terry_rory Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 OK we will leave it then. Minor technical point though. The 5D is an SLR (and a full frame SLR) so the DOF of any lens he used will be identical just as if it were on a film SLR (or rangefinder). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 "If it was film, I wanted to know how to do it, 'cos I only have film cameras available to me" Actually it is a good job that Rene was using a full frame DSLR because if Rene explains how he got the pic (aperture/shutter/ISO etc) all that can be used on your Leica in just the same way to the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I am stupid! That info will ALL be on the EXIF data. Simply get a B&W film of the same ISO and use his shutter speed and aperture and a lens of the same focal length. Obviously you will need to find out what the lighting conditions were like and ask about any post processing Rene used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 <i>"How could one get that depth of field and still capture the moving feet under night or twilight conditions, using film?" </i><p> Slow shutter speed, stop down, maybe a bit of tripod support and away you go. Not too difficult really. Maybe the 5D high iso capability enabled this to be taken handheld, but so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 sqasqsqs<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 This horse has been beaten too much in countless other threads and the conclusion is that it is ok as you see by many of us at the LF. So while we're reiterating let's add more irrelevant facts: It really depends on what I have with me at the time. I've taken similar shots with my M3 where the only indicator might be a bit more grain. Actually the first one is a redux of a shot I took about 2 months ago at the same location with M3. Then I got the whole street with lamps and a blurred person. I did not like a few things in it (like the blown out lamps) so I did not post it or print it but I loved the warped cobblestone and the manhole covers. I thought about retaking it and wanted some feet in it. Yesterday I was returning from a monthly meeting of photographers. This time it was on one of the islands. I was walking from the boat terminal to the parked car. The weather has been rainy for weeks (unusual for Maine) but we got lucky. The day was sunny and the evening was calm and warm. I was awestruck by the clarity of the electric wires against the night sky and so I got my car and drove to the spot to take pic#2. Then I went to revisit the warped cobblestone. I took about 6 versions with blurred feet and decided on pic#1, then I drove home but stopped on the outskirts of a place I visited a few times but never had enough inspiration to fill the frame. This time the moon and clouds created nice shroud close to the old chimney/smokestack. It was a good evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Rene, it's fascinating to learn the circumstances even though we don't need this info to appreciate the image. I can easily see why you would want to revisit the first shot, and the fact that you saw the need for feet and planned for them adds considerably to my respect. I'd still be intrigued to see how the earlier shot looked with the M3, if you'd be willing to share? I recall a night-time snow-scene of yours with the Leica that I liked enormously, but that too had no moving elements in the scene. I admit that I know too little about digicams, but experience of using miniature video cameras tells me that CCDs have far greater night-time sensitivity than either film or human eye, even though in daylight they may be comparable. Is that a factor here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 I'm in the car right now but when I get a breather at work I'll see what I can dig out and post. In general, my take is that I can shoot Digi at ISO 1600 and like it but I absolutely love the look for Tri-x at 400ISO. My experience is that I can get more 'keeepers' with the 1600 ISO but the look of a good Tri-x night shot can not be beat for my taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 ok. I digged out the old shot. I haven't dome much to it at the time because I did not like it enough and when I look at it I'm not certain it was shot with the M3. <p> <img src=http://www.widereach.net/temp/nogo.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 here are some other candidates from the 6 takes: <p> In this one there was a couple walking by and the woman actually started posing 'ala George Michael in Faith' <p> <img src=http://www.widereach.net/temp/nogo2.jpg> <p> hmm. I kinda missed this one. I kind of like the high heel a lot. I migh re-visit this shot later. <p> <img src=http://www.widereach.net/temp/nogo3.jpg> <p> Passing Taxi <p> <img src=http://www.widereach.net/temp/nogo4.jpg> <p> hmm. I kinda liked the position of the feet and the shadow in this one but not the sharpness of the foreground. <p> <img src=http://www.widereach.net/temp/nogo5.