Black Phoebe

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by doug herr, Jan 5, 2005.

  1. [​IMG]
    Black Phoebe - Carmichael California
    Leicaflex SL2, LeiCanon 560mm f/4*, E200, tripod
    * LeiCanon 560mm f/4: a Canon FD 400mm f/2.8 L modified to fit Leica- R + Leica 1.4x APO-Extender-R
    All comments welcome.
  2. Doug,
    Very impressive and beautiful.
    Frank M.
  3. Beautiful Doug, the eye is a little hard to see on my screen at work but I think it's the fluorescent lighting wash here.
  4. Doug Hi

    This is a great shot, but do you think it [or others you have taken] are as bitingly sharp as your previous photographs with the Leica lenses? Doesn't look sunny, so maybe that has had an effect?


  5. Doug:

    A stunning photo!
  6. As always, exceptional.

    Note the extachrome--Are you ditching K200?
  7. Thanks for the comments - I'll try to answer the various
    Peter A, the lens was converted before I bought it. It was Sal
    DiMarco's and after examining the quality of workmanship of the
    conversion and because Sal lived near New York City, I believe
    the conversion was done by Marty Forscher, who is now retired.
    The conversion involved the rear half of a Leica-R extension tube
    like the 14198 1:1 tube for the 60 Macro. This extension tube
    has an aperture ring and metering cams so the only tricky work
    was to couple the aperture ring with the lens's diaphragm. IMHO
    the conversion work is brilliant in its simpilicity and effectiveness.
    Doug Landrum, I probably made the darks tones too dark in my
    photoshop work. Detail in the eye is clearly visible in the
    Bruno, I also don't think this is as bitingly sharp as many of my
    other photos. There are a number of possibile causes: 1) this is
    a crop from about 50% of the slide's area 2) it's not Kodachrome
    3) the exposure was long for a big lens and at full aperture. It
    certainly wasn't sunny. In daylight I've had lots of trouble getting
    detail in the highlights w/o losing the eye in the murk so I chose
    to use the diffused light of a very foggy day. We don't have much
    between sunny and foggy here. The lens - or should I say
    combination of lenses - may also not be as bitingly sharp as a
    Leica prime but since this rig demands a hefty tripod it could be
    that my present 'pod isn't up to the task.<P>
    Jim Cain - I'm not sure if I'm ditching K200 or not. In this case I
    was using up some E200 that had been in my refrigerator for a
    couple of years. Relying on only three K14 processing labs
    worldwide isn't prudent IMHO and the turnaround from here
    (California) is abysmal - so I'm weighing my options.
  8. Nicely captured.
  9. Doug
    As noted, you've got another great photo there !
    I've been sending Kodachrome to Dwayne's and getting it back in 5 days or so which is great, compared to what it was with Kodak.
  10. Doug,

    I think it is a great shot and fully realize that a print is MUCH better than looking at an image on a computer screen.

  11. Doug,
    Am I blind? Where can one see this shot?
  12. Peter, it's coming up on my screen. Maybe you hit a temporary
    glitch in the server. In any event it's at
  13. Doug, another great shot of yours. Beautiful! But it still does not display on my screen, I have to click the link you just sent<br>Peter
  14. Doug,
    what can I say ? Just a fantastic shot, as always.


  15. Great photo,Douglas......something a bit......

Share This Page