mark_l

Just wanted to say thank you to all those who responded. The answers have been most helpful and informative! I guess I'll keep shooting Tri-x, and when I'm comfortable with processing my film, I'll get some Pan F+. Thanks again!

Hi,

 

I am beginning to process my own B&W film, due to the increased

creative control. Prior to this, I have been using chromogenic B&W

film, mostly XP2 super and T400CN. I really like how smoothly they

render skin tones, and am wondering if there is an analagous 200-400

speed traditional B&W film? I am starting out with Tri-X due to its

characteristic look and HC-110, dilution E (most likely), but would

like another film that might give me more options, using this

specific developer. I shot one roll of Delta Hp5+, rated at 200 and

processed normally in Clayton chemicals (D76) by A&I and the results

were grainy in an unpleasing manner. I know Tri-X and Delta Hp5+ are

supposed to be the same, but it looks different than other shots I've

seen of Tri-X. Thanks for any tips!<div></div>

Thanks for all the replies thus far. I was just interested as to how much of this look can be achieved from a straight print. Finding the proper lighting is still something I am slowly learning, does anyone have any resources on available light lighting techniques?

 

It was interesting that one of the posters mentioned this might have been taken with a Nikkor lens. I guess I see so many human interest type photos posted in this forum that I naturally associated that type of B/W photography with Leica lenses. I know Robert Johnston uses a Nikon, but he's one of the few on this site that I have come across that uses non-leica/rangefinder gear.

 

I actually have not asked Brian Stevens for permission to post his photo. I thought that I properly attributed it to him? The moderator may delete this post if necessary. Thanks!

In the No Words: Smoking, Brian David Stevens posted this photo:

</br>

</br>

<img src="http://www.briandavidstevens.com/portraits/port3.jpg">

</br></br>

This photo exactly demonstrates the 'richness' in b/w photos that I

would like to achieve. My question is, with as much of an objective

perspective (granted this is in a Leica forum), and touching on Todd

Frederick's posting below dealing with sharpness, etc....what

contributing factors create the look of this photo?

</br></br>

1. Is it possible to get this image on negative exactly as it looks,

or does it require darkroom manipulation (digital or otherwise) to

get the tones to this point?

</br></br>

2. Part of this question deals with the Leica "glow" and famed

rendering of b/w tonalities, real or imagined. I currently use Canon

FD gear and am happy with it, but there is always this nagging doubt

that to achieve this look, one must invest in Leica gear. I know

there is quality work produced by all types of photographers with all

types of gear, and the power of the image lies in the creativity of

the photographer....but I'm inquiring more on a technical level as to

achieve this specific look.

</br></br>

3. Additionally, up 'til now, I've been using C41 chromogenic film

and have been very happy with the results, but am about to try

shooting Tri-X since many of the photos I am attracted to most use

that film. Is part of the look derived from the differences in how

C41 renders b/w vs traditional b/w?

</br></br>

Thanks for any help!

I think the biggest thing is to just relax and have a good time with the child. Let the child interact with the environment (assuming this is what the friend wants), and work with that. There isn't a necessity for backgrounds, or pro-lighting. As an example, I shot this with just available light, using my Canon AE-1 (manual focus camera). You just have to be able to have fun, and it'll show through your photos.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=004Cl1&photo_id=1179238&photo_sel_index=0

I had the original 50/1.8 MK1 that is so praised. It was *very* sharp, but I didn't like several things. First and foremost was how much noise it made when focusing. Granted it focused fast, but it was annoying. USM from my EF 100/2 ruined the possibility of ever getting over that little quibble as it was virtually silent.

 

Second, I didn't like the way it rendered the OOF (out of focus) areas. Instead of circles, I had hexagons or pentagons (I can't remember).

 

Third, I have seen some 1.4's go for about 200+. My Mk1 cost 100 dollars. If I hadn't sold off all my Canon EF gear in favor of returning to Canon FD, I would have sold off the MK1 and bought a 1.4, since to me, the advantages of the 1.4 outweigh the long term fairly negligble difference in pricing. Also, I noticed the 1.8 color rendition as being slightly colder than my FD 50/1.4 SSC. But that just might be me. Hope that helps.

I have the 100mm/2.8 SSC version and I absolutely love it. I have used it wide open, stopped down, etc. etc. and it performs great. I used to have the EF 100/2 lens, which is widely regarded as near the top of its class, esp in terms of price/performance, and for my uses, I see a little less sharpness in general, but very pleasing performance nonetheless. The colors don't seem as snappy or contrasty, as compared to the EF, but for the price (120-140) that I see these going for, its a great deal. Plus its small, little larger than my 50/1.4.

Sorry, I may have misspoken when I said you (Steve Levine) has made this argument in prior postings. I think I mixed you up with someone else who said pretty much the same thing. Anyways, here's a link from another posting that I think illustrates the *potential* for bokeh to make a difference, assuming other factors are similar.

 

http://www.comworks.gr.jp/~taka/hobby/camera/Lens/LensTest/

"Did Matthew Brady,Stieglitz,Adams,Cartier-Bresson et al ever worry about Bokeh?.....Untill I came to this web site,I never heard the word BOKEH!Im sorry to say this,when people see my pictures the subject,composition & lighting are all they see,not my out of focus highlights(oh sorry BOKEH)."

 

This is the second post that I have read in which you have made this argument. I think to ridicule something so harshly that you regard as unimportant, simply because its something you have never heard of before, or perhaps considered as a facet of photography, is not something I really understand.

