I've been admiring the work of Huger Foote in _The_Friend_from_Memphis_. Foote uses a Leica M6 to make color photographs that often depend on the play between in- and out-of-focus areas, usually taken at wide apertures. However, looking through the M6 viewfinder, it is impossible to visualize the effect of the out-of-focus areas, particluarly the color effect of the bokeh which is often very beautiful. Therefore, it is evident that Foote has to shoot a lot of pictures with his M6 and then select on the slide table or from prints -- I don't know what type of film he uses -- the images that work. Of course, all photography is a process of selection. But the point is that, in the case of Foote, using an SLR would seem to be more efficient or effective in that through the DOF preview he could see how the out-of-focus areas would look. Now, I use an M6 and can understand how he may just like using this camera. But does it really make sense for this type of photography?

Mitch /Bangkok

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), January 01, 2002

Answers

Based on the empirical evidence, apparently so.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), January 01, 2002.

One difference between your average SLR lens and the Leica equivalent is that the Leica lens is generally sharper wide open. At f/8 there will be less difference. So if your going for the subject sharp, background out of focus look, shooting wide open, it would make sense to use Leica. My reaction to your statement "it is impossible to visualize the effect of the out-of-focus areas," is that it's not impossible; it's a matter of experience.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), January 01, 2002.

Should have said "If you're going…" Meanwhile I looked up this photographer whom I did not know, and find some interesting things. Huger Foote. I see some galleries are selling large dye transfer pints; all the more reason to be shooting Ms.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), January 01, 2002.

Mitch,

Although I think your question is a good one, you may be putting too much trust in what an SLR offers by way of DOF preview. All too often, what can be seen in the SLR viewfinder is insufficient to determine what the final image will actually look like - particularly wide open.

Foote appears to be combining strong previsualization and extensive experience with his Leica to achieve the effect he desires by shooting wide open, Leica's forté.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 01, 2002.

"it is impossible to visualize the effect of the out-of-focus areas"

DOF preview on SLRs does a terrible job of representing how the actual image will look on film. With experience, visualizing the effects in your head is far more accurate and reliable. I think the fuzzy displays in SLRs are far more distracting than helpful.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 02, 2002.

Hey Mike!! Everything you just finished saying is fine and good, but where's your picture?

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 02, 2002.

Dohh! Sorry. Guess I've been watching too much college football--gotta remember the important things. . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 02, 2002.

Thanks Mike! knew there had to be something better in store today than just watching the Ducks open a can of meatless whup-ass on Colorado..................

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), January 02, 2002.

I know that Bigfoot uses Leicas, I didn't know he had a big brother.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 02, 2002.

I didn't know Mike D. had such a big sister.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 02, 2002.

Wow, Mike, what's her number?! (Not Big Foot's, but that of the girl in your picture--apologies if she happens to be Mrs. Dixon! :-) )

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), January 02, 2002.

... my god, your photos are getting better and better, Mike.

To Mitch: you can do all sorts of things with a LEICA M.

Thanks for sharing this photo with us poor guys out here and A HAPPY NEW LEICA-YEAR

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 02, 2002.

Huger Foote's abstractions are stunning in the use of bright colors and high contrast. It reminds me very much of high-profile fashion photography directed to subjects which we wouldn't be considering glamorous or stunning on first sight but are constantly reminded of its presence.

Hopefully this man will be represented at the Leica Gallery soon. It would be a blessing...

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), January 02, 2002.

I find the responses I've gotten somewhat off the point, if not bizarre, such as:

>You can do all sorts of things with an M6"

Obviously, look at Huger Foote.

>One difference between your average SLR lens and the Leica >equivalent is that the Leica lens is generally sharper wide >open"

Yes, but if you think only Leica lenses are superb at wide apretures, he could have used am Leica SLR.

>DOF preview on SLRs does a terrible job of representing how the >actual image will look on film. With experience, visualizing >the effects in your head is far more accurate and reliable.

If you look at Huger Foote photos, you'll see that they often depend on the color effects of the out-of-focus areas -- not something that you can ususally visualize even with all the experince in the world. (But the simple type of out-of-focus areas that are in the photo Mike Dixon posted can indeed easily be visualized; it is not a good expample of the issue raised in my original posting.)

My point was that most of Huger Foote's photos would be much easier to visualize through an SLR -- a Leica SLR if you will although I don't see that his images require the best lenses in the world -- and that he uses an M6 because he likes the camera. I would do the same, but it does makes this type of photography easier.

BTW, I wouldn't hold my breath for HF to appear at the Leica Gallery if you see whom they have been exhibiting. Also, the HF photos I saw at the Photo Salon in the Louvre in Paris in November were inkjet prints and the Leica Gallery told me that they won't show digital prints. However, the foregoing is based on information two years ago and I haven't been followinng what the Leica Gallery has been doing since then.

Mitch/Bangkok

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), January 02, 2002.

