It's got me thinking, though. I started out with only a 50mm lens and I was happy. I concentrated on the content and I learned to know my lens really well. Of course, there were time I wished I could go wider or longer, but only seldomly.
Every once in a while, someone will ask for others' opinions about what lenses they should keep/get for their M-cameras. I remember a funny saying (pardon my language): "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one." Everyone will try to pitch in with good intentions, but you end up with wide variety of answers. Ultimately, the best answer can only be answered by the person who asked because you should always do what makes you happy.
It's got me thinking, though. I started out with only a 50mm lens and I was happy. I concentrated on the content and I learned to know my lens really well. Of course, there were time I wished I could go wider or longer, but only seldomly.
0 Comments
It's nearing the end of a year, and I've been reflecting back what I've learned this year, since I've gotten my M9. I'm faster with the rangefinder manual focus, yes, and no doubt my lens collection has grown, but I think the most important revelation was that photography has brought me to a higher state of awareness.
In fact, this is probably unrelated to the M9, or any specific gear. Once I'm hook on photography and have the desires to take better photos, I started seeing things differently in everyday life. With or without a camera in hand, my eyes are more alert to my surroundings, looking at things I normally would not have noticed, drawing an imaginary frameline within my sight, and most importantly, seeing beauty everywhere. Just walking or driving to any place, I would often tell myself: "Oh look, that would be a great shot." I start to see light, shadows, composition, and angles... in some way I feel I've been half blind in my prior life. To actually take a photo is just a way to share that instance of time with others, and it's almost secondary because I know I'm seeing more, appreciating more, living a fuller life. For that, I'm thankful. And now... some recent photos of my son: Just a lazy Saturday afternoon... Here are a couple shots from our living room, one out the front window into the street and one out the back window in to the backyard. While I performed the same actions of frame, focus, click shutter, the difference was in my mind. For the first time, I shot the first one knowing that I will convert it into a monochrome image, and color for the second.
I don't want to make it a big deal, as I was just running a little experiment to test a theory. In many reviews/comments of the M-Monochrom camera, I read people talk about how a pure monochrome camera or black and white film forces them to see in B&W. What I wonder is... is it really necessary to physically limit ourselves? I mean, with some self-discipline and setting the image preview to B&W on the M9, can't I train myself to see in B&W too? Surely a really good and well trained photographer can evaluate a scene and see it in both color and B&W? I plan to challenge myself one day to switch M9 output to black and white JPEG, shoot with that setting for a while, and see if I can start seeing things in B&W too. Recently, while perusing the forums, I saw a post of a couple of photographs by someone I do not know. Upon my first viewing, I must say, I was a little puzzled. The photos seemed quite ordinary, which made me wonder: What's the point? Why are you sharing these images? I revisited the thread a few days later, and found the responses from other members were in two extreme camps. Some did not get the images at all like me, and had nearly insulted the photographer; and yet, others seems to get them, and showered the photographer with praises. As it turns out, the person who took them was a practicing fine art photographer, who took those two photos with intent and for specific reasons.
This seems to spawn off several other conversations related to the viewing and interpreting images. Some argued that since Photography is a visual art, the #1 requirement for an image is to be visually compelling ("it must grab you"). I think a visually compelling image makes a great photo, but I'm not yet ready to agree 100% with the reverse. I'm still somewhat salvageable in this regard because I did not completely write-off the images simply because I didn't find them visually compelling. After someone was gracious enough to explain the intent and the composition of the photos, I was able to appreciate the photos a lot more. Actually, it gave me a new way to look at photos in general, and a new way to appreciate well-composed images. So, in a way, these photos have indeed become visually compelling to my eyes, so some may argue that it only proves the original hypothesis that an image must be visually compelling. However, I think the lesson here is that just because the image doesn't visually grab you right now, it does not make it a bad photo. Because through education and change of taste, it may become a great photo to you. Perhaps it's because I have the mentality of a beginner or a student, I'm more receptive to new ideas and more willing to accept that I'm not the best judge of someone else's photo. If it means I'm more likely to enjoy life, all the better. About 9 years ago, we went camping with friends at Lake Cuyamaca east of San Diego, only to be chased out of the campgrounds by the Cedar Fire of San Diego. We literally saw fires and smoke by the side of the road as we made our escape. This time, we went back again, now with children in tow, and still saw plenty remnant signs of the fire. Charred dead trees can make dramatic images, but I was glad to see that Mother Nature had not stopped. There are signs of new hope sprouting everywhere. It may take decades for the forest to grow back to the way it was, and we'll leave it to our children to enjoy them as we once did. Following my recent method, I have posted a selected fews in the regular Gallery [HERE], and the full set along with many vacation snaps are in the Personal Gallery [HERE]. Now that all the announcement has gone out, and all of the Internet experts have weighed it, I thought I spare a few sentences here to gather my own thoughts...
