# Help! What do I need for this type of photography?



## 100010011100 (Feb 10, 2011)

Hello all,

I'm new to photography, not just film photography, but have a clear idea of what type of pictures I'd like to create.

I'm not new to other types of art and creativity and I have seen just how important gear and materials are as much as the artist. I have already purchased a Leica M2 body, I just need a lens now. However, lenses I have seen are a bigger part of the package than the bodies. I have looked at lenses at low apertures as I'd like to pursue bokeh type photography. I don't mind off brands, as long as they're M-mount compatible preferably.

I'm not into copying anyone's ability or originality, but as I am new to photography it's a good place to start out as reference rather than starting not knowing anything. Please, let's make this a discussion about what is being used and can be used to gain the results of this photo below, not about originality...






*Taken with Contax G2, Zeiss Planar 35mm f/2 (Film make was not mentioned)

Some have said the bokeh is ugly, but that doesn't so much worry me. I like the almost 3D like aura of the lady compared to her surroundings.

Is this purely the 35mm perspective opposed to 50mm or something?
Is this specific to Zeiss lenses?

What is behind this image as far as technicalities and gear? This really catches my passion.

- Thank you so much and any and all help is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 10, 2011)

The 'basic' effect here is a shallow DOF, which is achieved with a large aperture (low F number) lens.  

But yes, there is a certain characteristic of really good lenses...you might call it a 3D like aura.  Leica lenses are certainly near the top of the list, Zeiss has some great ones as well.

Hopefully some members with more knowledge & experience on these things will step in here....as unfortunately, I can't afford the things we're talking about.


----------



## wlbphoto (Feb 10, 2011)

:thumbup:





Big Mike said:


> The 'basic' effect here is a shallow DOF, which is achieved with a large aperture (low F number) lens.
> 
> But yes, there is a certain characteristic of really good lenses...you might call it a 3D like aura.  Leica lenses are certainly near the top of the list, Zeiss has some great ones as well.
> 
> Hopefully some members with more knowledge & experience on these things will step in here....as unfortunately, I can't afford the things we're talking about.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 10, 2011)

The look of the bokeh on each lens varies... lenses with more aperture blades typically have smoother looking bokeh, but that's arguable as well.  Many people, myself included, like the "swirly" look that some lenses produce. 

One thing to keep in mind is that if you are going to be shooting at f2 or lower in daylight, you're going to want a camera body capable of very fast shutter speeds--otherwise you'd need a ND filter of the lens to avoid over exposure.  The shot above would have had to be taken at 1/3200 of a second with iso 50 film.  With iso 100 film it would likely need to be 1/6400.  

If they used a polarizing filter, which it appears they may have, that would have helped cut the light by a stop or two.  But you would still want a camera capable of 1/4000 of a second exposures or faster.


----------



## 100010011100 (Feb 10, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> The look of the bokeh on each lens varies... lenses with more aperture blades typically have smoother looking bokeh, but that's arguable as well.  Many people, myself included, like the "swirly" look that some lenses produce.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that if you are going to be shooting at f2 or lower in daylight, you're going to want a camera body capable of very fast shutter speeds--otherwise you'd need a ND filter of the lens to avoid over exposure.  The shot above would have had to be taken at 1/3200 of a second with iso 50 film.  With iso 100 film it would likely need to be 1/6400.
> 
> If they used a polarizing filter, which it appears they may have, that would have helped cut the light by a stop or two.  But you would still want a camera capable of 1/4000 of a second exposures or faster.



Thanks for the response man!

The Contax G2 does indeed have a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 so no doubt they may have used that.

I haven't however seen any Leicas other than maybe the digital m8/m9 (I'm using an M2) that have anything faster than 1/1000.

If your calculations are solely based on f/2, I don't understand what people's set ups would look like if they were using say a Noctilux @ f/1 or Summilux @ f/1.4 for example? Ideas?


----------



## usayit (Feb 11, 2011)

100010011100 said:


> I haven't however seen any Leicas other than maybe the digital m8/m9 (I'm using an M2) that have anything faster than 1/1000.



Leica has always stood by their highly reliable and robust cloth shutter curtain design.   My take is Part historical and part conservative design.   Many of Leica shooters of the time also preferred a camera that was mostly mechanically driven.. in case batteries were not available.  All great... but the limitation of this design is the relatively slow max shutter and slow flash sync.   The M8/M9 brought to the M-body line a electronic mechanical shutter which improved on max shutter.  M8 has 1/8000, M8.2 has 1/4000, and M9 has 1/4000.   

I personally shoot with the Noctilux f/1 and I chose to keep the M8 specifically for the 1/8000 shutter speed.  



> If your calculations are solely based on f/2, I don't understand what people's set ups would look like if they were using say a Noctilux @ f/1 or Summilux @ f/1.4 for example? Ideas?



The during the high time of film, you can find slow film such as iso 25 and such (many of these films are of such high quality and such fine grain).   Above that, you would need to use ND filters (a good quality one) to bring the EV down enough to shoot wide open.

The sample you posted reminds me of the highly regarded Kodachrome (It was recently discontinued.. a moment of silence please... sniff sniff).  


The final cents I have to offer is in regards to Leica lens selection which is also applicable to Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc..    Each of these pieces have their own way of rendering... their own character.. their own look.  By "look" I also mean bokeh.  Leica fanatics obsess over this beyond the simple numbers on paper indicating focal length, number of elements, diaphragm blades, max aperture.   Things that most shooters today completely overlook. The simple answer is shallow DOF is a function of max aperture (lower F value), focal length, and distance to subject.   Yes.. this is true but don't miss out on the more subjective nature which can only be examined through samples.   For example a C-mount lens can have apertures as low as 0.95 but the rendering can be less desirable than letsay a lens of f/2 (Summicron comes to mind).   

Another example that comes to mind is the 35mm focal length in Leica branded M-mount.  I think there are 13+ variations of this focal length (Summicron, summilux, and summarit).  The 4th version 35mm Summicron which started production in 1974 is a highly regarded lens well known for its bokeh.  More so than the later Aspherical versions.  More so than even the Summilux f/1.4 (asph or non-asph).   

My point being, that this example is one case in which a larger max aperture lens might look better on paper but in reality might not.


----------



## 100010011100 (Feb 11, 2011)

usayit said:


> 100010011100 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't however seen any Leicas other than maybe the digital m8/m9 (I'm using an M2) that have anything faster than 1/1000.
> ...


I think you may be onto something with this low ISO film thing. I embarrassingly was completely oblivious to film speeds that low!

The Summicrons have always interested me. Probably because as I first started looking into Leica cameras it was one of the first lenses I saw but particularly because I'm quite interested in street shooting. Retaining great quality pictures but still quite casual and spontaneous. Also, I like the small size.

Back on the film note... It's very sad to hear Kodachrome's been taken off the shelf... I better stop looking into it to not get too attached!
However, I found this photo...




All the blog said was that it was, "taken in the 50s with Kodachrome."
It however doesn't say what speed, f/, etc...

I know dropping the names of Leica lenses can get pretty heavy financially. While I'd love to have a Noctilux or Summilux, they're pretty expensive. As I'm interested in street type photography, I'd be taking my camera EVERYWHERE. It'd make me pretty nervous taking a multi thousand dollar Noct or Lux everywhere...

I am however interested in one camera (my M2), one lens and maybe a couple types of film (for day/night, etc.).

As I will only use an M2... If I were to use a 35mm Summicron, what else would I need to get fantastic pictures like the one of this girl?


----------



## Shiva_42 (Feb 11, 2011)

Just a couple of points to add...

1)  I do not believe the photograph in question was taken at F2.  Yes, it's an F2 lens, but the mountains in the background would most certainly be MORE out of focus than this example if the 35mm lens was NOT being used with an extension, and was open to F2.  So, the debate about apeture/shutter speed/film speed, though valuable and interesting, was started with a faulty premise IMHO.

2)  There is some vignetting around the edges, which surprises me with the lens quality in question, which makes me think that there probably was SOMETHING in front of the lens...most likely a polarizing filter, ND filter, or a combination of the two.

Not that anything previously posted was invalid, I just noticed these differences and thought they might be germane.
:mrgreen:


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 11, 2011)

Damn this photo looks amazing, time to dust off that f5 attach that 1.2 lens and shoot some velvia 50 in daylight!


----------



## Professional (Feb 12, 2011)

What is so nice about that shot of the OP? If it is about the DoF or the look then this is not a very hard to do, i had few of that look done with my Canon DSLRs, and i will try to have same or better with my digital MF, so i still don't know what are you looking for with that sample?

Here is an HDR shot i did to a guy asked me to shoot him, but the original is not far different than this anyway






original





If this is also not a good or similar result no problem, i can do or search in my work to find it.


----------



## usayit (Feb 12, 2011)

talk about missing the point by a mile.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 12, 2011)

A couple of things that I have figured about "old" photos ... there are certain characteristics that modern day photographers find so attractive ... and these are achieved by the particular flaws of the film and lenses.

That old kodachrome shot could be reproduced by grabbing some 1950's film and lenses.

You wouldn't be able to get the film ... but you can find some old lenses for your Leica.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 14, 2011)

Professional said:


> What is so nice about that shot of the OP? If it is about the DoF or the look then this is not a very hard to do, i had few of that look done with my Canon DSLRs, and i will try to have same or better with my digital MF, so i still don't know what are you looking for with that sample?
> 
> Here is an HDR shot i did to a guy asked me to shoot him, but the original is not far different than this anyway
> 
> ...



The HDR work here seems overdone, and too uniform.  I'd suggest using it more sparingly.  Like this:







As for the look of film, there's a quality to the colors that is very hard if not impossible to perfectly emulate in digital.  Here's you're photo tweaked to look a bit more like reversal film, but it's a poor attempt:


----------



## Paul Ron (Feb 14, 2011)

What you are missing is old pictures were taken with old cameras; more than likely one with a leaf shutter. A reflector and or flash used control the foreground highs n shadows allows you to make the background a bit darker by compensating with shutter speed. 

F2 would bring in just a nose and leave you with a terrably out of focus picture. I'd say this was more like an F5.6 in 35mm format or an F8 in MF DOF focused to the front.


----------



## Professional (Feb 16, 2011)

So if i try to take photos of my friends or kids with Hasselblad film camera or Mamiya or even Holga i will get that old look?


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 16, 2011)

The specific film's color reproduction and a lens to match, from the 50's.

...  find a PS filter that imitates it.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 18, 2011)

First don't use a wide angle lens on people (I'll bet that that lady's noise wasn't that big in life).  If you use post 70's equipment then I'd say to get something in the 85mm range and the faster the better.  You'll notice that the fence behind her is going out of focus as well.

Second, I wouldn't worry too much about getting older lenses as the big difference is whether or not they're coated.  The first shot seems to me to have been taken with a coated lens.  If you want to shoot with period lenses be my guest but wanting to is a horse of a different color.

Third, just like in real estate, location, location, location.


----------

