Leica APO 2/75 Summicron: finally got it AND my first pics...

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by luigi v, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. Well, after a lot of reading about it, recommendations from users (thank you all, dear photo.net fellows), highly positive reviews, and a bit of hard saving, I finally got hold of an APO 2/75 Summicron...I am extremely pleased with my first results, it looks like this is THE lens that really suits my vision of photography. Compact enough, easy to handle, and stunningly beautiful sharp AND at the same time warm results. I am an amateur photographer, so, bearing this in mind, please let me know what your thoughts are, mainly not on my pics, but on the rendition of images of this lens...Am I right to be so pleased?
    00GBOL-29624284.jpg
     
  2. Sorry, still have not managed to correctly size the images for posting on the forum...please
    forgive me...!
     
  3. Luigi, it's a little large for viewing - could you possibly repost at approx 500 pixels instead of c. 1600 down the long side. If you want to see the image appear in the thread, the instructions can be found here
    http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/imagerules.html, or alternatively, here http://www.photo.net/frequent-questions#upload.

    Cheers, A
     
  4. One more...
    00GBOs-29624484.jpg
     
  5. Thanks Andy, I'll check your link before posting any more images...
     
  6. One last try...if the image is still too large many apologies and goodnight...
    00GBQp-29624884.jpg
     
  7. Wow! I like the portrait. I agree, 75mm is an ideal focal length. Enjoy that wonderful lens.
     
  8. Luigi,-- Why do you refuse to learn how to size the pictures to the
    recommended dimensions?

    Could you ask for instructions?
     
  9. Luigi,-- No it is still much too large. Good night and good bye!
     
  10. Ok. I copied the image. Resized it to 72 resolution at 510 on the long side, and saved it as a Jpeg. That should do it.
    00GBUZ-29625884.jpg
     
  11. Should use a soft filter for women's face portraiture. Too sharp, showing skin imperfections!
     
  12. Luigi,

    when you do this again, use any version of Photoshop.

    Go to "Image."

    Go to "Image size."

    Change the resolution to 72.

    Change the longest dimension (on top) to 510.

    Go to "File" in the upper lefthand corner and click.

    Go to "Save as" and click.

    Look at the bottom and there will be a box, and scroll down and click on "jpeg" and save the image.

    It is now ready for internet and e-mail posting.

    Hope this help. let me know if you need other suggestions.

    This will eventually become simple and fast for you.
     
  13. Tito,

    No offense intended, but if Luigi wanted a soft image he could have bought a nice 90mm Elmar lens (Sherry Krauter has a fine one on her site for sale for $150).

    Why pay the price Luigi did and then say, it's too sharp! I don't understand!

    Do we want sharp or do we want soft?
     
  14. If you want sharp, this is the lens to have.
     
  15. I agree the lens is too sharp for portrait. It shows all our human imperfections and is not flattering for portraits. It would be great for taking pictures of museum paintings for details. Soft filters or lots of makeup.
     
  16. Sometimes, I personally prefer to see the skin with all its imperfections.

    Not everyone cares for that glamour/fashion/cosmetics commercial type look, certainly not every time.
     
  17. Here's your second shot. Also, when you "save as" you need to rename the photo and i just put an "e" behind it to indicate it was downsized for e-mail. You don't want to loose your original image in case you want to make prints.
    00GBWA-29626484.jpg
     
  18. She's beautiful.
     
  19. Here's Number 3, and who says I don't try to help Photonetters! (^O^)
    00GBWJ-29626684.jpg
     
  20. Flattery is not the sole purpose of portraiture. The CV 75 was a lens very dear to my heart. I'd
    love to try the 75 'Cron. Looks nice to me.
     
