[Leica] What I do-wah-de-do

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Lucien: >>>By the way, do you really want to convince, or do you want to
contradict Erwin whatever he say. <snip> I hope I'm wrong.<<<


It seems my final paragraph of that earlier message offended some
people, and I apologize. I hope my subsequent amplification made my
point more clearly.


Jeff Spirer: >>>I have never successfully hung an MTF graph on the
wall.  I have done the other things, and to be perfectly honest, Mike's
methodology is a lot more important to me than any scientific testing<<<

It does seem that I disagree with many things that Erwin says. I suspect
that Jeff Spirer has put his finger on why: Erwin is a scientist,
whereas I am an empiricist.

I also feel annoyance because I perceive a disjunct between what Erwin
claims--to be objective and dispassionate--and what I consistently
perceive him to be: an ADVOCATE. That is, I feel he has decided to
defend Leica at all costs, and so he will, come what may, no matter how
far-out the claims are. It's okay if he wants to do this. I just think
he ought to come clean about it, is all, and admit to what he is: a
passionate advocate for the technical superiority of Leica. There's
obviously nothing wrong with that. How about it, Erwin?

As for the facts under discussion, I'd like to note how I personally
achieve high technical quality.

I use 35mm, fast film, good lenses, and I make reasonably small
enlargements.

I use 35mm for three reasons:

1. Note-taking.
I don't try to make "good" pictures--i.e., impressive, visually
appealing but relatively meaningless pictures. I use a camera to take
notes from my life. To take notes, you need to snap away. 35mm helps me
do this (although it's still tough to keep up with the developing
chores). I photograph ordinary things, often in an ordinary way. These
things are not ordinary to me, however, because of the crucial fact that
they come directly out of my own life and experience, and my own life is
my own life--the only life I get to live on earth. It's important to
_me_. Thus, the pictures that honestly record it are important to me
too. Half of my intent is to make prints that please me, but half of my
intent is to create a visual diary of my life on my contact sheets.

This is remarkably freeing, because it takes me "out of competition" so
to speak. I'm not trying to make "impressive" pictures to impress
strangers. Some of my favorite pictures might be simple record shots of
places I've spent time or people I've been with, or things that I think
are interesting. To others, these pictures are nondescript. To me, they
are very rich and often even beautiful. And I often experiment--I snap
away even knowing that the pictures will not be good photographs. Why?
Only because I want the information in the scenes to be there on my
contact sheets. This is not only freeing, but fun.

2. Portability.
I like to have the camera with me. As Stephen often says, you can't take
a picture with a camera that is at home in the closet. This was, not
surprisingly, often the case when I photographed with 4x5.

3. Hand-holdability.
I very much like to not use a tripod. I decided this, as I decide most
things, empirically--I went through all my favorite pictures, remembered
the situation in which I took it, and tries to evaluate whether I could
have used a tripod. In most cases, I couldn't have. I was either in some
awkward position, or on a speedboat, or about to be chased off by a
guard, or hanging out of a car window, or whatever. Never mind the
positioning, there is also the timing: most of my favorite pictures
would never have been taken if I even had to wait as long as it takes to
set up a tripod between the seeing and the photographing .

So 35mm is important to me for three reasons: first, because it gives 36
exposures on a filmstrip; second, because it makes it easy (sorry,
easiER) to keep the camera with me; and third, because it is easy to
handhold. Why these three things? Because they give me QUALITY. Quality
is in what the picture shows and how it shows it, you see, to me, not in
how sharp the detail is or whatever.

Next, I use fast film. Again, this is to achieve image QUALITY. I'm not
being facetious. Slower films yield greater resolution and less grain.
But they have disadvantages too: they require slower shutter speeds,
exacerbating camera shake and subject motion; they limit shooting in low
light and may require faster lenses. And I think they highlight the
plane of focus more, because they make the near out-of-d.o.f. more
distinct. A faster film that enables the use of smaller apertures and
faster shutter speeds improves the QUALITY of pictures, I feel. And
since I don't care a whit about resolution of ultra-fine detail and I
don't mind grain--in fact like a bit of it--the choice of fast film is
easy.

Next, I use good lenses. For me this means--again, empirically--a lens
that I like the look of. Lenses have character, if you are attuned to
it. There is absolutely no justification for using one good lens or
another good lens in terms of RESULTS. _Viewers_don't_care_. It's mainly
important that we photographers be comfortable with our equipment and
have confidence in it. That's why we should buy something we like and
that pleases us.

For me, this ties into the film choice. I like lenses that have good
contrast for large structures (say at 5 lp/mm), good blur or
out-of-focus rendition, and a character I like. And I need no more
resolution than the film needs. Since my film is not particularly
high-resolution, my lenses needn't be. Perhaps as a consequence of this,
many of my favorite lenses are not lenses that "test" as being the
"best"--and many of the best-testing lenses, I don't necessarily like.

Finally, I stick with moderate-sized enlargements. Why? Well, because
they look better. The film doesn't "want" to be enlarged too much (if
you can tolerate a bit of what, in the study of literature, is called
"the pathetic fallacy" <s>). I often print full-frame at about 7 x
10-and-a-half inches on 11x14 paper, but my preferred size is 6x9 on
8x10 paper. Why? I just like it best.

When Erwin says:

>>>When talking about image quality we have three variables: the optical
quality of the lens, the negative format and the enlargement factor. You
can not discuss these topics meaningfully when mixing them together<<<

I think he is precisely wrong. It is just the opposite: all the
variables involved in image quality (and there are far more than three!)
are INTERdependent, and MUST be discussed together. Each is irrelevant
discussed alone. It is the whole SYSTEM as it interrelates that leads to
any sort of quality or lack thereof. It starts with the light and ends
with the print.

You see, I do all this I'm describing--from format choice to print
size--precisely for reasons of QUALITY. Everything I do works out for
me--for me, n.b. I love the way these prints look! I honestly do. It
turns me on. A 6x9 35mm Tri-X print, showing the blackline, floated in a
14x18 mat with a frame of just the right color--this is as good as it
gets to me. I love this technique AS TECHNIQUE. (I also love it because
it approximates--you might even say mimics--the technique of a great
many of the photographers I most admire.)

Now, do you have to agree with me? Absolutely not! Of course not! Who am
I to tell you or anyone else how to shoot? My friend Carl Weese works in
8x10 platinum; I _love_ his work. I wouldn't _dream_ of suggesting to
him that my own choices are better. They're not! We published a
portfolio by Val Brinkerhoff of color Iris or giclée prints. The
originals were oversize and just absolutely stunning. And even
techniques I don't personally care for--say, 20x24 Ilfochrome prints
from 35mm color slides, which would not be my favorite technique--I can
appreciate. If YOU love it, and if you are a good photographer, then
this will come through in your work. I don't care for gum prints; my
friend Phil Davis loves them, and will labor for days to make a single
one. I still appreciate them. I can appreciate pictures made with
techniques I don't personally practice, or even like.

What's it to you? If you like your own technique as well as I like mine,
there's nothing I need to say to you. You want to make huge enlargements
from 35mm? Knock yourself out. You like Diana or Holga cameras, like
Kyle's inexpensive "Leica"? Go for it--Nancy Rexroth's book _Iowa_ is a
great photography book, not just a book of great Diana photography.
There's no right and wrong way to do this, people. So when Ted asks:

>>>However, playing devils advocate here!  May I ask what all this has
to do with taking whiz bang cracker jack pictures?<<<

The answer is nothing at all, nothing at all.

Sorry for the long post.

- --Mike