CORRECTION:

I wrote:

My point was that most of Huger Foote's photos would be much easier to visualize through an SLR -- a Leica SLR if you will although I don't see that his images require the best lenses in the world -- and that he uses an M6 because he likes the camera. I would do the same, but it does makes this type of photography easier.

The last clause SHOULD READ:

but it does makes this type of photography MORE DIFFICULT.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), January 02, 2002.

"If you look at Huger Foote photos, you'll see that they often depend on the color effects of the out-of-focus areas -- not something that you can ususally visualize even with all the experince in the world."

I'm puzzled by your approach to this issue. When people tell you it's possible to visualize the effect, you insist that it's not. And even though Huger Foote chooses to use Ms when, presumably, he could afford an SLR system, you insist that he's not using the proper equipment. Is there any kind of evidence that would convince you that it actually is possible to visualize the results?

[Oh, and the girl on the couch is neither my wife nor my sister--though she does look a bit like my ex-girlfriend (not quite as attractive, though).]

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 03, 2002.

Mike:

I agree that it is possible to visualize the results in a general way, but in some of Foote's images it's the precise nature of the bokeh that makes the picture -- in these cases I don't believe it's possible to visualize the exact effect on which, as I believe, the picture depends. These are the pictures that would be easier to make using an SLR. I did say that I would also choose an M6, but point out that this is not a logical choice for this type of photography; it's a choice based on just liking the M6 even though it may not be the best tool for this particular purpose. It's this latter idea that interested me.

-- (malland@mac.com), January 03, 2002.

I don't see the point of the question at all. If an M6 works for Huger Foote, so be it. If a Holga worked for him, it's his choice. If an SLR works for you Mitch, who's to say you've made a bad choice. I especially don't get it when people ask for input, as Mitch has done, and then feel they must take to task whatever answers they don't agree with. If you've made up you mind beforehand it's a moot point. Finally I have to add my kudos (I should have done this a while ago) for Mikes photos - great stuff.......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 03, 2002.

Hello Mitch,

you called my remark > you can do all sorts of things with a LEICA M < bizarre. Let me assure you, this was not my aim. It was meant in the sense, that some people here stated, a LEICA M is not good for weddings, for landscapes etc. I mean you can shoot everything with any camera. Just take care if you come to it´s limitations.

Of course you can not see the out of focus parts in a motif when using a r/f. But exactly this makes it a challenge. Unlike heavier gear the LEICA M can be with you whereever you go. So you gain more opportunities to get photos.

Following an older suggestion in this forum in connection with bokeh I tried my three 35 mm lenses out: a SUMMARON, a SUMMICRON and a SUMMILUX. The lenses were set at 1.5 m or so at full aperture to take photos of my garden. Against the sun, sun from the side, experimenting a bit. The results were beautiful out of focus, but pics I normally would have dumped. I had only planned to compare the different bokehs, but ended with some terrific keepers, resembling pointilistic paintings. I´ll try this again later on in spring.

You can really do everything with a LEICA.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 03, 2002.

Bob/K.G.:

Your comments as well as all the other ones above have made me go back and look again at Foote's book, _The_Friend_from_Memphis_. Examining carefully all the photos in the book, I agree that most of them could indeed have been visualized with an M6, as could the two photos that Mike Dixon posted. However, the ones I admire the most (for those who have access to the book: Frontispiece, nos. 6, 21, 37, 48, 57 and 60) rely on particularly complex relationships of out-of-foucs areas both in front and in back of the plane of focus. I think that most people would agree that these particular photographs could not be visualized with a rangefinder camera. Again, I am not saying that Foote should not have used a rangefinder camera but that it seems to me that these particular photographs would be easier to achieve with an SLR -- or more precisely, that a photographer might have a better chance of "finding" such images with an SLR.

All this is related to another issue: I have always thought that photography is an art of _selection_ in which the skill of choosing from a contact sheet or slide tray is as important as the skill of searching for am image with the camera. Often, you can be satisfied to have one print you like out of a roll of 36. In the case of the best photographs of Foote, the ones I refer to above, it is liekly that these have been selected from many hundreds of shots. In this sense, perhaps it makes little difference whether in the "success ratio" whether he used a Leica-M or a Leica-R.

And yet...looking at no. 37 which, as the title "Pollack" indicates, an image of leaves and branches with complicated in- and out-of-focus relationships, is like a Jackson Pollack painting, of a complexity that certainly cannot be visualized with an M6; this image might be easier to find with an SLR.

-Mitch/Bangkok

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), January 03, 2002.

Huger Foote? The emperor has no clothes!!!!! Well, perhaps socks.

But I do love my new (second-hand) M6.

-- Vuk Vuksanovic (qstatistic@sympatico.ca), January 03, 2002.

Vuk - very good.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 04, 2002.

Rob/Vuk:

So you don't like Huger Foote. Big deal.

--Mitch/Bangkok

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), January 04, 2002.

Mitch me old mate, I have no opinion on Huger Foote at all, and I doubt I ever will. Anything that is touted as having excellent bokeh makes my eyes glaze over.

I think he's got a hell of a neat name, though.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 04, 2002.