Inspired by Marc Williams' recent report of his Leica experiences shooting a wedding, I thought I'd put together a brief chapter on my impressions of shooting a reception with the 75. A friend of mine since junior high school finally met a woman who could tolerate him, so he figured he better marry her before she wised up. I was happy to be a guest rather than the hired gun, so I could concentrate on socializing, eating, and ridding the open bar of any excess Scotch. Because my primary objective was to have fun, I decided to take along only one lens and see how it suited my style for phtoographing these events. Might as well get the tech stuff out of the way. All the images were shot with the 75 Summilux on an M3, estimating coverage using the 50 framelines. Film was HP5+ rated at EI 1000, developed in Xtol 1:2, and printed on Ilford Multigrade WarmTone. The scans are from a set of 5x7 proofs. The shadow detail on the prints is pretty good, but most of it has probably been lost to jpg compression by the time it reaches your eyes. I think all of these shots were made at f1.7 and 1/50 sec.

Groom's father and bride's mother share a dance

The 75 showed its strength at surreptitiously capturing moments without having a distant, telephoto "look." I was able to capture couples on the dance floor without interfering with the dancers and to catch conversations at nearby table without interupting them. And of course, the shallow DOF afforded by the wide aperture helped to isolate particular subjects from their backgorund. The disadvantage compared to my standard reception/party lens (a 50) is that the 75 does require you to remain a bit more distant. There were several times throughout the evening when I was wishing I had a 50 so I could get closer without cutting things/people out of the frame. Overall, I'd say that the 75 is an excellent addition to the 50 for this sort of shooting, though not a suitable replacement. The additional stop over the 90 Summicron makes it significantly more useful in these conditions.

A toast to the newlyweds

I hope to have another chapter or two done before too long. I have material, I just don't have much time. The chaos should subside within a week or two . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 12, 2002

Answers

Mike,

I think this is one of the best examples of a meaningful post, packed with information, illustration and well tempered opinion. Thanks for bringing this back. As a personal footnote: I very much like your pics. And: I think the 75 in addition to a 35 makes for a terrific combo. Although I like your one lens concept, I guess the 50 might be the only viable compromise, but still a compromise. So I rather stick to the 2 lens concept...;o) Bests.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 12, 2002.

Excellent post, Mike. Especially the part about ridding the bar of any excess Scotch! ;-)

Seriously, I have one question. I'm noticiing the borders of your prints as a kind of off yellow. Is this an artifact, or part of processing, or what? Your photography is, of course, excellent. I myself own one of these lenses, and I've never been able to take a damn thing with it!!!! (In that sense, you piss me off....) (just joking, of course) ..... (or am i????)

:-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 12, 2002.

There are two types of posts that usually recieve the most interest:

1. Flaming posts (which are negative), and

2. Mike Dixon's posts, which we all look forward to.

Nothing more to say but, "Is that Bill Gates in the 3rd pic?"

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Thanks for the kind comments so far. The yellow color is caused by the old, dirty selenium toning soln. I was using; I'm thoroughly unmeticulous is my processing of proofs. The MG WarmTone tones in Se quite easily, with the downside being it picks up the yellow cast when I don't bother to keep things fresh.

And no, that's not Bill Gates. It's the groom, Dan Greenberg, candidate for State Representative in the west Little Rock district (Arkansas). The election is May 21st--please vote early and often!

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 12, 2002.

Mike,

Thanks for sharing your experiences using the 75 lux. I found it very inspiring to read and of course the pictures are wonderful. I especially liked the second one, great composition, beautiful light, it felt as if I could join the dinner just like that. The 75 lux provides great shallow DOF and I wonder how that picture would have turned out when used wide open. These pictures also clearly show the advantages of M-photography: no interference whatsoever, people don't seem to feel the presence of the photographer at all. They all look very natural, no imposed poses. I am looking forward to seeing the rest of your reportage.

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), April 12, 2002.

Hi Mike, This is an excellent, informative post. This is what this forum is supposed to be about. Keep up the good work. I just got the 75 and am looking forward to using it soon.

