aizan
Veteran
this kind of reportage basically elicits a set, one dimensional response from a person, depending on whether they're pro-war or pro-peace. it's very unchallenging, very status quo. people take what they want from it.
2005 Pulitzer prizes in photography
- Thread starter peter_n
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 3K
peter_n
Veteran
The April 18, 2005 issue of The New Yorker magazine has a very interesting article on Salgado on pages 143-154. The article title is 'A Cold Light'. His books Migrations and An Uncertain Grace are well worth looking at.dkirchge said:
hoot
green behind the ears
Does anyone know whether Salgado uses a rangefinder?
aizan
Veteran
sometimes, though not for the genesis project (pentax 67).
R
Roman
Guest
hoot said:
AFAIK he mainly uses Leica R6.2 SLRs (usually a set of two, one with a 28mm and one with something longer), but occasionally also Leica M6. He was sponsored by Leica for a while.
His current nature stuff is shot with Pentax 67 MF SLRs, though I've read tha he is also using the Pentax 645NII.
Films: TriX in Rodinal, printing is done by a some professional printers in Paris.
Roman
PS: Of course, all of this is not that relevant for the his pictures - it is rather that he gets to know his subjects very well on a personal level while shooting...
Last edited by a moderator:
hoot
green behind the ears
Roman said:
Well, I would think that using a rangefinder to photograph people (who know they are being photographed) does make a difference over an SLR, if only in the sense that (as I remarked yesterday over coffee) the fact that you look into and not through an SLR camera may create a subconscious barrier between the photographer and the subject.
My new theory (*hops onto a soapbox*) is that when you've got to lift the camera to your face, a camera that lets you shoot with both eyes open would create the smallest barrier of all, because you will be able to maintain eye contact with your subject at all times.
What do you guys think?
I'll be interested, Hoot, in seeing comments from others... It may go against the tenets of this RF religion, but it seems to me the differences may not be as dramatic as often expressed. That is, not a whole heap of difference whether I pick up my Minolta CLE with 28mm lens or the Pentax ME Super with 28mm lens. Whether looking at an image focused on a ground-glass screen or the direct-view viewfinder doesn't seem to matter a whole lot, and in neither case is having the other eye open helpful, since the scene magnification is too different for that to work anyway I think.
Both cameras are small, unintrusive, aperture-priority AE... They obviously differ in that the SLR viewfinder shows only what the film will see, changing magnification with different lenses, but at least as important is how they focus. The RF is simply easier and faster to focus.
I don't know about the "subconscious barrier between the photographer and the subject," as I've not noticed that effect either way.
Both cameras are small, unintrusive, aperture-priority AE... They obviously differ in that the SLR viewfinder shows only what the film will see, changing magnification with different lenses, but at least as important is how they focus. The RF is simply easier and faster to focus.
I don't know about the "subconscious barrier between the photographer and the subject," as I've not noticed that effect either way.
aizan
Veteran
well, you needn't focus precisely to see the subject clearly with rangefinders, which lends it to to be zone and hyperfocal focused, while the infinity locks and focusing tabs help to scale focus. also, the extra space around the framelines lets you see the lay of the land and helps frame the shot quicker. this means you can spend more time looking around you than through the eyepiece. you can experience that however you want, but i don't get too touchy-feely because the differences are so basic it's not a hard decision.
af has sped up focusing and getting a clear view on slrs, enough that you don't need to zone, hyperfocal, or scale focus. focusing in low light is also easier with af than mf. but i still prefer rangefinders, at moderate focal lengths, because it retains the advantages of letting you see what's outside the frame, making less noise, and having less shutter lag. they're easy to focus manually in low light and are more portable, too, so why not? especially now that the cost barrier is gone. the only time i'd prefer to use an slr is at telephoto and macro, where the ttl view really shines, or when using polarizer and graduated filters.
i'm ready for my essay, mr. demille.
af has sped up focusing and getting a clear view on slrs, enough that you don't need to zone, hyperfocal, or scale focus. focusing in low light is also easier with af than mf. but i still prefer rangefinders, at moderate focal lengths, because it retains the advantages of letting you see what's outside the frame, making less noise, and having less shutter lag. they're easy to focus manually in low light and are more portable, too, so why not? especially now that the cost barrier is gone. the only time i'd prefer to use an slr is at telephoto and macro, where the ttl view really shines, or when using polarizer and graduated filters.
i'm ready for my essay, mr. demille.
kiev4a
Well-known
I have to say that I don't give much credence to the idea that rangefinders are necessarily better "people" cameras than slrs )at least when the slr isn't tank-sized.
A rangefinder shutter is quieter than an slr shutter in some cases. But my old Nikon FM is probably a little smaller and lighter (with some lenses) than a Leica M -- and just as fast to shoot and faster to load. And the FM shutter isn't likely to draw a lot more attention that an RF unless the area where you are shooting has almost no background noise.
One reason, I suppose, that I feel the way I do is that I wear eye glasses. And in most cases even an slr without a high eyepoint finder is easier for me to compose with than a rangefinder.
For me, the rangefinder really comes into it's own when I use a Zorki I (Leica II copy) equipped with a Jupiter 12 35mm lens and axiliary shoe mounted finder. That little outfit is more compact that any slr, provides enough depth of field that focusing usually usn't a factor, and is quiet to boot. SLRs usually have retrofocus WA lenses which add a lot of weight and bulk.
A rangefinder shutter is quieter than an slr shutter in some cases. But my old Nikon FM is probably a little smaller and lighter (with some lenses) than a Leica M -- and just as fast to shoot and faster to load. And the FM shutter isn't likely to draw a lot more attention that an RF unless the area where you are shooting has almost no background noise.
One reason, I suppose, that I feel the way I do is that I wear eye glasses. And in most cases even an slr without a high eyepoint finder is easier for me to compose with than a rangefinder.
For me, the rangefinder really comes into it's own when I use a Zorki I (Leica II copy) equipped with a Jupiter 12 35mm lens and axiliary shoe mounted finder. That little outfit is more compact that any slr, provides enough depth of field that focusing usually usn't a factor, and is quiet to boot. SLRs usually have retrofocus WA lenses which add a lot of weight and bulk.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Roman said:
I read many years ago that he carries 6 Leica RFs, each fitted with a Summicron 35 f/2 and loaded with TRI-X. ASA 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400. Supposedly he carried theses cameras in inconspicuous cloth bags and packed his clothes in a metal camera case while travelling. I also read that his wife does his printing.
Kevin
R
Roman
Guest
Maybe a long time ago? Currently his printing is done in Paris, I forgot the name of the printer, there was a thread ybout it recently on phozo.net. For his new nature project, his printer uses Calbe A49 for developing his medium format TriX.
Roman
Roman
