Gary used a 28mm /2.8 LTM some of the time... for his photos.
Or is that OT as well?
Gary used a 28mm /2.8 LTM some of the time... for his photos.Guys, ultimately, this post is about a guys camera...people can argue all day long about the
merits of one photog vs another...my post was and remains to be about a camera.
I thought I'd seen it all but never have I seen sprocket holes impressed on a pressure plate...most interesting. There must have been a tremendous amount of film run through that camera.
Nope. One frame sitting still, in the "right" environment, for a long time.
Wow. You've done your homework. Wow.Gary used a 28mm /2.8 LTM some of the time... for his photos.
Or is that OT as well?
Normally Kievs (and ContaxII) don't align film sprocket holes like Leicas (and clones) do.Nope. One frame sitting still, in the "right" environment, for a long time.
Think about it.
I have a '59 Kiev 4A that must have been used by a photojournalist; the chrome is gone from the advance knob and the knurling is rounded off - the pressure plate has bright aluminium showing through the anodising in a couple spots, but no sprocket hole outlines.
I have and use the same lens (a lot) it has a nice single coated signature and is higher contrast than the period Leica 28mms or 35mms.Wow. You've done your homework. Wow.
But you did not say if I strayed off topic or not.
Naw mate, yer not off topic. The 28 is a great weapon...which version do you use?
Well, photo history kinda sees it differently. BTW, my Christopher Walken video is poking fun...just in case the PC police think I'm a hitman. LOL
If you are shooting candits at opportunity you don't have an option...There are those in the art world who don't think highly of Winogrand's methods. A.D. Coleman once compared him to a monkey with a camera strapped to his head that randomly snapped pictures of whatever was in front of the monkey at the moment. As much as some people on APUG criticize digital shooters for shotgun-shooting 500 images and picking the one good one, I'm surprised no one has made the same comparison to Winogrand, whose methods were like a film version of the lambasted digital guy.
It doesn't matter how the shots are made, the best of Winogrand's work defined an era and a style of photography which is still being emulated today. In his later years he seemed to view taking the picture as the main event, not the photograph, but that too should not detract from his place in photographic history.There are those in the art world who don't think highly of Winogrand's methods. A.D. Coleman once compared him to a monkey with a camera strapped to his head that randomly snapped pictures of whatever was in front of the monkey at the moment. As much as some people on APUG criticize digital shooters for shotgun-shooting 500 images and picking the one good one, I'm surprised no one has made the same comparison to Winogrand, whose methods were like a film version of the lambasted digital guy.
Not very different from Vivian Maier or even Mark Cohen.In his later years he seemed to view taking the picture as the main event, not the photograph, but that too should not detract from his place in photographic history.
My 28mm /2.8 Canon does not vignette noticeably.Canon is also mentioned to be 3.5 by some who have seen Winogrand.
Later he was also seen with Leica 28 mm, it is visible in YouTube videos.
I could understand why Canon 28 3.5, 2.8 was first, I can't afford even old 28mm from Leica, same model Winogrand used.
Some of his prints I'm studying on-line have heavy vignetting, BTW.
Like this, I guess.Keep in mind, you're also looking at a print...a lot of photographers will burn in the corners
to draw the viewers eye into the image more....
Here is another one. Looks like crappy wide lens, wide open with filter attached.When I look at that image, I try to imagine the negative and circumstances...it's an on the fly shot, metered by memory and instinct and
fortunately, there's good information there. I think the nature of the exposure , and print, would lead to a natural vignetting anyways...
...
You cannot judge lens performance looking at a published print, with no provenance.When I look at that image, I try to imagine the negative and circumstances...it's an on the fly shot, metered by memory and instinct and
fortunately, there's good information there. I think the nature of the exposure , and print, would lead to a natural vignetting anyways...
but I have seen it in some of his work as you mentioned. Not sure how good a printer Garry was, but I'm assuming not too
bad. Lee Friedlander, who was a good friend of Winogrand and spent time with him in LA just before he passed, had a funny
story once of joining Garry in a darkroom one day when Garry was going to begin printing for a show, and watched Garry hang
a bow-tie and a rabbits foot off of the enlarger for good luck (he was apparently pretty superstitious)...Winogrand laughed and
said, "It can't hurt". I admire Winogrand and enjoy his work immensely...he had such a drive and passion for
capturing the world around him, one could say almost obsessive in nature. As photographers, I'm sure many of us can relate.
I'm surprised Mark Cohen didn't get a knuckle sandwich in that video...not my style.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?