-- gil gatrcia (gil-garcia@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 2002.

Once again Mike excellent pictures,though the firs one is a little bit blurred, dont you think? Regards,

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), April 12, 2002.

Mike,

Thanks again. You continue to inspire.

Anam

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), April 12, 2002.

Mike, what framelines does the 75 bring up on the M3? My guess would be the 50s???

I'm thinking about getting a cosmetically challenged (junker) M3 for a backup body.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002.

Mike- Since I just bought a 75 'lux, your 75 adventures hit a responsive chord. My biggest problem, so far, has been that I seem to forget to use the 4 little corner brackets of the 75 framelines and start using the 50 framelines, which are more prominent. That, of course, cuts off heads & feet! (M4-P). I'm wondering if the M3 can have the 75 framelines put in? Have the 75 framelines been change in the newer cameras? Those four little corner brackets leave something to be desired. I would rather they just used complete framelines for both 50 & 75, as this would not cut out that much of the view. Anyway, thanks for the excellent post.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Thanks for the additional comments. The 50mm framelines show when the 75 is mounted on an M3. One of the earlier chapters had a brief (and inconclusive, I think) discussion about the possibility of 75 frames in an M3 viewfinder. I suspect that, unless you're having the rangefinder mechanism replaced for other reasons, it would make more sense to get an M4P/M6 if you must have the 75 frames. And yes, the first image has a bit of motion blur--1/50 isn't fast enough to freeze the action of people dancing.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 12, 2002.

Frank, The threads Mike refers to are these http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=006n87

and

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=008Cjx

My problem with the 75 frameline is the same as yours. More often than not my eye picks up the 50 lines. Not much use if you are shooting portraits.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 12, 2002.

Trying again...

Frank, The threads Mike refers to are these

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=006n87

and

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=008Cjx

My problem with the 75 frameline is the same as yours. More often than not my eye picks up the 50 lines. Not much use if you are shooting portraits.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 12, 2002.

Mike,

Thanks for the informative post. I liked your comment in a recent post that you sometimes cut off tops of heads in order to create more tension in your images. Following your lead, I switched to using my 90 elmarit in an effort fill up frames with my subjects and cut out extraneous information. I noticed an immediate and dramatic improvement in my shots, which tend to be more candid portraits. I also noticed that I could be even less obtrusive when shooting people because I did not need to get in my subjects' faces to fill the frames. I supposed that indoors, the telephoto might create the "disadvantage" you mention by forcing one to stay further back. On the other hand, didn't you find it easier for your subjects to ignore you when using the 75mm?

Peter

-- Peter B. Goldstein (peter.goldstein@us.cgeyc.com), April 12, 2002.

Mani- The clickable links didn't work, but I will try that URL on Google. Thanks anyway. I think Leica should just make 2 solid framelines for both 50 & 75. The 75 is pretty new to me, though. Perhaps with use, I'll remember those corner brackets! Maybe they ought to make a 75 collapsible Elmarit-M or Summicron. It seems like a great focal length for the M. But the 75 'lux is a heavy dude!

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Mike- I do remember the discussion about the use of the 50mm frameline of the M3, and it was fairly complete. You seem to make do quite easily with the 50 frameline. The .91x must surely help, too. All this newer stuff is pushing down prices. Do you have any idea what a near mint M3 ought to bring? Usually, the owners of these want to sell the lenses with it. These lenses are redundant and I would only offer what I thought the body to be worth. They could keep their antiquated chrome M3-era lenses! Who would buy the old lenses? They'd probably be good for a cheap Hexar outfit.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

Mike,

These are delightful shots! For me the epiphany in your report is where you state that the 75/1.4 gets you closer without the telephoto look. Worth considering.

I have an awful confession to make--two in fact. My first is that I use a silver VC 75/2.5. The other is that have never had problems about the viewfinder. Something about the feel and the look of this lens forces me to look at those little 75mm brackets and not the 50mm frame lines. But I understand the problem.

