Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alistair, This sounds like a wonderful trip and I am envious. I had a big time landscape learning experience at Uluru last year. It was pre-Leica M for me so my gear was a Nikon FM2 (and 85, 50, 50 macro, 35PC) and a 6x6 Zeiss-Ikon Nettar (well, at least its the same format as the 'blad) but I guess what I am saying is that I had both 6x6 and 35mm with me which relates to your post. The precis of what follows is that if you are new to landscape photography, experiment. Here are some of my thoughts on your questions: > I note that some of you use telephotos. How? Why? I'm not a telephoto user but I do favour my 85mm Nikkor. What I like about the longer focal length is being able to pick off the bit of the expansive scene before me that really catches my eye. With a scene that grabs me I try understand what the 'hook' is for me in what I am seeing. Often it is something that isn't wide angle but narrow - the rest is 'packaging'. I did get the opportunity to try a 300mm lens of a fellow photographer I met and it was nice, but personally I think the 'lugging to benefit ratio' is poor, but then I spent most of my time on foot. Having said all that, when I got home and went through my material I wish I'd put a 35mm or 50 mm on more often as I have a lot of tight scenes but maybe not enough space - all that beautiful Australian space. > What do you look for in landscape detail? Alistair, you have skill on the streets in picking off scenes, so you know what to do. Wait for the shot that takes you and then take the shot. Why *do* we take all these photos? One thing I have learned (and this is pure personal preference) is that if you are guided by the rule of thirds, and are using colour for a wide angle 'panorama' (which for me means 35mm) , try giving the larger portion of the image to the sky. The sky here so often dominates the landscape and is totally cloudless. I know bare sky is traditionally regarded as 'boring' in landscape photography, but it is worth paying homage to and an Ilfochrome with red earth and a metallic indigo sky is a joy to behold. After dusk the transition in colours from horizon to zenith is simply beautiful . For land/sky shots I now often use the rule of quarters or fifths. Try one or two and see what you think. > Which films are favoured? For Uluru I was new to the game so I took a bit of everything - Kodachrome 64 & 200, Agfa RSX 50, Velvia, Optima 100, Ultra 50 for colour. APX25, Agfa Ortho (for fun), Delta 100 & 400 and Tri-X in B&W for both 35mm and 120 (I only use B&W in the Nettar - for no apparent reason, just because). If I could only take 1 colour film I'd choose K64. It copes beautifully with skies that are so blue you feel like dissolving and becoming part of it all, and it does the red/brown earth just as well. The K200 at dusk was useful. Velvia was just great for wildflowers, but can be a bit slow for macro if there is a breeze. The Ilfochromes from all are glorious. I am an Optima 100 fan and can't look past it for landscape prints - very true colour, nice and dense with a touch over exposure. For B&W you probably have your favourites now and I'd take what you are used to. > How do you present your results? Just now I am putting together a slide show for a native plant group (it will be on in Melbourne if you are interested), my favourites I hang on my walls, and I put little picture books together - but my photography is for my own pleasure and to show friends. Your goals may be different. > What times of day are best? Exposure tips? The usual - get out an hour before and after sun up and sun down. At dusk I think a lot of photographers go home too early. Get out your cable release and try some long exposures with K64. I reckon its worth experimenting with mid-day also. Harsh shadows can be marvellous subjects. 10am - 2pm the sky turns indigo straight up - try it as a background to something. Exposure? My main advice on exposure is take of your shoes and forget the snakes. Melbourne is much more dangerous. Someone other than me should advise photographically. I keep things pretty simple - on or just under for chromes and on or just over for prints. This seems to work for me. > What printed resources are useful? And would Jim please give me a review of tripods and stability issues. It must be at least 18 months since his excellent review, and I would have Buckley's of finding it in the files. Get a Lonely Planet guide and some National Park info (I found good material on the net for Uluru from the National Parks people). Pay your respects to the elders and ask for advice on where to go next. I took my Manfrotto 190 head which has those little bubble level things built in to keep the horizon straight. It was great. With trusty Man Frotto and the spirit guides I keep a level head and get clarity of vision. > Finally, equipment. I had originally planned to dust off the 'blad, but with the expansion of my Leica R stable, especially the telephoto side of things, I'm tempted to stick with 35mm on this journey and shoot lots of rolls. I like the square for composing in B&W - if I had a blad I'd take it for a change of pace, but then if I had a 'blad I think I'd take it everywhere. If you are worried about keeping things simple just take an 80mm lens. This is one of those personal preference things I guess. > Do I need a polarizer, and if I'm to do B/W work, which colour filters are a must? Australia is so colourful - why mess it up with a polariser? I'd take a yellow filter. I only had an orange with me and found that the deepness of the sky during the day (8 - 4) caused the resulting image to come out far too dark in my filtered shots. As with exposure this is not my theoretical strong point. All the best with your travels, Rob.