The thing that I’ve noticed is that my photos from the two are different, and I mean this beyond the differences between film and digital, or canon versus leica, coated versus uncoated lenses. I do have a small hunch that it may have to do with the fact that each
photo on film costs $, so I take more time with them, but I think there
is more to it than that. I just frame things differently with each of them.  And I’d go so far as to argue that I prefer the composition of my recent shots with the Leica.

It being a rangefinder, you can see AROUND the picture that you’re taking.  You can see how you’re putting a frame around reality, and perhaps more importantly, you can see what you’re leaving out.

For those who have never looked through one, here’s what the viewfinder on a rangefinder looks like..  I’ve stolen this from the Leica site:

The white lines are called frame lines and show the edges of the picture that the attached lens is going to take. So if you attach a wide angle lens then the box takes up more of the view, longer lens then the box gets smaller.

Now, see how you can see around the image you’re going to take?  It makes you think about the composition that much more.  If I was taking this shot I might say, “Ooo, I should pan up, have the buildings coming into the frame from nothing and get more of that super cool cloud in the shot” or maybe, “Ooo, that would look much better in vertically, I should turn the camera and get more of the sky”, or maybe even “Screw the city, that cloud is f*cking cool!”  Ok, so I’ve got a cloud thing.. we’ve all got our weaknesses.  There are also composition options which involve that barge in the foreground, or maybe the trees on the left side.  You get the point.

You could certainly just pan around on your SLR and see all these things too, but for some reason which I can’t quite put my finger on, I don’t. Or rather, I don’t see them as easily.

That said, this also goes for all kinds of other cameras.  I frame things differently on my Hasselblad too, and on my big 4×5 camera.  It just amazes me how much the tool effects how you see the world.   However I have started to notice a bit of cross pollonization happening, where my overall skill at seeing the picture has improved by moving from camera to camera, and format to format.   Maybe it’s like working out on different machines at the gym.  Strength training for your photographic eye.  Just a thought.

Don’t worry, starting this weekend I’ll get back to more of the normal portraiture that I’m known for. I’m feeling very anxious to start climbing the creative mountain again. It’s time to start really pushing myself and taking chances.

The Leica was the camera of Cartier-Bresson and Capa and Winogrand and a billion other famous photographers.  It’s a small, metal, nearly bulletproof 35mm camera which after over 50 years of revision, has undergone little change.

I’ll admit, I’ve always wanted one. I heard one story, that Cartier-Bresson knew he was going to be taken prisoner in  WWII so he buried his Leica (a pre-M model) in a field in France and then dug it up when he was released a couple years later and it still worked. In yet another anecdote, I heard that to impress potential buyers who wondered why they should pay 3 times more than the equivalent Nikon, Leica salesmen, used to remove the lens and throw the body against the nearest brick wall, pick it up, reattach the lens and take a photo. With stories like that, who wouldn’t lust after one.

Now, I’m not the kind of photographer who thinks that gear makes the picture.  Most of the photos from 365 Portraits were taken with a Canon 5D and a couple of $400 prime lenses.. certainly not the esoteric stuff some people get into.  That said, there is a mythology surrounding Leica glass that I just had to find out about.

So on December 31st I went with some christmas money and bought myself a Leica as a present to myself for finishing a year long project. I didn’t want to buy junk, but at the same time I just spent a year working with an empty bank account to show for it, so money was an issue, I’m not going to lie about it.   So I went to a dealer on the 19th floor of a building near Union Square and ended up buying a M4 body.  Then off to a another store near the flat-iron building to buy glass (the first store was all out of 50mm lenses).  There I ended up buying an old collapsable 50 f/2 lens from the late 50’s.  All told I was in for about $1300.

Loaded up with a roll of Kodak 400CN film I walked around and shot and processed, and what did I find?  I found that a rangefinder takes a little getting used to.  I liked the lack of blackout when you take a picture. I LOVE the feel of the shutter and the film advance in a way that’s inappropriate with an inanimate object, but I’m willing to take that risk.  And as for the ‘look’ of the images, I’m surprised to report that yes, there is something special about Leica glass, at least in my first roll.  The smooth transition between in focus and out as well as the elusive impressionistic bokeh are delightful.

I’m sure there will be more to say on this subject, but I just wanted to give everybody my first thoughts on my new toy.