My Leica LTM epiphany/karma

[snapsthoughts]

Fate (or whatever) seemed to dictate that I recently acquired a Leica IIf RD. It was born in the same year as me

and something just clicked, so I purchased it, together with a 1949 Summarit 50/2, an Elmar 50/3.5 and an Elmar

90/4. I'm not new to photography (digital and film) and knew what I was letting myself in for. Once I'd quickly

reassured myself that the body worked, the lenses were free of haze and fungus etc (they are lovely copies) I

started shooting *reels* and *reels* of film knowing that I would have a struggle to start with. No meter, the

legendary bottom loading, squinty viewfinder and all the rest - in other words a complete reassessment of the

lazy ways I had become used to with a Nikon D300 and F4S.<br/><br/>

 

Just as monumental technique-wise (for me) was the decision to develop film after a break of 35 years. Bottom

line was an immersion into complete control of a process that I was familiar with but effectively restarting as a

complete neophyte. Not a position I am usually happy with... to say the least. I'm fairly arrogant and the

results initially were a bit difficult for my ego. Overdeveloped, underdeveloped, overexposed, underexposed, huge

grain, poor focus, dust, agitation issues. The works.<br/><br/>

 

However, at the core was this jewel from the middle of the last century and I know I can take OK (and even good)

photos so I kept at it. I learned a huge amount about exposure, light and conditions (here in London, UK

conditions can change by the minute) as well as experimenting with different combinations of developers and films

until I finally found something that suits my style. I already knew that the IIf did, just by the touch and feel

of the thing.<br/><br/>

 

And guess what - it is finally paying off. Yesterday I got back from a days shooting and I'm actually really

pleased with the results. Everything seems to be coming together. The immersion into the Leica way is paying off

big time for me. The mechanics of the IIf are becoming intuitive (well that didn't take too long TBH) and more

importantly my choice of aperture and shutter speed is beginning to match my pre-visualisation of the final image

in more cases than not. I've settled on Ilford Delta 100 and 400 and Fomapan 100 with DD-X, and Fomapan 400 with

either DD-X or Ilfosol 3, and Neopan 1600 with Ilfosol 3 at 1+14. These combos are giving me the results I want

to see - probably not everybody's cup of tea, but hey, they are mine!<br/><br/>

 

I've posted some images in my gallery here (http://www.photo.net/photos/snapsthoughts) and I'd really

appreciate some

CC and pointers. Unusually, I'll admit that I've got a lot to learn here :) The rest of the odyssey is on my own

website at http://snapsthoughts.com which includes some of the 'ones that got away'.<br/><br/>

 

This is my first post here, so I hope this is in the right place and is appropriate. I haven't worked out how to

post inline images and hrefs yet though, this html editor is a bit medieval.

[orvillerobertson]

Hey, Charles, this is a very inspiring story. Sounds like you made many good decisions along the way. I really believe in

challenging your accepted perceptions in order to learn. The notion that we are always right and everyone lese is wrong is

foolish (just scroll through the idiotic rant columns here to see this beautifully illustrated) In my case I could not go as far back

as the screwmount Leicas because that loading thing and the squinty viewfinder would drive me nuts. We all occasionally need

to take your journey and make ouselves into, if not better photographers, then at least better humans.

[wendell_kelly]

You're in this far Charles - time to acquire a Focomat Ic enlarger and continue the odyssey.

[vics]

I agree. Once you start seeing wet prints come out the way you visualize them, then you'll be really hooked! Good story and good pictures. Keep it up!

Vic

[02Pete]

People interested in various different arts appear to find that making particular choices about selecting a medium and approach impose a mental discipline that requires one to recognize the limits of what one can currently accomplish, and then work on developing both vision and technique in order to strengthen one's results. This would appear to be as true in photography as it is in drawing, painting or music.

 

Screwmount Leicas, while having their limitations, are far more capable as equipment than many people recognize, especially those enamored with the current generation of highly automated digital cameras. Many worthwhile photos have been taken with them over the years. If your chosen method of establishing for yourself a mental discipline to strengthen your vision involves using a screwmount Leica, monochrome film, and your own developing, that strikes me as a potentially viable approach. The camera's limitations can actually become strengths, by forcing you to limit the variables open to your control, concentrate on what you are doing, and think hard about how you can achieve the results you envision, instead of relying upon automation to do your work for you. I am no expert on judging photography, but your initial posts look good to me, and I look forward to more when you have had the chance to do some further shooting with your IIf.