 

Alot of photographers like everything in focus. Some, like me, like to use large amounts of OOF areas to draw attention to a primary subject. This doesn't mean I disregard my primary subject, or other qualities that you mentioned. But if my intention is to play with a large amount of negative space, I would want that negative space to either be neutral or be a positive. I have seen some photos where the OOF areas are so ugly (to my eyes), filled with double lines, or donuts, that it detracts from the whole photo.

 

I still fail to understand why the word "bokeh" causes such a strong negative reaction, since it is merely a new word for an old concept. It shouldn't be a point of endless consternation like you seem to suggest, but for some photographers, it is something valid to consider

 

Before I came to this site, I never heard of incident metering either. Or exposure compensation. Or NPH rated at 320, or chromogenic fim. What does a lack of exposure to new knowledge and/or concept have anything to do with its actual relevance?

Children of a friend in a quiet moment<div></div>

Here's a try....with Desaturated slightly, color balance changes, level changes, contrast changes, and slight curve mod.

I was reading up on Leica screwmounts a bit, and came across a Screwmount -> Canon FD adapter? Could this be the answer to my current needs, seeing as how I can then afford a Summarit with the adapter and use it with my Canon AE's?

What was you experience with the Nokton's bokeh rendition? I have read some posts knocking it, and have seen some photos were it looked okay, and others were it was slightly harsh. What are your impressions? The one's I have seen of the Summicron are impressive.

Whoops....I meant Nokton. DOH! Thanks for the tips though, I definitely have some investigating to do.

:)....the vignetting may have been more pronounced due to the lighting of the gallery, and the fact that I had a filter on the front. Which I have now removed. I like the Canonet though (I have two). Small, quiet, and cheap. Take it anywhere, fun to use! Makes me like to take photos at a relaxed and thoughtful pace. Hopefully, the Bessa R will continue that tradition, since getting the Canon AF gear just about nullified those kind of feelings.

Thanks for the response! I do most of my shooting wide open, maybe 5.6 maximum. About 70-80% done at 1.4/1.8/2.0. Therefore, I would like the image to be sharp, non vignetted, etc. etc. Is it unreasonable to assume I can find a Summicron, or the Summar (?) for less then 300? Does anyone have first hand knowledge comparing the Ultron with the Summicron in terms of image quality wide open, and at the near-wide open apertures? The site that inspired me to look into Leica optics is this one: http://4020.net/everyday/index2.shtml. I love how the colors pop, but not aggressively so. And they are so sharp! My FD cameras can come close, but my pictures have a different quality. Not bad, but just different. Specifically, images 8, 26, and 30. Is this more a technique issue as someone alluded on this post in the unarchived forums? Or am I headed in the right direction?

Hi,

 

I am in the process of selling off my Canon AF gear, and some FD

equipment to try and finance a Leica setup. I was looking at

purchasing a black Bessa R, and am wondering what Summicron lens am I

looking for? I have seen some in the area of $300-500. I am honestly

confused since there are ones from the past that are collapsible(?),

which I don't like (read they were soft), and then there are newer

ones that are M mount only? I only plan on getting only the one lens,

and I am going for that Leica "glow" that people talk about. I have

read through some of the archived materials, and am still confused.

Will you please help me and point me in the right direction?

 

Also, will the Voigtlander Ultron 1.7 impart a similar "feel" to my

photos, as the Summicron would? I understand I should be saving for a

M6 or whatever, but the lens quality is more important to me then the

benefits of the Leica bodies. Plus I treat my cameras pretty well.

 

Specifically, I am looking for sharpness, good bokeh (smooth, no

double lines, nice gradation from in focus to oof), and price (about

300, is this reasonable?). Thanks for any assistance!<div></div>

For black background in photoshop, set black as your background color in the toolbar. Then create a new file, and select use background color as the background. Or make a layer filled in with black and set it below your other layers.

When I first got low ratings for my photos, I was a bit annoyed. But as I looked through more and more photos in the same categories, I could see generally how the really high rated photos captured elements that were lacking in my own. I don't think elaborate schemes trying to normalize or get everyone to rate things higher or lower is going to solve anything. Everyone is different and hence, the ratings are going to be different.

 

With this in mind, and the focus being on being able to compare and contrast one's own works with other people's, I suggest the following.

 

Instead of ratings, have a menu that allows one to add this particular piece/photographer to a personal favorites list. There could be an A list, B list, and a C list. The computer could keep track of which photos/photographers consistently show up on different photo.netters lists and compile them by ranking. So, I can pull up the top photographer's in the A list....and ask for top 50. Look at them, and compare. Then pull up top photgrapher's in B list, and look at them and compare. This would allow me to judge for myself where in skill/technical/originality/whatever criteria I fit in best.

 

Keep the comments, get rid of the ratings. Do a favorite's lists, (which I think Amazon.com also does), so if we see a talented photographer's works that we enjoy/learn from, we can see who they admire or are influenced by as well. Less readily abused system as well, I think.

I think the easiest would be to give an A-D grade. A would be exceptional, B above average, C average, and D below average. Then, also we could have the comments to allow critiques on originality, aesthetics, or whatever the particular viewer wishes to comment on. This would have the benefit of putting into context what the writer thinks is good originality/aesthetics etc. If a picture got a lot of D's....its probably below average. Alot of C's, that's not too bad....its just average. Overall impressions are about the only thing one can hope for when given the quick once-over most people grant.