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 what is the point of posting these on a Leica forum? Some dudes just want to tell every other dude what to do. No all wonderful dudes. They must have divine lights shining up and out of their buts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Michael, if you read the whole thread, rather than just skipping through it, you'll appreciate that we have already established what was intended on all sides. And by the way, who are you? Those of us who subscribe to Photonet arguably might have a small say in what we can expect to find there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Rule #11: Photographs posted for critique or display are allowed provided that they can be classified as fitting within the "rangefinder" style. It is preferable that posted photography be made with a Leica, but this is not a hard rule. There's nothing more to talk about. Tony's intentionally worded it this way so this community of Leica enthusiasts can post anything made with anything. He has never deleted a photo or asked anyone to refrain from posting an image becasue of the manufacture that was used. He has also never supported any such sentiments of yours here when the same issue has arisen in the past. In the future, I�d prefer you keep your destructive opinions to yourself while you breath deeply with tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Calm down, Eric, why raise the temperature still further? Rene has shown by his response that he's a grown-up, decent and magnanimous guy. I like many of his photos, just as I like many of yours. And at the end of the day I really don't care what they're taken with. But I'm also unbowed in my interest in what one can do with a Leica, given that that's what I have, and why I come to this forum. I'm sorry if anyone feels defensive about that, and I'm sorry for re-igniting an old fire. Now please can we all cool down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 Jonathan, <p> Echte Leica at night: <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/41/124976977_2f121298a8.jpg" width="386" height="500" alt="Quarter to Eight" /></a> <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/37/124988684_08894bbf27.jpg" width="500" height="340" alt="pimptruck" /></a> <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/56/143473500_8b62cf42b0.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="sdc23.1" /></a> <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/35/73269553_779095c331_o.jpg" width="531" height="372" alt="winterloghomeatnight" /></a> <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/34/73267691_6b5990a82c.jpg" width="500" height="339" alt="scream" /></a> <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Jonathan, Thanks for stirring. The 3rd from Rene's echte Leica shot is one of my favorites from him. The others posted here are OK but they do not seem to mimick anything from TriX. Atleast not on my monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Rene, thanks for posting those for me. I love them all. Of course a drawback of Leicas is that I can't simply look at the EXIF data to find out the exposure circumstances, much as I would like to know. But it's a very fine skill you have have developed there. I'm intrigued to know exactly why you and Vivek prefer the look of Tri-X, but perhaps that's for another thread... Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Jonathan, My opinion on Tri-X is not backed by rigorous research. It is merely based on the fact that when I develop Tri-X and scan it into my computer I find that some shots have (for my taste) interesting grain. Vivek seems to think that Tri-X characteristic is not represented. I can go with that because I really have no idea what it should look like. On the other hand I don't really care either as I love the Tri-X results of some of my shots and that is why I continue using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I love it too, Rene, though actually I find it a pig to scan (partly that scanning exaggerates the grain too much for my taste, and partly that the scans never seem to capture the velvety shadow details that I can get on a print). Probably I have a lot to learn about scanning, though I've read everything in sight. Some folks say that Neopan 400 scans much better and has a similar look - I've not tried it yet. Having said all that, I actually love the tonality on screen of your manhole cover shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Here are some examples on why I love my Tri-X results. (disclaimer:This time it is not about night) <p> Love the grain in those shots especially when I print them: <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/52/137975816_88ae1921f2_o.jpg" width="700" height="476" alt="coffee" /></a> <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/47/140831495_7ce4966801.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="break" /></a> <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/43/122018421_200ee45f8d_b.jpg" width="696" height="1024" alt="No Parking" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I see what you mean. I find it really tasty in the OOF areas (like the old chap at the counter in the first of your three), but distracting (in my photos) in big empty areas like clouds and sky. I won't post it here, but here's a link to one of mine where it annoyed me: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3963184-lg.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 just like everything else. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It gets tricky too because it is all in the eye of the beholder. I love the grain of this shot especially when printed. With the help of the mist it made the horizon combine with the sea: <p> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/54/158306177_3bba4d5343_o.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="~" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 I apologize for the occassional large sizes of these. I'm lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erudolph Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I love the No Parking shot. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now