k_m20

<p>Simple enough. Thanks a lot guys!</p>

<p>Hey guys,</p> <p>I've recently bought some rodinal and started developing black and white film again. I shot one roll on my Nikon F3HP, and some on my Leica M6. After developing and scanning the film, I've noticed these strange ellipitical marks on some of the photos, like tree circles.</p> <p>I am developing using Rodinal. I do not notice any spots on the film that correspond with these elliptical marks. There are some water marks on the film (despite my using Ilfotol, water smears and dries on the film). But I used to develop without using any washing agent and never had those marks, so I'm not sure it's water residue. Also it happened with film shot on both cameras so I doubt it's either camera. Is it the scanner? I'm using a Epson V600. Do any of you have experience with these marks?</p> <p>Thanks<br /><img src="http://s29.postimg.org/84s8u8do7/photoerror2.jpg" alt="" width="790" height="467" /></p>

<p>I think the way I was holding it was covering up a portion of the rangefinder window. That'll do right?</p>

<p>Hey guys,</p> <p>I just got a Leica M6, and so far I love it! The viewfinder is taking a little getting used to, but it's getting easier by the minute. I just have a question about the rangefinder patch when I hold the camera vertically. It is very difficult to see any split-image movement when I hold the camera vertically. I'm not sure if this is normal, but it causes me to focus with the camera held horizontally before then turning the camera vertically to take the picture. Is this normal or am I doing something wrong?</p> <p>Leica M6 0.72x with 35mm lens.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot Lex, that was helpful.</p>

<p>Richard G, I have decided to get the Zeiss C Biogon f/2.8 (I think). I have looked up a lot of photos and literally do not see any difference with the summicrons. Certainly not $1000 difference. This way I can maybe buy a better scanner too.</p> <p>For all the summicron users, if money was no object I probably would have bought the 'cron just to be safe. But I really don't see the extra sharpness in the results. Steve McCurry took some of the sharpest photos ever on 35mm film, and used a Nikon SLR system. The sharpness of Leicas seem a bit overrated, but I guess I won't know 'til I actually try a 35mm cron!</p>

<p>The G lenses don't work on the manual film Nikons (my F3 included), unfortunately.</p>

<p>Hey guys, I've been considering getting a 35mm lens for the Leica M6 (I'm between a Summicron or a Zeiss Biogon). Most people say don't bother with the Biogon and just fork out the extra cash for the Summicron. Used, in EX+ condition, a Summicron 35mm runs over $1,700.</p> <p>So, I've been thinking maybe I should just get a 35mm lens for my Nikon F3. Does Nikon have a 35mm lens as good or better than the Summicron, for a fraction of the price? Since just about all Nikon lenses will run much cheaper than Leicas, I figured I'd ask.</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses, guys.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I'm going to try playing with the levels more and find what works. Looking into the Nikon products, too.</p> <p>Alan, I get what you mean. That works beautifully for more pristine landscapes. But I was thinking of a more dramatic effect. Like in these: <br> http://erickimphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/David-Alan-Harvey.png<br> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FOrHu6Rod7Y/UyDekax_kcI/AAAAAAAABi4/PwZDn1Qn3Ww/s1600/tumblr_mj3xvy4ne81qhao9bo1_1280.jpg<br> http://phototechsf.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/david-alan-harvey.jpg<br> http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7qapqvtNk1qabu3po1_500.jpg<br> http://www.magnumad.com/data/photos/775_1web-GRH-portfolio-pg25.jpg</p>

<p>And I know it seems like I'm really trying to make someone say these lenses are as good as the Crons, but it's just 'cus I want to believe that I can get an equal lens at half the price (around $1000 new). </p> <p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/35mm-f2.htm</p> <p>Do you guys disagree with his analysis often? Or does he just enjoy taking Leica down a notch?</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses, everybody.</p> <p>The cheapest 35 mm Summicron I see on KEH, in EX+ condition, is http://www.keh.com/camera/Leica-M-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-LM069990071450?r=FE</p> <p>Can anyone give me a lowdown on what "Version" of the lens that is and what they think of it? The KenRockwell review of the Zeiss lenses really made the Summicrons sounds like overpriced lenses for people that were splurging for name alone. I'm kind of confused now.</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses, Bernard and Gareth.</p> <p>Bernard: I've been thinking of investing in a better scanner. But the age of most of these Nikon film scanners worries me a bit. Is the Coolscan V worth getting, and what should I look for in buying one off eBay? Is it good for slides/are any scanners? Drum scanners seem to be in the thousands of dollars, which I can't afford.<br> Also, a lot of the Photoshop stuff you said went right over my head, to be honest.</p>

<p>Hey Barry, <br /> your portfolio has some great shots. They look like slides, which I shoot as well. The problem with searching google, I've noticed, is that I've searched both Summicrons and Zeiss lenses, and found good and bad shots of each (not just compositionally, but in terms of sharpness, color, etc.) I take it some people are processing incorrectly, scanning poorly, or some other issues. I have trouble basing my decision on just their shots when there are so many variables I don't know.</p>

<p>Hey guys,</p> <p>I've been shooting slides for about 6 months now. I'm past the learning curve of getting the right exposure, which is not easy on slides. What I want to know is, after looking at some of my favorite photographers, how do they get such black and contained shadows while keeping the colored areas perfectly uncorrupted. </p> <p>For examples of what I mean, think of some of the shots in Divided Soul by David Alan Harvey, the ones with lots of black. The one of the 2 hispanic people in front of a pink and green wall with the dark dark shadow of a wooden fence comes to mind.<br> Also shots by Harry Gruyaert. The one of a fruit stand with a guy in an orange sweater (his face completely covered in shadow) with a large container of lemons nearby comes to mind.<br> I think you guys all know the style I'm talking about, but I'm not uploading photos because I've been told that's against forum policy.</p> <p>Is this look only possible with advance printing techniques like dye transfer process? Or can it be achieved in Photoshop? Is it as simple as adjusting black levels and contrast?<br> I know most of the work is in the slide itself, but surely these guys are doing some processing.</p> <p>I am shooting Velvia 100 and scanning with an EPSON V600 flatbed and using photoshop (the AutoColor and AutoTone functions) to remove the orangey color cast from the scanner. This gets it pretty close to what is on the slide. I still get dark shadows, and the slides have the checkered light characteristic of that style of photography, but I can't get it to look quite as good. The blacks occasionally have a faded purple to them, or the colors lose their detail if I mess around too much. Is my trouble mainly that the scanner lacks the sharpness to render the slides as detailed?<br> Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.</p>