[Leica] [Leica} standards, Doisneau, Summicron performance

[imxputs <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Mark wrote:
        >I used to always hear "standardize" from people who always used the 
same
        > 400 film for everything. I didn't agree with that approach to great
        > artistic or commercial photography. I wouldn't think youse would 
either.
        > So what would "standardize" mean to you? If this is a key to great 
work
        > anyone would be extremely interested.
        Mark,
        it is very easy to simplify anything to any extreme position. Assuming 
that you must stubbornly stick to a
        one-film-for-everything-approach to make the idea of standardization 
viable is quite simplistic. I use 5 to 6
        types of B&W films, 2 filmdevelopers, 6 types of printpaper. In 
addition I use 5 to 6 types of colour slide
        film. I measure exposure with two meters (a spot and an incident one) 
in situations with ambient, flash and
        mixed ambient/flash light. Exposure levels go from -3 to 18 EV and 
contrast can be anything from 3 to 10
        stops. Still I would not hesitate to designate my technique as 
standardized. Why: my exposure measurement
        is standard: always the same procedure. My development technique is 
standard: always the same temp,
        dilution, and rhythm. My printing technique is standard:exposure times 
are fixed within reasonable margins,
        thanks to consistent negative densities. Above all: I have carefully 
explored the limits of my material and
        adjusted my technique to exploit every combination to its best 
possible merits. And then I stick to these
        procedures. So I am really free in my mind to create or look for these 
images I would like to capture with a
        Leica. I do not know of any great master of photography (past or 
present) who uses large amounts of
        his/her time to continually experimenting with new films or 
film/developer combinations. Everyone will agree
        that is better to know a few materials of choice intimately by 
sticking to proven procedures and
        incorporating new material through the same proven procedures and 
adjusting to the new characteristics.
        After all it is more satisfying to use one film to perfection, than 
ten to just average results.

        Eric wrote that Doisneau is no good example because he occasionally 
used models to recreate some
        interesting street images. First of all 99% of D's images are indeed 
real life. And why is it bad to recreate a
        scene. The line is quite thin here. It is as example wellknown that 
HCB influenced his subjects to behave in
        a way that suited his imaging purposes. He did it subtle, but he did 
it anyway. If you look carefully at some
        of his pictures, you have to admit that they are on the brink of being 
posed.

        Walt stated that he did not see any differences between the 2/90 
Summicron (non asph) and the Elmarit 90.
        That someone does not see it, does not imply that is does not exist. 
Here we fall into a very common
        fallacy. Still his message is worth reflecting: I do see clearly 
weaknesses in image quality in the full aperture
        performance of the S, compared to the current state of the art. If any 
of the messages about absolute or
        relative performance of whatever lens will become meanigfull, we 
should refer to our own standards of
        reference. It will really help if we would state exactly what image 
details or characteristics we are
        discussing. It is very easy (and I do it all of my workshops) to show 
the attendants of the course two
        transparancies and ask them to look for differences. It is very 
enlightening to note that even hardcore Leica
        users have great difficulty in looking at a picture with a 
'technical-performance' view. Looking at a picture is
        99% an act of the brain and what we ant to see is exactly what we are 
going to see.


        Erwin