  21. Now then, for those who think the lens is too sharp, why not take the scanned image and do something in it with photoshop? In Scott kelby's book, "The Photoshop CS2 Book, For digital Photographers," there is a truly simple and quick method to soften an image WITHOUT making it look too blurry (pages 320-321, Soft Focus Effect). Film vs. digital?: "The farmers and the cowboys CAN be friends." It's the best of both worlds!
    00GBWs-29626884.jpg
     
  22. Oops...this is Number 2...I'm working too fast, but I hope this helps you, Luigi.
    00GBX7-29627084.jpg
     
  23. Is the 90mm APO Summicron-M anywhere close?

    <p>
    <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3739314-lg.jpg">
     
  24. Arthur, was that picture taken with a 75 or a 90?
     
  25. Not only has Todd's post processing work improved by a fantastic amount lately, he's recently been doing his own "preprocessing" work with a Leica M2 and a couple of Leitz lenses, complete with Leitz hoods. Monkey was most emphatic that he wasn't going to fly across the country for a two week stay at Todd's Monkey Hostel if he was going to be photographed on his adventures with a lesser brand of camera. His plane arrives in San Francisco today.
     
  26. Luigi, the 75/2 is a pip of a lens, isn't it! I think it will get even more popular with the MD, because with the 1.33-crop it will substitute for the 90 and 135.
     
  27. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Man o man, all you have to do is say "Boo!" around here for somebody to jump off the deep end and assume the worst. Good grief.
    Just to be perfectly clear, Brad is 100% correct and his explanation is accurate: If a participant of a photo.net forum makes a post that references an image that is hosted on a different server other than a server hosted by photo.net, then that image is NOT subject to the photo.net terms of use policy thus it is NOT automatically available to anyone to modify and/or post ANYWHERE, including a photo.net server. I am speaking of images that are referenced either by the HTML "img" tag, which would mean that the image shows up in the body of the post, AND images that are referened with a link to the non-photo.net server.
    Here is the pertinent section of the photo.net Terms of Use policy:
    "Furthermore, when commenting on photos in the photo Gallery, you may include a version of the photo under discussion in your comment, altered or marked up to illustrate your comments. By uploading photos to the photo Gallery, you grant to other photo.net members permission to copy the photo, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach tthe modified photo to their comments on the photo."
    If my understanding of the abover is correct, "The photo Gallery" means photos that are uploaded to a photo.net server. I think, though I am not 100% positive, that images uploaded to photo.net into a discussion forum by use of the "image upload" feature when making posts or replies to posts are given the same status because they would still reside on a photo.net server. So, if I am correct, then Luigi's image here falls into the "available to you to modify and reupload to photo.net" category as evidenced by its label "image attachment."
    Be careful. You should not assume that images that show up in posts are always hosted by a photo.net server. To be sure, hover over the image with your mouse and right-click->properties to see.
     
  28. I removed most of the off-topic discussion, which seems like it was mostly bickering. If you want to discuss or get clarification on the photo.net Terms of Use, that is what the Site Feedback forum is for. If you want to report abuse, send an email to abuse@photo.net or one of the moderators. Forums are not for discussing or commenting on the behaviour of other photo.net members.

    As for the TOU, "Gallery" refers to the Gallery section of photo.net (that is, the Photo Critique Forum, Portfolios, Folders, etc), and does not refer to attachments on Forum posts. photos uploaded to the Gallery section are presumed to have been uploaded for the purposes of critique. One of the permitted forms of critique is to edit the original upload so as to illustrate suggestions on how the post-processing might have been handled differently. If someone doesn't want that form of critique, he shouldn't participate.

    Photos attached to forum posts are not presumed to be for critique; they are presumed to be illustrative of whatever point the person was making in the post, and posting a photo with a forum post does not imply permission to edit or modify it the way posting a photo in the Gallery/Critique Forum does. If someone wants to grant that permission, he can, but he should be asked first, unless he states in the post that he is inviting it. This is so whether the photo was uploaded to the photo.net server, or was included in a post via an IMG tag. If someone violates this, it is technically a copyright violation. If the original poster objects, he should contact us and we will remove the offending post. I would generally consider this type of copyright violation as an honest mistake, and not do anything more about than to remove the edited photo, unless it were to happen repeatedly.

    Finally, please stop the incessant bickering. It is getting beyond ridiculous. I presume that everybody involved in this forum is over the age of twelve, and has been through some kind of socialization process, such as primary school. Please start acting your ages.
     

Share This Page

1111