 

My only suggestions would be to consider getting a handheld light meter, if you have not done so yet, and a 35mm lens to go with the 50mm and 90mm lenses you already have. While I personally favor 75mm, 85mm and 90mm lenses, and take the majority of my photos with them, many Leica photographers appear to find 35mm lenses particularly useful and convenient in terms of depth of field, coverage, size, and weight.

 

For what it's worth, after using many different kinds of equipment over the years, I settled on a Leica M2 and a small selection of lenses for some of the same reasons that you chose your IIf. The M2 has a larger viewfinder, a longer rangefinder baselength, uses a lever rather than a knob for winding, and takes bayonet as well as screwmount lenses (with an adapter), but is otherwise similar in many ways to your IIf. It's simple, but it works. I make no great claims for my results, but if you would like to see some of the things one can do with a 50 year old Leica and a couple of lenses, I posted some photos at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=871425.

[snapsthoughts]

Thanks for the encouraging comments, much appreciated.<br/><br/>

 

I've had to settle for a darkbag for development. No room for a wet darkroom as I'm fairly itinerant. I need to

be mobile. One day I'll settle and look into the acquisition of a Focomat Ic enlarger :) Wow, just googled it.

Awesome stuff, now I want one!<br/><br/>

 

A Summaron 3.5cm 3.5 is on its way from ebay (with a brightline finder), so fingers crossed. Couldn't afford the

2.8 but I'm not too concerned about speed at 3.5cm and I'll probably be using it stopped down anyway. It is my

preferred focal length on 35mm but since I've been using the 50/2 I've actually enjoyed using that focal length

too. I still can't quite get over the fact that a set of 35, 50 & 90 lenses will effectively fit in my pocket. My

Nikon fast glass equivalents by comparison need a <strong>large</strong> bag<br/><br/>

 

Another revelation is the brightline finder. I love my Nikon F4 100% viewfinder but these brightline finders blow

even the F4 away here. Looking through the 50 finder I can use both eyes open to aid composition. It may be

something to do with my astigmatism but the edges of the finder almost disappear & I'm looking at the scene

framed in the brightlines with both eyes with a *real life* 100% view, not just 'boxed' at a 100% by the

viewfinders limitation. Amazing, I can watch what is going on around the scene, how good is that for the streets!

So what is the story with the 35 finder? It costs as much as a body. I know there is a less expensive CV

equivalent, but why the premium for the 35 brightline?<br/><br/>

 

I haven't found some of the so called drawbacks of LTM that much of a problem TBH. My hands were trembling when I

first loaded a film after reading all the angst and viewing youtube videos. I can now do it 'in the field' with

absolutely no problem first time every time. This weekend it was minus 2C in London and my hands were cold cold

cold but all went smoothly. The films are pre-trimmed at home. I picked up a (relatively) inexpensive Ablon and

it takes a couple of seconds to trim with a scalpel so that removes the trimming worries (cutting through

sprocket holes etc)<br/><br/>

 

The squinty viewfinder is a non-issue with the brightlines and flipping between the accessible dioptre assisted

magnified rangefinder and the vf didn't take long to get used to. It is just a different workflow that for me at

least fits the aesthetic.<br/><br/>

 

I haven't found the lack of a lever an issue either. The winder is butter smooth on my IIf and I can use my thumb

while my eye remains looking through the vf.<br/><br/>

 

All in all, a very pleasing experience. As Peter has pointed out, the limitations, once recognised, can be hugely

advantageous to the creative process. I am unashamedly a techie geek in most of my life and a web

designer/developer by profession. However, I have an inherent dislike of the commoditisation of the digital photo

market and the market push for the 'latest and greatest' tech geared at consumers to relentlessly upgrade. As a

computer professional I *do* need that new tech for my work and I can see parallels for photo pros. However, I

now have my LTM, and will probably have it for the rest of my life. It does things the way that I want, which is

admittedly based on an informed view of my creative style. And oddly, rather than making me think, 'mmmm, now I

*really* want an M mount' I'm actually thinking 'mmmm, that If looks interesting'.<br/><br/>

 

Seriously, the I series does interest me. Really spartan, no rangefinder or viewfinder. I find that *very*

appealing. Recursive perhaps, but those limitations should make for an extremely interesting photographic

experience. On the other hand, I have several modded Holgas which effectively have no viewfinders either and I

thoroughly enjoy using those too lol!<br/><br/>

 

Would people recommend the IC or IF or should I take that to another forum?