Do have an interesting thought--for which I might get flamed. Consider using the Bessa R2 with the 75/1.4 (taking extra focusing care). The Bessa R2 has separate 50 and 75 mm frames, which is civilized. But you need to remember that you have to set the frames by hand.

It's getting warm suddenly...

But seriously, Mike you've inspired me to consider the 75/1.4. Have you tried it with M6 TTL 0.85?

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), April 13, 2002.

I haven't tried the 75 on a .85 M6 since I don't have one (and I try to avoid playing with toys I can't currently afford). I've have serious doubts about being able to focus consistently and accurately wide open with the Bessa. Besides, I'm one of those people who likes Leica for the M bodies at least as much as for the lenses.

I have little idea about the current prices of nice M3s. The only ones I've ever shopped for are users. Don't totally discount those old lenses, though--there's more to life that ultimate sharpness.

Peter, I'm glad my comments have been of benefit to you. The 75 does help me to stay out of the way a bit more, but even with a 50, I'm fairly unobtrusive at these events.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 13, 2002.

A flash would have been very useful.

-- chris c lloyd (cclloyd@talk21.com), April 13, 2002.

For what?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 13, 2002.

Image quality is always important.Grainy,unsharp images are a reflection.Poor,or lazy process does not help.For a friend(or client) you should resolve to do your best efforts.These are poor by any standard.

-- chris c lloyd (cclloyd@talk21.com), April 13, 2002.

As I've noted before, I respect the opinions of others regarding my work, whether those opinions are positive or negative. I do object to those who attempt to present their personal opinions as representing some "official" standard. (And I should note that this tactic, along with a distinctive style of poor punctuation, grammar, and word choice, is very characteristic of certain "participants" in this forum whose primary goal is to stir up trouble rather than engage in productive debate.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 13, 2002.

Hi, Mike:

The closest thing in this site to a "official standard" is your own contribution and a few others', which IMHO sets a very useful technical reference for us Leica aficionados. But in this case, I think that the first photo just doesn't belong. Not in your case.

A simple fast comparison with the second one explains it all.

I'm sure you can understand this opinion as a well intentioned one, Mike. After all, you set the standard, right?

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 13, 2002.

Aw guys, you've just become used to seeing Mike's portraits of carefully posed people so these off the cuff type shots dont jive with what you think is his standard of photography. Regarding the first picture, does anyone have suggestions how they would shoot this given the constraints - shooting in available light, unposed, need to capture the happiness of the occasion in the expressions of the people involved, and using the same film speed rating.
(Sorry Mike, I'm also guilty of poor grammar, and puntuation).

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), April 13, 2002.

Very nice Mike. Nice sense of timing too. I kind of like the accidental yellowy look (at least on screen), a bit like the old Portriga. As you say, I really like the way the lens gets closer indoors without being obviously telephoto-ey.

Inspires me to use my 75/2.5 VC a bit more.

As an aside, isn't it annoying how flat and boring indoor lighting is increasingly becoming? Especially at places like convention rooms, meeting rooms, wedding halls and the like?

Frank, apologies for the dud URLs. I have no idea why they don't work. If you go to the archived Leica M threads and search on 75mm with your browsers "Find" menu option, you'll find them soon enough.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 13, 2002.

Mike, I'd suggest that if u wanna share, please post pics that are not blurred.

What's no.1 doing there?

Are the people here crazy? Just cos Mike posted a pic which is blurred btw, everyone has to like it?

I can't believe u actually bothered to scan it in.

best of luck.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

chris c lloyd= fred sun= phil.K=Chris goodwin??????/?

big trouble..

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

As an aside, isn't it annoying how flat and boring indoor lighting is increasingly becoming? Especially at places like convention rooms, meeting rooms, wedding halls and the like?

I blame fluorescent lighting. The wedding took place on the mezzanine of the old Capital Hotel in downtown Little Rock, and at least had some accent lighting that made the interior look more interesting. The primary light source, however, was boring fluorescent tubes. The positive aspect was that, since the light levels were the same in most areas, I could just set my camera to f1.7 and 1/50 and concentrate on my drinking . . . ; )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 14, 2002.