Warts and All

In a few days, I'll be completely used to it, but for now, the difference in light quality due to the recent time change is very apparent to me. There is enough light to take photographs into the early evening hours, and I like that. Another thing that I am in the process of getting used to is the digital noise apparent in dusky photographs, especially those made with older cameras with smaller sensors. I've learned to embrace the grain and other imperfections in film photographs because I know that if I want perfect fidelity I can just reach for my fancy digital camera and boom, it is done. In a similar vein, I have been revisiting the look of images made with older digital cameras. The digital noise in those files doesn't bother me so much any more; in fact, I'm inclined to let it remain visible or even enhance it a little. Once we are confident of our ability to achieve a certain level of technical perfection, does that free us up to explore the aesthetic properties of older, imperfect technology? 

Tasting notes: Olympus E-500 digital camera (CCD sensor), Olympus 35 mm f/3.5 macro lens, ISO 200.

Irresistible

June and July have been pretty rainy around here until about the last week, when hot summer weather kicked in in earnest. The sunflowers in the yard all started blooming at about the same time. No matter how many times I see them, I end up taking photographs of sunflowers.  In some way, they are much like the human face. Each one is unique in its imperfections, with plenty for the eye to explore, and, hence, worth photographing. The fact that there were a few insects crawling around was so much the better. In this case, I liked the black and white conversion the best. I was trying to mimic the look of infrared film, or rather give just a hint of it, in the final image.

Have a fine weekend with good light. 

Plato's Summicron

Most of us would like the opportunity to experience the finer things in life. These days we have an acronym for it, FOMO, but it's been around for ages. A powerful force is FOMO. Years ago, my brother nicked a bottle of Dom Perignon from his girlfriend's father's wine cellar for the two of us to drink. I still remember the sense of anticipation I felt while we were sitting around waiting for it to chill down. But I digress...

Lenses are to photographers as Dom is to champagne lovers, or as speakers are to audiophiles. Many of us end up on a quest to acquire the ultimate lens in a search for that je ne sais quoi it will impart to our images. For me, that lens was the Leica 35 mm Summicron R. 

I think this narrative is pretty familiar to most folks up to this point, so what I'd like to do is jump to the denouement and talk about some of the differences between Plato's Summicron and my copy of the lens.

The first image is a view of the Snake River Valley in Jackson, WY. I was hiking with the Summicron mounted on a R6 body using a low speed, fine grained film (ISO 12). As a result, this exposure was made at f/4. At this aperture, a lens of this vintage (at least 30 years old) is not at its best for landscape shooting, and the image is pretty soft in the corners. My fault, of course, both because I was very much aware of this property of the lens and also because I could easily have brought a tripod. Still, seeing the fuzzy negative brought me back to earth a little bit.