[orvillerobertson]

Charles, I have quite a few friends who are highly regarded in the fine art photography field who shoot with ultra simple

equipment sich as Holgas, pinhole, and old Polaroids. You and I have a lot in common. I'm a techie geek as well with one of

the latest Mac Pros and all kinds of gadgets. You should see the stuff in my camera bag, such as a wifi finder. But with

cameras I get no desire to use one of the so-called modern cameras. I can live with auto exposure, but most of my cameras

are very basic and totally manual metal things. For me consistent street photography requires so much concentration that I

need a very simple and reliable camera. I always check out the latest camera gear just to see what's new but always walk

away from them feeling totally disconnected. I'm very simple and instinctive photographically, so my camera needs to be the

same to keep me feeling natural. When I feel natural, I take better and more consistently interesting shots than when I'm

fighting the camera.

[wai_leong_lee]

Well, I wouldn't go as far as a ltm body, but I dig...

[paul_neuthaler]

Good for you, Charles. Nice shots, Peter. I love my (now 10!) old Leicas -- screwmounts, Leicaflexes & M2!

[steve salmons]

I have two Leica Standards on which I usually use a 35mm f2 Canon lens or a 25mm f4 Skopar, usually with Pan F. This is about as simple a set up as you can get and is my favourite 35mm configuration for shooting in the city. I have five other Leicas too, including an M2 but if I had to get rid of all but one of them I would keep the Standard. This seems to be as close as you can get to the original Leica aesthetic. <br>

For other work I would go to my medium format and 5x4 equipment but I love the freedom and spontaneity you get from carrying just that little Leica. If I use it with a 35mm Summaron I can just about 'lose' it in the palm of my hand.<br>

Steve

[snapsthoughts]

Orville, spot on about the disconnection around new gear and feeling natural behind the camera. I found your site

very inspirational too. So inspirational in fact that the If is on its way for the streets. Simplicty

personified... these LTMs are addictive aren't they<br/><br/>

 

Charles

[david_vickers2]

Hello Charles,

 

I'm glad you've found a new lease of life for your photography due to this dimunitive Leica. About this time last year, I bought myself my first Leica (after years of wanting one) - a 1937 Leica II. Unfortunately I didn't have a Leica lens to use it with, so initially I got by with a Russian Jupiter lens, until around February '08 when I purchased a Red Scale 5cm Elmar.

 

I love my little Leica; it's lightweight, simple to use, quite rugged and requires no batteries. There's something about taking pictures with it that I just don't get from my Nikon D1 / D40. I've just (yesterday) bought the Elmar 90mm for it too, and paid to have my Weston Meter I's selenium cell replaced and recalibrated. That means that when I'm out and about, I've no worries about batteries failing!

 

I initially thought that the split viewfinder / rangefinder might be an issue, but I've settled in to using zone focussing and the viewfinder and leaving the rangefinder out of the equation. It's a great camera and I hope that you enjoy yours as much as I do mine.

 

David.

[snapsthoughts]

Hi David, I know exactly how you feel. My recursion to a simpler (camera) world is continuing as I've just got my

If - no rangefinder, so I'll be zone focussing on this one. How far back can I go? Funnily enough I was speaking

to Malcolm Taylor this morning about the If and he told me a funny story about an original Leica 'O' that he

repaired. He took it out to shoot (amazingly - as there were only 31 made according to the Leica pocket book) and

he met a man who said he had one too... after some disbelief expressed by Malcolm it turned out that it was not

impossible that this guy really *could* have had one - it is too long a story to put into email and I wouldn't do

Malcom's account justice. How unbelievable is that? Talk about coincidence. Allegedly there is only one other

'known' Leica 'O' in the UK. Small world...<br/><br/>

 

Now I'm itching to get out and shoot with the If but there is too little light here in London now. Hopefully

tomorrow will have some sun. Yeah right...

[david_vickers2]

Hi Charles,

 

I'm currently down in Winchester and the light was nice yesterday - today however, is another matter! I'm eagerly awaiting the receipt of the 90mm Elmar (and I also purchased a lens hood for it too!).

 

My Leica II just stays in my bag and goes with me just about everywhere; I love the fact that it's just over 70 years old and works faultlessly - I have to wonder whether the D40 will still be going in 70+ years time.

 

I wanted a Leica for years before finally being able to purchase a secondhand one, and the Leica name comes with a certain amount of 'baggage' (and I don't mean that in a negative way) - I didn't want to be disappointed by it when I finally had one! I needn't have worried, there's definitely a tactile response to using it, and (as you do) processing your own film brings you so much closer to photography in a way that digital just doesn't. Digital is 'cold', and although I can get great results with the digital cameras (resulting in 3 magazine front covers earlier this year), using the Leica is just a much more enjoyable experience.

[astral]

Charles, I'm glad that you are enjoying using your IIf, but be warned: becoming a LTM disciple after your

epiphany has potentially serious consequences - one Leica camera and one lens is rarely enough ;-)

 

My first LTM encounter was with a IIIf in a shop in Frankfurt some 40 years ago, but for no good reason I didn't

buy it. It took 35 years for me to finally get around to buying one, now I have several cameras and lenses. Over

the past 5 years or so I have rarely been disappointed with Barnack cameras or lenses, or the results. For me

they are inspirational cameras, and simple to use, allowing me to take complete control of the whole

picture-taking process. Of course, not every photo is perfectly focussed, composed or exposed, but any errors are

mine, not the camera's. While I will happily use a modern dslr, AF film camera and zoom lenses, I find that I

approach my photography differently - though this is intangible - when using a Barnack: it's part of the fun.

 

One other benefit that I see with such vintage cameras is that people, who would be very self-aware when a modern

"black-beestie" dslr (etc) is pointed in their direction, often disregard an old camera or, conversely, take a

positive interest in it. Maybe they think it can't take good photographs. And far more strangers approach me in

the street asking about the camera, or commenting on it, than would ever be the case with a Canikon D900.

Barnacks often break down barriers somehow. Maybe such folk recognise that you are a 'legit photographer' whose

interest is photography, rather than an interloping or snooping snapper, etc? Whatever the case, using Barnacks

is quite fascinating. Enjoy. AC

[david_vickers2]

Just thought I'd let you know (although I'm not entirely sure why anyone else would be interested!) that my Elmar 90mm f4 lens has arrived today. Just checked the serial number out and it would appear to be a 1934 (uncoated) model - can't wait to start shooting with it.

[snapsthoughts]

Hey David, I picked up a 1936 Elmar 90/4. Our serial numbers are probably fairly close! I've only shot a couple of rolls of film with it so far. I love its small size. What finder are you using?

[david_vickers2]

I already had a Helios brightline viewfinder, with 35 / 85 / 135mm lines on it; I figured that the 85mm was 'close enough for government work'! Although it's not ideal, as there is no parallax correction on it, so it all a bit of guesswork.

 

How are you finding the images produced by this lens?

[snapsthoughts]

David, I'm liking the images taken with the 90 very much. Below are links to a couple of galleries using the 90 and

the IIf. Flaws

are down to my developing technique (I'm still learning and haven't quite stumbled across the best combos of film and

developer, or at least I hadn't then...) and of course my exposure calculations were a bit haywire

sometimes<br/><br/>

 

(a) <a href="http://photos.snapsthoughts.com/p1003704301">British Museum, London</a><br/>

 

(b) <a href="http://photos.snapsthoughts.com/p549772647">Walking around Greenwich, London</a><br/><br/>

 

Charles

[david_vickers2]

I like those pictures Charles, the first image on the British Museum strikes me the most. I also like the ones around Greenwich too (as an aside, do you get to see The Guide magazine around Greenwich? I shot three front covers for it earlier on this year and one of my pictures was picked up by Greenwich Council who are using it to advertise the National Maritime Museum).

 

Anyway, great lens, can't wait to see what mine is like! As for film, I've been using Rollei Retro 400 developed in ID-11, but I've recently shot a few rolls of ADOX CHS50.

 

David.