More from Venice with my Leica 246 MM + Leica 50 APO Cron By Dan Bar

More from Venice with my Leica 246 MM + Leica 50 APO Cron

By Dan Bar

Hi again!

Venice is one of the most exciting places due to being what it is-UNIQE and due to the Carnaval festival Here are a few more photos taken with the Leica MM. and the Leica APO 50 Cron A friend wrote me, he never thought Venice could be so nice and so sad especially at the carnaval time.  I hope you will like these too. My 1st post is HERE. 

Take care Danny











Related Post


  1. Why’s everyone getting their undies in a knot here? Some I gets ting shots here, seeking out people in isolation when the place is mobbed. A bit more PP than I’d have applied but so what? I particularly like the woman in the mask.

    • Meant to write, “He sought out people in isolation when the place is mobbed”. That in of itself is an accomplishment.

  2. Who says Dan had to shoot the Carnival like everyone else has? Amidst the throngs of revelers, these are the moments that stood out for him.

    As far as getting in close, Henri Cartier-Bresson shot almost exclusively with a 50 and never to his detriment.

    Reading Anna Cee’s entry, the old adage, ‘horses for courses’ comes to mind. A legitimate argument can be made for a lower-contrast optic, with modest vignetting WO & some curvature of field to help convey the mood of the place. A 50 APO, with its staggering resolution and clarity isn’t one that naturally lends itself for this task. Especially on a Monochrom,

    I’m thinking a Canon 50/1.4 LTM, Leica 50 Rigid, 35 Summicron v.1 or Voigtländer 2/35.

  3. I actually like most of these moody shots, and why couldn’t they truthfully portray the mood of Venice as Dan experienced it?

    Having looked at them over and over again, I can’t help thinking a film camera, a 35mm lens (yes, get in a bit closer) and a roll of Rollei Retro 400 (a harsher sort of Tri-X; aerial photography stock) would have been more appropriate, particularly as the APO Summicron is not exactly known for its blurriness… 😉

  4. Well I think the vignetting works in this case
    Of the man in the alley excellent mood then Again I worked in film editing I appreciate a great out of focus shot especially great for transitions I really don’t do anything too my photos except light and maybe a little contrast but I still like this shot it’s like a scene out of Sherlock Holmes

  5. Having just returned from Venice, I agree that these pics are not very representative of what I saw during Carnival. There is no pageantry, no sense of colourful decadence, no joy. Venice was very crowded with people, some wearing costumes costing thousands of euros and this post misses it all.

    • Thank you
      I loved your comment. It is exactly the way i see things through the VF as i shoot.
      I know people expact differently. But thats me 🙂

  6. I really liked your previous post. Not crazy about this selection.
    I am sure you have other wonderful work to post !
    You can accept this accessment as a true sincere appraisal of your previous post.

  7. It makes no sense, having a lens which is sharp corner to corner, then sending 20% of the image back-to-black in the corners! That is completely counterintuitive and a waste of this lens’ ability.

    Steve, can you suggest a lens which would better suit this approach, in b&w? Maybe something from the late 60’s or 70’s such that you’d get a lovely graduation of tones and a creamy rendition of the image and some vignetting would be immaterial?

    The images do not work as a story board of Venice’s Carnival, sorry, it needs a strong beginning, a middle and an end, a quality parting shot. Furthermore, it needs a tight edit and if there are images not to do with the Carnival, or in no way help tell the story of the Carnival, then this tight edit will see them fall away.

    May I suggest you search National Geographic’s back catalogue of articles to better see how a Carnival story might look like and Getty images has a raft of quality Carnival images?

    • Hey Dan
      I have some feedback for you. Ignore the comments about the waste of lens , I get what they are saying as you really aren’t getting the best out of your equipment but it’s your equipment and you can shoot with what pleases you .

      However if you are going to post process so heavily to create a ‘story’ then you are better off making your post processing consistent . You have a few different finishes going on here ( see film like gondola scene , over sharpen man asleep in chair , and heavy vignetting in shots one ,two and four ) . If you had stuck to one style then it might have worked better as a set .

      Good luck and keep shooting


  8. I lived in Venice for a long while and, honestly, I don’t see any of the city I learned to love in these shots. Nor the uniqueness of the carnival. Nor the singularity of the city’s life.
    I only see an exaggerated and heavy post processing technique with vague ideas regarding the message you want to transmit us.
    I can’t see the focus point (the subject) in the landscapes. The blurry man has no reason to be so. There is no involvement with the men sitting at the table, no story in the crowd scene.
    The gondola shot has a nice mood but a dull composition, and it’s hard to decipher what’s going on with the main subject because of the distance.
    All in all, they look to me more like random snapshots taken by a bored photographer that tried to add vignetting to give a style to the set.
    Sorry, but your other post is leagues better than this. But thanks for sharing.

    • Hmmm quite rude comments I love the blurry man takes me back in time maybe your missing the stink of Venice to go along with your rude criticism

      • Yes quite rude, but also quite truthful. A refreshing change from “awesome” “fantastic” when they are quite clearly not.

      • Mine is just a personal critique to the shots, nothing more. You post your pics and you expose yourself willingly to criticism and appraisal. And I also said that his previous post was a lot better, the images of which I enjoyed a lot.
        I didn’t forget the smell (and not the “stink”) of Venice, but these pictures don’t remind me of that either. They’re just not good.
        If this all sounds rude, I’m sorry.
        And you inadvertently made my point: the blurry man takes you back in time, when the particular situation on the street, or on the battlefield, or simply the style of the photographer were the cause of such blurriness. This pic portraits a lonely man with a dog in a desert alley. Whether it’s hectic carnival time or a useless thursday of mid November we can’t tell. So the blurriness, as the vignetting, is just a way for the photographer to try and make and otherwise bland shot more interesting than it is. The context is just not there.

        • I don’t think you were rude at all. What’s the point of sharing and commenting if we can’t say straightforwardly what our experience is? The photographer has one experience, you have another and state it clearly: that way we all learn. Thanks to both!

          • Exactly right, John.

            Claude was certainly not rude. He gave well considered reasons for his assessments. The real rudeness comes with the attempt to shut down any contrary opinion. Donal McC’s comments are over the top and their brevity highlights his lack of argument.

            The usual one or two word “awesome/amazing/fantastic” brigade, as mentioned by kenr, hide behind such brevity and probably expect to bask in the glow of “positivity”, but in effect they kill off learning and robust discussion – anything but “positive”. It takes little brain power to bandy around such terms.
            Such words have become meaningless substitutes for considered reason. Everyone wins the “amazing” prize, but it’s a very hollow one.

            Let the totalitarian censors wither away.

    • I don’t see this as being rude. Claude simply spoke his mind, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. The photographer may or may not agree with him. If he does, an honest feedback may improve his photography.

      • Apologies, again, if it sounded rude.
        But I didn’t insult anybody. I am not coming after you personally, why would I?
        Your images didn’t work for me, and apparently others.
        And I tried to explain why.
        You tote around some of the most refined photographic equipment and tried to narrate us one of the most unique events in a one-of-a-kind city. And this time, the result was lacklustre.
        I concluded my post citing your previous entries and complimenting them, thanking you for the submission.
        As others have said, I could’ve just said “yeah, good job!”, but that would’ve gotten us nowhere.
        Instead, we have a debate where everyone can learn from, myself included.
        Other comments were certainly more refined than mine and good suggestions came through.
        If telling my experience with your photos is rude, maybe people should reconsider what real rudeness is.

  9. Hugely vignetted (you’d be better off with a.n.other lens, truth be told if this is your style and not the Cron), they’re distant and disconnected images, I do not really feel immersed in either the characters nor the place, I am not engaged in this photo story.

    There is an old adage: if your pictures are not working, get closer. I would use the 35mm lens personally, and get up-close, get personal.

    The reason I say this too is personal; a couple of years ago, I attended a Magnum Masterclass with Stuart Franklin, 5 days in Paris, on day-one, I shot with a 50mm f1.4 on my M240. Based on his comments I switched to a 35mm f2.0 and have never looked back.

    I think you could get much closer, get into the story, tell it closer, tell it more personally. It’s a big step, it broaches peoples’ personal space in some ways on occasions, but it will tell the story better for you I feel, and the images will become more immersive from a viewer’s perspective.

Comments are closed.