jonathan_reynolds

<p>Thanks for looking. <br> I guess lots of people buy a succession of correction lenses as their eyes get older, so I'm hoping that someone might have one of these that they'd care to sell? I need it for my M6. Would also be interested in the +1.5 and +2.0 in anticipation of years to come!</p> <p> </p>

I had this same issue a couple of years ago. I don't have it now. The only change I have made to my processing is that I now filter the fixer (after dilution), as well as the final wash water with its added wetting agent. I'm pretty sure either the fix or the wetting agent was growing tiny crystals in the bottle of concentrate. I hope this helps. The problem was especially noticeable with Delta 100 for some reason.

<p>I gave up on finding a quality scanner at an affordable price. I built myself a luxurious darkroom shed for a lot less money, and now I just do wet prints, which is far more satisfying than overseeing a scanner. The finished print is also a good deal more attractive than a screen image. The obvious downside is that I can't share photos online, but my chief reason for taking photos is to stick them on my own wall and enjoy them. I would like to be able to digitally 'rescue' negatives that have been damaged through bad storage, but not at the price of a Coolscan.</p>

<p>Perspective depends on viewpoint, not on focal length. Worth thinking about how close you want to get to foreground subjects, how much angle of view you want when you are there, and how much depth of field. Try a wide-angle zoom on a cheap s/h digital slr, and note what focal length you end up using most. <br> Then as Jim A says, there's no substitute for trying them out, because actually your shooting style changes to match the lens, and the suitability of a lens's optical "character" will depend on how you end up shooting.</p>

<p>I don't think there is a special Leica feel, but I am reluctant to join those who rubbish the whole notion.<br> I have an M6. By the time they produced the M6, Leica had bundled together the best of what you need to make excellent people and landscape photos in 35mm. Some would say they had reached an earlier peak with the M3 and its contemporary lenses. I don't know whether digital Leicas have reached another similar peak yet.<br> When I bought my M6 (second-hand) a little over 10 years ago, I stopped feeling that my failed photos might have been better if only I had a better camera. To be honest, having falling prey to the hype, I was expecting a step change, but it wasn't like that. Practically speaking, the differences in successful photos I took pre- and post-Leica are small once they have been properly printed. It's hard to tell which of them was taken with which camera. I do get many more successes with the Leica than I got previously, but then again I am a more experienced photographer too. Quality differences I do notice in the images are: (1) when I get the exposure right, the resolution of shadow details is fabulous, and that adds considerably to the rich look of the print; (2) full-aperture shots in low light are frequently excellent, something I had never experienced before.<br> Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Seems a terrible shame, Paul. I'm 59, so I am getting age, and arthritic hands too - seeing a consultant next week. It simply hasn't occurred to me to give up, in fact I feel I'm only just getting going. Fixing a new weather door on my darkroom this weekend, and looking forward to less work in years to come so that I can pursue more photo opportunities.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It's only original once.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly. Think how many times it could be useful. Life is short. Use the darn thing. (Or give it to me to use.)</p>

<p>I think the whole problem is that defining genres is a retrospective act. You can recognise a vogue for street photography in hindsight, but to set out to do 'street photography' like those of the past is to behave like a sheep.</p>

<p>I have only 2 lenses: the non-APO 50mm Summicron and the APO 35mm Summicron. The 50 has frustrated me a good deal with veiling flare, while the 35 has not. That makes a strong reason (among several others) why I tend to keep the 35 on the camera. It's a pity, because when flare hasn't occurred, the 50 renders shadow detail like nothing else.</p>

<p>Ian . : 'Back from Tibet' is wonderful! Extremely atmospheric, no interaction with the photographer, great use of depth of field. I love it.</p>

<p>Mukul, my sympathies, I went through all this too. I couldn't understand how photographers like HCB, Erwitt, etc could achieve compositional accuracy to the extent that they printed the film surround as a black border. Left to itself, my M6 squandered film area profligately. Both the afore-mentioned photogs used external viewfinders; but not always, and Erwitt currently uses an M7. This is a revealing but still puzzling documentary about Erwitt: <a href="http://www.themastersofphotography.com/the-project/">http://www.themastersofphotography.com/the-project</a><br> I too rejected an external viewfinder because it undermined the integrity of the M6. In any case, there is always some movement within the flash shoe, and dialling in a distance setting would slow you down quite a bit. Getting the finder mask replaced is apparently possible but for me unthinkably expensive.<br> There is some helpful information on Andrew Nemeth's site here: <a href="http://leica.nemeng.com/006ba.shtml">http://leica.nemeng.com/006ba.shtml. </a>In the end I have come to accept that advice, and I have gravitated towards a 35mm lens anyway, so I just do my best and tell myself I am developing total familiarity with my equipment. It's a kind of bovine acceptance rather than peace of mind; but I'm not sure the Leica M can ever be 100% satisfactory.<br> I gave up on black lines around my prints.</p> <p> </p>