In Garry Winogrand's photos, an America of perpetual motion and bottomless ... Washington Post There is no lyric poetry in Winogrand's ambiguity in the way that defined the haunting vignettes of Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Emag.co.uk Leica 100th Anniversary Cameras Emag.co.uk Leica S Edition 100 Camera 100th Anniversary 01 Leica 100th Anniversary Cameras In any business, a centennial is a huge achievement, where only the most trusted companies can reach this amazing...
Friday Film: Contax 645 and Leica M7. by John Tuckey. Hi All, another film Friday offering for you to love or hate as you like ;-) These images are all from a shoot last weekend. The key camera was the Leica Mono with the ...
A little while back, I made an offhand comment about a certain camera being my choice for ‘serious’ work which spurred a lengthy subsequent discussion offline with a reader; it got me thinking: what exactly constitutes ‘seriousness’? But beyond that, how does a photographer’s choice of camera, or format, or medium, influence the final image? More importantly, is there any way we can use that to make stronger images – because ultimately, that’s what photography is all about. We’ll explore that in some detail in today’s article.
Following on from yesterday’s less is more article, I wanted to spend a bit more time about the implications of cutting your dependence on electronic nannies and going all manual – for both metering and focus. It’s actually nowhere near as intimidating as it sounds, and you’ll find that after getting over the initial hump, your photography will be both significantly more satisfying as well as compositionally stronger. You’ll get younger and lose weight, too*.
Contrary to popular belief, I do shoot pedestrian subjects. Quite often, actually; it’s one of those ways you can condition yourself to see differently and pay more attention to light, form and composition. At the end of a long assignment some time ago, I took one of the Hasselblads, the 120/4 CF Makro-Planar and a few rolls of Acros out with me for a quick excursion to the Kuala Lumpur Orchid Park; I’d evidently gone at the wrong time of year since nothing much seemed to be in bloom. Still, I came back with a few interesting images from that outing – and all in all, was pretty satisfied with the output especially given that I hadn’t shot any film for going on two months at that point in time*.
Leica has a special event planned for April 24th. Leica Rumors spotted a event flyer detailing an media shindig that could be the big reveal for the long awaited Leica T type 701 mirrorless camera. The new camera first hit the ...
Here’s an interesting concept: photographic invisibility. By this, I mean the ability to take a photograph of anything, anywhere, or anybody, without being noticed. Nothing would be off limits, nowhere would be inaccessible, and everything you see would be just a shutter-click away. Assume for a moment, technical limitations don’t really apply – we don’t have to worry about image quality or low light or too much or too little depth of field, or buffers or file handling or curating the enormous mountain of images that would be the product of such an exercise. Of course, this is impossible – or nearly impossible unless the subject is heavily distracted, or you’re a photojournalist or street photography ninja – but stay with me for a while.
Lars-Göran Hedström's insight:
Interesting view and a good read, as always from Ming Thein.
Perhaps the biggest struggle photography has faced historically as a medium is to be taken seriously as an art form. I’d say it’s only in the last couple of decades that the results at auction have been able to hold their own against traditional art forms; even if a good chunk of us don’t understand why – myself included. (I’m probably not the only one thinking of Andreas Gursky here.) Yet we don’t have photographs insured for hundreds of millions of dollars, or exhibited behind bulletproof glass, or even the subject of exciting art heists – let alone Hollywood movies – why is this?