calendars. Do you remember Nina Carter, Denise Denny, Denise Perry, Suzie G, Georgie Steer... ahhhh, those were the days. Oddly, Lichfield seemed to pick the same ones as I did - or was it the other way around? LOL.

Take care - Rob C
Logged

Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2008, 02:35:25 PM »
ReplyReply

The M8's viewfinder, due to a mixture of factors (crop on the format, low magnification), excludes the fast teles (135mm, 90mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1 are difficult to focus with precision and consistency) and the wide-angle lenses (only the 24mm is included in the viewfinder's framelines, but the crop translates it to a 32mm).

This is one of the biggest problems of this camera. You can use the 1,25 magnifier, but it is quite expensive.
Logged
dseelig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #58 on: January 09, 2008, 03:50:54 PM »
ReplyReply

HI I am enjoying my m8 immensly. As far as magnifiers megapearls makes one as does hk supplies both much cheaper then leicas I have had no trouble focusing my lenses wide open except for the 75 1.4 which is on its way back from germany that includes the 50 summilux and 35 summilux by the way . It does take time to adjust to a rangefinder but it is worth it. Mind you I am a working pro with a full canon system . I get intriqued by the latest and greatest nikon d3 I have the latest canons but walking around a city all day and nite and shooting people do you really want to carry all that weight . When on assigment that is something else .
Quote
The M8's viewfinder, due to a mixture of factors (crop on the format, low magnification), excludes the fast teles (135mm, 90mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1 are difficult to focus with precision and consistency) and the wide-angle lenses (only the 24mm is included in the viewfinder's framelines, but the crop translates it to a 32mm).

This is one of the biggest problems of this camera. You can use the 1,25 magnifier, but it is quite expensive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 03:51:26 PM by dseelig » Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2008, 01:01:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
HI I am enjoying my m8 immensly. As far as magnifiers megapearls makes one as does hk supplies both much cheaper then leicas I have had no trouble focusing my lenses wide open except for the 75 1.4 which is on its way back from germany that includes the 50 summilux and 35 summilux by the way . It does take time to adjust to a rangefinder but it is worth it. Mind you I am a working pro with a full canon system . I get intriqued by the latest and greatest nikon d3 I have the latest canons but walking around a city all day and nite and shooting people do you really want to carry all that weight . When on assigment that is something else .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's not really the rangfinder that makes focus that difficult, actually in some instances it makes focus easier.

You do have to get used to focusing in the center and then moving to the compositiion.

One of the issues, beyond the crop lines is with the Leica I've had three lenses that are not calibrated to the focus properly, two 50's and the 90.

It's a lovely little camera, but Leica needs to up the QC of some of the basics and focus calibration is one area to address.

That and CA on backlit images which at times can be quite severe.

James Russell
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad