75 'Lux Adventures, Chapter 1: Friday Night at the Bar

The 75 proved itself a very useful tool for documenting nightlife down at one of my usual haunts, the Old Time Pickin' Parlor on 2nd Avenue here in Nashville. Here are four shots from the roll of Delta 3200 (EI 3200) I exposed Friday night. Most of my shooting was done at f1.4 to f2, though a few shots of performers were made at 2.8 or 4.

The maximum aperture was quite useful not only for gathering a lot of light (a rare commodity in most bars), but also for isolating a single subject, even when she was located halfway down the bar.

Or it can be used to isolate a nearby subject even when another person is close beside him.

I was estimating coverage since my M3 doesn't have 75 framelines so not all images were perfectly framed, but I'm getting used to it. A focal length of 75mm seems very well suited to this kind of use: the narrower angle of view gives more control over limiting distracting backgrounds, and the slight telephoto brings subjects a little closer while still preserving a relatively intimate feel to the images.

Hope you've enjoyed the first round of images. I've certainly enjoyed getting them . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 24, 2002

Answers

My standard disclaimer for these kinds of images: jpeg compression knocks the hell out of shadow detail, and a white background makes it hard to see what little remains. The shadows have a lot more going on in the prints.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 24, 2002.

I think you're pushing the handholding a bit too...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 24, 2002.

Mike, as usual you've displayed some great shots. I settled on the 90 Summicron rather than the 75 Summilux. When I loook at these pics I wonder....anyway I haven't recieved my lens yet so we'll see. Typical of your photography and to my enjoyment as a relatively standard and horny young man- 23, you have provided a nice pic of a "stunna" (as we call em' in Oz) out of the crowd. The isolation works wonders doesn't it?!!!!!!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

Nice work, Mike. And, quick turn-around on the processing, as well. ;-)

Curious about the technique you use in bar scenes. Do you attempt to meter, or do you base exposures on experience?

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 24, 2002.

oh my god .. my ex-wife. send me your camera and lens and I'll have her drop the lawsuit.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 24, 2002.

Hi there Mike, have you ever tried to shoot pictures of the cute gals at Vanderbilt. I'm a former alum there and Nashville was rather cool at West End? :D

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

These are nice snaps Mike. Now it would be of particular interest to see what this lens can do in extreme situations. The 75 is known for its "flare resistance". I can attest to this and will post an image later from my archives to illustrate. One of my favorite things is to use very bright sodium lamps (street) as modeling lamps for faces. The orange shifted light acts as a "smoothing" filter for imperfections on the face while the lens digs out whatever contrast/ tonality that can be had from the scene even at maximum aperture. Also, if you have other bright point sources slightly off lens axis you don't suffer from contrast robbing flare.

IMVHO, that would be the ultimate test for this unique lens.

Keep truckin'

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

Question Mike... I know that you don't have enough time under your belt yet with the new lens, but think about this: Please do a narrative on the 75mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.4 in terms of field of view, selective focus, the "B" word, and relative hand-holdability.

I have been fighting over this in my mind, and trying to use experiences from my SLR shooting to decide which lens might have an advantage here. YES, the 75mm lens is tighter, BUT it is bigger. YES, the 50mm lacks the reach, BUT it is handier. YES, both are f/1.4, BUT 1/50th of a second versus 1/75th of a second gives the nod to the 50mm for shake free images. I am vacillating here, and would appreciate any hands-on experience from an available light Guru such as yourself.

Thanks in advance for any input here.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 24, 2002.

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

"Stunnas": The best-looking woman in the place was the bartender, Jill. My view may be biased, though, since she and I are pretty good friends. (Her face graces the opening page of my website.)

Metering: I use a Sekonic 408 to take readings for the various conditions in the bar (usually incident, but a few spot), then I set the camera from memory or estimate based on what I know. At this point, I'm pretty familiar with these kinds of conditions. One time, the battery went out in my meter, so I just guessed--exposures were not quite as consistent, but they were all usable (for print film).

Lawsuits: I'll send her lawyer my financial statements, then he'll drop the lawsuit.

Vanderbilt: I did my undergrad work there! Vandy girls show up fairly often in my Hillsboro Village photos. My unofficial office (Fido cafe) is a popular study spot for VU students.

Flare: The 75 isn't immune to flare, but it's MUCH better than my old 50 Summilux and noticeably better than my early-'70's 90 Summicron. I have one shot made wide open where the subjects on the right side of the frame are overexposed by two to five stops and the large light source is in the edge of the frame. There's significant flare, but with proper burning, a usable print is possible. With the 50, it would have been a wasted frame. More on the flare issue in future posts.

Angle of view & bokeh: I was planning to do just the sort of comparison Al mentions, but I was waiting until I had a model to work with so conditions would be better controlled. It's in the works!

Handholding (without bracing): At 1/50, shots are consistently pretty sharp (though not perfectly sharp). At 1/25, things get a little soft, though at that speed, subject movement is also making a significant contribution to lack of sharpness. I think the bottom (horiz.) image above was shot at 1/25.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 24, 2002.

Mike- Did you ever get to photograph the late, great Chet Atkins?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

Unfortunately, no, I never got the chance. I only "met" him once very briefly at a music seminar by Mark Knopfler. I think the only person I have in my portfolio that might fit the "music legend" category is Guy Clark, and those are performance shots.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 24, 2002.

Nice work Mike -- especially considering that was one of the first rolls run behind it! Obviously, the effort from this group that put that lens in your hands was time (and money) well spent!

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 24, 2002.

RE: OOF rendering

This shot was taken at the R.O.M. permanent collection. Imperial Rome. The exposure was f2.8 @ 1/500 using the 75 lux and Delta 3200. The statue in the back (about 5 feet away) gives you an idea what kind of OOF you can achieve with this lens. The vantage point was about 5-6 feet from the subject so this frame is minimally cropped. I find that stopping down 1-2 stops lets you achieve the best contrast. And I almost never use this lens with a narrower aperture than f4.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

Thanks for share Mike, definetively 75'lux has it's own caracter, it's design is so likey the 50'lux, but enhanced, it's longer focal length makes out of focus more noticeable and for it's size I guess it is better against flare (too many words sorry, lots of people around me, I just can't concentrate)

My question; how about framelines, are those dots enough or you just use the 50 frame lines?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

One nice thing about all the buzz around the M7, Mike, is you may now get a little peace and quiet to explore the 75 at your own pace. Take your time and use it well.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 25, 2002.