Images by M8 and Noctilux

http://www.foto-orlando.it/galleria.asp?page=1

I think they are outstanding. Wish I could have seen then larger.

Very beautiful.

Why exactly did any of these need f/1? I don't see any compelling subject matter, let alone anything worth isolating with shallow depth of field. Most of them are flat snapshots, devoid of human interest, made in boring light. This is a perfect illustration of why a $10,000 rig does not a photographer make.

Keep trying.

Very nice still lifes. It appears El Fang has Noctilux envy. F/1.0 and be there...

I don't really see anything that indicates these images could only have been taken with this unique lens and camera combination. In fact if the desire was to maintain the low ambient light levels, then an F1 aperature would seem redundant. The pictures are pleasant enough with a charming baroque quality, but if they were intended to showcase the advantages of the Noctilux, I think they miss the mark.

If you want to see how it's done properly, get a copy of Brassi's "Paris by Night," done with a large format camera and published in 1933. For that kind of work, get a tripod (you don't need a Noctilux) and spend some time learning about white light balancing. His B&W monochrome is a lot more attractive than your "Yuckki Yellow."

The photos are in low light with ISO 160. I suppose a DSLR with tripod, mirror locked up and a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 prime (with good bokeh) would be close technically, but the elegance and spontaneity of a Leica M would be missing.

"..but the elegance and spontaneity of a Leica M would be missing."

Would the static subjects migrate if a shot is planned carefully and taken with a tripod mounted cam?

Also, do a search on flickr for "Noctilux" and there are a bunch of great examples that come up, showing ways to accentuate this great lens. (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=noctilux&w=all&s=int).

I used to use an f/1 on an M4-2, but it was a bear to focus well (I thought). Those who master it have a great tool though.

While I don't believe that the I Noctilux must be used in low light in order to produce unique and pleasing results, I do personally prefer to highlight the narrow depth of field.

Follow this link for an example of what I mean:

http://mtanga.com/singleimage7.htm

Regards,

Tony C.

Noctilux

I must be missing a history of severe conflict you have with this photographer. Such venom.

interesting. Thanks.

At F1 you just gather more light.:) Here is a shot with the Epson RD-1S set at iso 1600 with an exposure of 4 seconds at F1 with the Noctilux: In darker skys without city streetlights and building lights the sky would be darker.

The image above was shot in autoexposure mode. The shutter actually closes after 4 seconds because of the sky fog due to city lights; and of course the stars too. In a rural area the shutter stays open longer. As you can see the depth of field was decent; many light years. The blobbish look of the four main stars of Orion is due to overexposure making the lens's off axis woes/abberations show up alot. With a new Summicron F2 they are rounder; but one sees not as many faint stars. Maybe I should drag out my 1950 Atlas Eclipticalis to see how faint the Noct captured stars in 4 seconds. Thats the star atlas I got in the 1960's by Antonín Becvár; that just covers stars about +/- 30 degrees in declination.

Kelly, have you tried taking shorter exposures, like 2-4 seconds and overlaying the digital scans? That seems to be a popular technique to reduce bump up contrast and sharpness.

I just think the work is boring and unoriginal, and doing the work with a $10,000 rig doesn't fix the problem. What do I consider to be interesting and original? Check out "Images of Night" by John-Paul Jespersen:

Images of Night

And note that Mr. Jespersen's work could have been done with any camera capable of bulb exposure.

It appears El Fang has Noctilux envy.

I own a Noctilux. It just strikes me as funny when certain people think using a Leica M and a Noctilux somehow lends credibility to their amateurish snapshots. Unfortunately, crap smells the same whether it dropped from a pound mutt or an English Bulldog.

Further along the lines of originality and creativity, how many of you have seen Jan von Holleben's Dreams of Flying?

Dreams of Flying

Again, work that does not require a $10,000 rig, just a little bit of inspiration and probably a lot of patience. I don't have a problem with people who own $10,000 rigs. But many such people would benefit more from spending that money on a workshop or two that teach you how to see creatively. Once you figure that out, you graduate from an equipment owner to a photographer.

Maybe John-Paul Jespersen and Jan von Holleben use Leicas, maybe they don't. It doesn't matter to me because their photographs stand on their own, without needing their creators to proclaim "I shot this with a Leica and a Noctilux!"

This is a Leica/Rangefinders forum, but that doesn't mean you can post garbage, tag it "shot with Leica/Noctilux" and not have people see right through it for what it is.

El Fang wrote: "Again, work that does not require a $10,000 rig, just a little bit of inspiration and probably a lot of patience. I don't have a problem with people who own $10,000 rigs. But many such people would benefit more from spending that money on a workshop or two that teach you how to see creatively. Once you figure that out, you graduate from an equipment owner to a photographer."

And until you graduate be careful what you post. El Fang is watching!

Thanks for posting the link to Dreams of Flying. It is certainly wonderful!

It's incredible for me. I simply would like to share my experience with other people and i have been covered of insult by mr. El Fang. Is this respect of persons and their opinions for you, mr. El Fang? Please the administrator of this forum to erase my thread. Bye. Domenico

I don't think that YOU have been personally insulted, Sn. Domenico, just your work. You can learn from it, or you can ignore it.

Domenico, No insults against you or even your work. The dispute is about the choice of the gear and the need (or not) for the platinum legend (aka Noctilux). Thanks for the thread!

El Fang, Wow! What a treat! Thanks a bunch for the links (particularly, Jespersen's)! Awesome! :)

Fang:

are you the purveyor of all that is art and artistic?

We realize that these images could have been made by a thousand camera variants running the course of a hundred-fifty years.

You have many valid points and I appreciate them; maybe only a little more collegial would also be appreciated.

Thanks for the Images of Night link.

Ciao - Paul

Domenico. It is pretty incredible. Your pictures are pretty small, but they look good to me.

Any shots posted with the word Noctilux (or M8) next to them are considered fair game by Mr(s). El Fang and an ad hoc chorus of accountant photographers who feel compelled to publicly beat their chests and moralize about how people spend their money.

Because you have the gall to mention a Noctilux, it's OK for them to post links and salivate over other photographers they consider "better". Normally that would be just rude and mean-spirited. What does the "Dreams of Flying" thing have to do with your photos? I love the comment that you weren't personally insulted, just your work. I'll bet that never occurred to you.

People get all whacked about a "$10,000" rig. Look at what a car or a toilet costs.

Not to take anything away from your fine images, Domenico, but you could have done just as well with a Nikon D40 (or similar model) and a 50/1.8 lens.

However, as Robert above infers, if you want to spend $10,000 to make images that a $400.00 camera can duplicate you're certainly entitled to do so.

And there's no offense meant by this post. I enjoyed your shots.

Ultimately, does it not all boil down to the one simple question that you should ask yourself before you post to a forum? Would I say this to this person if I were standing in front of them?

Respect and civility go a long way whatever your forum for discussion.

Well put Gareth.

All photos are taken with existing light (or in the darkness, in same case). No color correction nor high ISO value (only 160). Frequently using f1 aperture. My goal is to maintain the mistery of the night in ancient or not-urban places in Italy (Abruzzo, Emilia, Tuscany regions).

Domenico, thanks for sharing these. I think some of them well succeed in what you set out for. Personally, I think it is very hard though, to capture a mysterious atmosphere with a mild telephoto lens, as opposed to a wide angle, but that's just my 2 Eurocents. Anyway, it's a pity that the small size of your files wouldn't allow to appreciate any specific benefit deriving from being able to shoot at f/1 with a 67mm equivalent lens at ISO 160. I imagine that resolution would be a potentially unique selling point of the combo you were using, and that point can't be proven under the circumstances of your small size web postings. Another could be noise-free, hand held freezing of action in low-light situations, but that doesn't seem to have been your goal, nor the use of the specific Noctilux bokeh. So, maybe the absence of all of the aforementioned qualities, commonly associated with the use of your equipment, might explain the disproportionately harsh reactions to your post. To me, ultimately, your post is not about showing off any specific equipment related achievements but about an artistic effort. So I think it's only fair to set the one apart from the other and respect your initial intent - as well as the potentially constructive criticism that you might encounter. On an equipment related note, what I personally am surprised to see is the apparently complete lack of coma in your pics, which I am used to detect in wide open Noctilux shots. But maybe that is just due to the specific nature of your motifs...

Cheers and a happy New Year to you, too.

The Noct is just a big tool; usefull for some applications. Its usage is not so important today since iso's have increased. Once color print films were maxed at 125 to 160 in the 1970's; with crappy 400 coming out later in the 1970's. The Noct to me is like my 10" circular Big Foot saw; my 12Lb sledge hammer, my giant pipe wrench; usefull at times. The trusty summicron is more like a 7 1/4" saw or a 16oz claw hammer; used alot more.

"To me, ultimately, your post is not about showing off any specific equipment related achievements but about an artistic effort".

Thank you, Lux: this was exactly my scope. My mistake has been to mention the lens i used, but isn't this a Leica M forum?. I didn't think to create problems regarding the economical analysis of the cost of the Leica lenses: this wasn't my intention. I take a good lesson. Thank you again. Ciao a tutti. Domenico

Long exposures at night, tripod, meduim format (I think) and I love this guy's work....

http://www.toddhido.com/

Hover your cursor over 'photographs' then over 'homes at night'. Click on 'houses' or 'apartments' and hover cursor over each number in the list for the photographs. He never names them. They are always just numbers (same in his book "House Hunting".)

The various light sources from inside and outside the homes merge and blend and reflect from mist/fog to create colours maybe never encountered before. The man is painstaking and took years to get these 'stories'.

People fawning over images just because they were taken with a particular camera and lens deserve all the ribbing they get.

And yes, I would say that to you if you were standing in front of me.

And yes, I have Noctilux envy.

Seems interesting that the above individual has the gall to post such acerbic remarks about another person's work yet references other peoples' work as examples of true art and skill in photography. Perhaps this individual is no better than the work he criticizes since he owns a Noctilux himself yet has no evidence of having "graduated" to the level of proficient and proper use of such a lens--or any lens, for that matter.

I am sure many folks enjoy the 50/1, but I have honestly yet to see an image made with it that would make me want to get one. But I did see images made with the 50 Lux Asph that made me want to get one, so I did and I use it a lot.

But to the OP, enjoy and further explore the 50/1-M8 combo.

Hello Daniel,

Here are some which do show the 'street' power of the M8-Noctilux combination. I'm not sure if you need to login to be able to see. Anyway it's worth to search for 'Helio' on this Leica pages. He mostly runs M8&Nocti. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/menschen/37250-dame-rot.html (link) http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/menschen/31150-k-nigin-nofretete.html

Regards Axel

Lutz, there is almost no coma with the Noctilux in wide open shots.

Almost all of the photos I've seen from the Noctilux shot wide open were fuzzy and flat. I understand the problem of focusing an f1 lens in the dark. I just don't personally like Noctilux photos.

all my noctilux shots look like that. blurry, flat, odd color. its impossible to take a sharp shot without taking a half hour to track, compose and nail the paper thin depth of field. it teaches awe for the very few masters. no way to capture a moving target - in focus. maybe one out of 600 shots. never the less i have hundreds of interesting, odd, blurry dark images. too bad some of are friends and family at different gatherings. my recent purchase of a canon eos with autofocus (my first in 15 years) is a breakthrough. sometimes you'll never know where you are until you go there. thats the curse of leica.

thanks for sharing italian dude.

Jespersen uses a 4x5, a 6x7 and a D2X.