Leica M (pre-order at Adorama: Silver / Black) We are a fickle lot of customers... people complained a lot about the M9 and wished for many modern features, and yet when Leica delivers them in the new "M", we complain about extra buttons, accessories, weight, and size. I think what Leica has delivered here is a more modular system. For the RF purists, just buy the body, turn off the live-view, and you'll have the same optical viewfinder experience that you've always had. Nothing will change if you want it that way, except for improved ISO performance, better framelines, quieter shutter, bigger buffer, faster memory card write speed, longer battery life, and should have better IQ with wide-angle lenses (the jury is still out on IQ). For the others, you'll find all of the additional features to satisfy you so you no longer need another camera to cover the shortcomings of the M9 (you know what those are). I think the key, still unproven, has be an uncompromising image quality. Many, myself included, love the results we get from our M9's CCD sensor. By switching to a more modern CMOS sensor, they have got to get it to be at least as good, if not better. Everything else is secondary. Let's talk about the EVF. People seems to forget that many RF shooters already use a bunch of external optical VF for our wide-angle lenses when they complain about the extra "hump" it would create. What we'll get now is one EVF to rule them all. No more needing different VF for different focal lengths, with the added bonus of seeing the exact framing, live-view, and focus peaking. It's also tilt-able when shooting low or shooting on a tripod. Leica touts the ability to use the old R-lenses with live-view and focus peaking, but what they didn't say is that you can adapt ANY OTHER lenses too (provided a proper adapter is found). A real FF camera that can work with any other lens, as long as the aperture and focus isn't electronically controlled. Video capability is something I'm unsure of. While I'm sure that it'll work, I'm afraid that it won't be much help to me without autofocus and focus-tracking. You see, I have tried to shoot videos on the Sony NEX5 with a 50'Cron. Without image-stabilization and using only manual focus, let's just say that I didn't get a lot of useful clips. To my defense and the defense of shooting video with MF lenses, I was trying to shoot videos of my son, which was a challenge already for still shots using RF. Some are excited by the thoughts of shooting videos with the Noctilux... I just wish them good luck. Leica M-E (pre-order at Adorama: Anthracite) The only thing I have to say is I wished they would have just kept the M9 name, since they are basically the same. Let the M9 prove its longevity, because even though it's 3 years old, it's still one of the best camera out there. Well... here is a somewhat uninspiring photo. It was taken at an early hour, before the sun came out. I sat the camera on a rock and set a somewhat long shutter time to catch the river in motion. I forgot that I could set the exposure compensation lower to allow for longer exposure time, but it came out 80% of what I wanted. I've managed to crop it into the way I liked, and this first image is 100% unprocessed, straight out of camera (except for the crop, of course). It had the cold tones of early morning and looked flat. Maybe I've already spent too much time on this "miss". But since I already worked on it a bit, I wondered how much more can I do to it to try to bring some life into it. A little contrast is certainly welcomed, and perhaps a tweak in color temperature to make it warmer? My friend, jonoslack (Jonathan Slack), said something that got me thinking: "If a photograph is interesting, nobody cares if it's technically good. If a photograph isn't interesting, nobody cares at all." Coincidentally, yesterday was Henri Cartier-Bresson's birthday and I wondered... when people viewed HCB's photographs, how many cared what gears he used, what aperture, and whether they had sharp focus or were they exposed properly? It's not something I care about when an image strikes me. How do I make my photos more "interesting"? So I did a little experiment... while my son was writing his letters and numbers, I tried to take some photos of him with different angles, orientation, and focus points.
Or, some call it the "Thousand yard stare". According to wikipedia, it is a phrase coined to describe the limp, unfocused gaze of a battle-weary warrior, but the symptom it describes may also be found among victims of other types of trauma. Whatever it is called, I find it to be great when capturing portraits. When done right, it can bring a boost of dignity to the subject, and a bit of mystery to make viewers wonder that the subject is thinking. I caught this shot of my son last Saturday morning. From the little "monster" backpack on his back, you can tell he was being his jovial self and playing around, but for just one second, he had this deep look, and I was lucky to have the camera ready in hand to take a quick snap. Been a bit busy with work lately, but it's shots like this that reinforce that idea that I should at least take a few shots every day, because you'll never capture life's fleeting moments if the camera isn't even on! Exhibits in LACMA... I read a great article in TOP (The Online Photogapher) website the other day: "In Defense of Depth". The author, John Kennerdell, challenges the readers to take pictures with deeper focus that demands greater composition and timing. He ends the article with: "Just don't be surprised if some day you look back on all that shallow-focus work and find yourself wishing you'd paid more attention to the third dimension. And don't ask me whose old photos I was looking at when I first began to realize that for myself." Nowadays, especially with beginners like me, we love the shallow depth of field (DOF) and wild bokehs because it's "new" to us. We can't see bokehs with our eyes, and the shallow DOF is something we simply couldn't achieve with our point-and-shoot camera. So, we flock to it, admire it, inspired by it, and shoot a bunch of photographs with hardly anything in focus. |
AuthorDavid Young Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|