Funny how, until recently, need was the mother of style. We needed more light. I opened up the aperture knowing I was hitting the limits of my ability to handhold the camera. But to my eye the out of focus areas in the background, as authentic as they come, make this portrait of a young child clutching a print magazine one of my favorite early photographs. I think I've been trying to get back to that basic level of making pictures ever since.
6 comments:
I’d almost forgotten the Canonet. I got mine to replace the SLR I had to leave behind (along with a near mint Crown Graphic) when I left a far away land in a big hurry. It was a tiny camera that worked beautifully but eventually the light seal turned to goo and I botched up replacing it. Wish I’d sent to a pro repair shop-it might have kept me with film a good bit longer.
400 iso and running out of light? And you call yourself a pro? (smile)
There are (and were) ways around that besides large apertures.
In the mid 70’s to early 80’s I lived in a small town with around 50,000 inhabitants. One of the local photo shops had a special service for demanding customers (typical local press, that didn’t let 400 iso restrict sharpness, depth of field nor shutter speed). I worked - part time - as a tech writer (with access to a real pro electronics test laboratory) with the added requirement to supply some kind of reportage photography. even Indoor in dark corners, with lot’s of action?
No problem.
I just lied to my camera (standard mamiya 35mm SLR) and told it, that the film was 1600 ISO, and when stretched 3200 ISO.
My secret weapon was a true and godly endowed, genuine chemical wizard, when developing films were involved. I was partial to Ilford B&W (and Agfa colors), and if I made notes of the images, that I had “pushed a trifle”, he was able to deliver pure magic. 1600 ISO posed no problem, if otherwise handled - ahem - optimistically correct. 3200 ISO was approaching hit and miss, with a tendency to “artsy results” (my excuse, when the editor screamed, but… even on the press printing side, there were still a bit of leeway from time to time).
So, where’s the problem?
When I hear young punks scream in horror, when I suggest, that they use higher ISO than 800-1600 on their modern cameras, I’m amazed. Even my old and trusted, tiny LX100 (used for nightly walkabouts) handles 6400 ISO, when push comes to shove (with a bit of “massage” in Lightroom and - especially - DxO DeepPrime 2). My S5 has the limit fixed to 51,200 ISO (seldom required), just in case, during leisure walkabouts in foreign inner cities at evenings to night.
Did I say, that I prefer to freeze movement (no fan of artsy smeared subjects at “perfectly good” 800 iso after midnight); also on my S5 and the 20-60 mm walkabout zoom (28-85 eqv. when selecting the Super35 crop for 4k video).
Still, like you, I also miss the marked manual focus positions with depth of field markings (to steer you somewhere near the right settings for your requirements).
Have fun.
Dear Unknown. Delusion runs rampant in the aging photo community. Memory of past techniques skewed by corrupt mental data.
Show examples or it didn't happen.
Tried to, but couldn't find a way to include in the comment in your blog.
Your specialty was portraits, which is less forgiving, than press photos (ask around in the 'inner circles' and be amazed).
Regards
You're presuming, of course that I was blind, illiterate and had no photography friends in the 1970's, right?
We all tried pushing stuff and it all looked like shit compared to shooting film at its normal ISO. And remember, we couldn't "change" ISOs in mid-roll. But I guess you carried a ton of cameras around, each loaded with a different emulsion and labeled with the required lab push instructions. Lucky you.
No facility for putting images in comments here. A mixed blessing. But you can always link to your sharing site...
Post a Comment