Springtime in Toronto: we’re not quite there yet.
↑Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya 110mm @ f/5.6, and Kodak Tri-X 400.
This was shot wide open @ f/2.8, but required a relatively slow shutter speed of 1/30 sec to expose the foreground figures correctly. The camera was braced on the floor to reduce vibration and also to obtain the perspective I was seeking.
I was lucky to hit the shutter at just the right moment — the eye contact was brief.
I wasn’t sure how the 110/2.8 would deal with shooting into the light, but the lens has once again impressed me.
And, I am really enjoying the Mamiya RZ67… more so than I thought I would. Yes, it’s a large and heavy camera, but the system is so well thought out that it prevents you from “screwing up” while delivering exceptional results.
When I purchased my Mamiya equipment, the 180/4.5 lens was also included, but I haven’t yet photographed with it.
↑Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya 110mm @ f/2.8, and Kodak Tri-X 400.
(About a girl and her dog)
This was taken at bedtime, under very dim light. The film was therefore pushed quite a bit during post processing to lighten things (I should have instead “pushed” it during development).
I’m actually amazed that I ended up with an image that I like, given my previous attempts to capture such scenes in my kitchen without the aid of daylight have never produced satisfactory results, with digital cameras (M9, M8, D3S, D3, D700, etc.) anyway. Although film doesn’t make up for poor lighting, it certainly is more forgiving.
↑Leica M3, Voigtländer Nokton 40mm @ f/1.4, and Kodak Tri-X 400.
1/25 sec, ISO 640, f/1.4.
Despite this being a hand-held image at a reasonably slow shutter speed, the in-focus areas readily display the “crisp” rendering we get from CCD sensors.
The colours are remarkable too, considering this was photographed under incandescent light.
(DNG file converted to JPG with no post-processing)
↑Leica M9 and Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH @ f/1.4.
↑Leica M9 and Leica 75mm Summarit @ f/2.5.
If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.
In Greek mythology, Theseus was the the hero who slayed the Minotaur in the Labyrinth of Knossos.
He then sailed home, on a ship that — having long been in service — was in obvious need of repair. Wooden planks were therefore removed and replaced.
Theseus’ Paradox arises from the following thought experiment: suppose, over time, more and more aging planks were removed and then replaced with new pieces of wood until — eventually — no original plank remained.
Most people would still consider it Theseus‘ ship, but… Would it still be the same ship that served him so well?
There are several potential answers to this question, and one further wrinkle that involves taking all of the old discarded planks and re-fashioning another ship, thus creating two Theseus ships (the one with all of the replaced parts, and a new-old one with the old parts). It’s very mind-bending.
So…what’s this have to do with photography?
I recently purchased a 1963 Leica M3 in completely original condition, and sent it in for servicing. Even though it was working well enough in most situations, several of its optical and mechanical parts were in poor condition and needed to be replaced. The exterior covering was replaced too.
I’m currently waiting for its return.
While I’m waiting, the question I keep asking myself, after all of these changes is:
Is this the same M3 that allowed me take this image?
Or has my ship sailed?