michael_devoue

Alfie- Glad to see another image.

<p>

I might go for just a little more contrast, but I'm not sure how well

this would work, given the lighting present. Many new-timers would

place the cat dead-center- glad to see youv'e avoided this pitfall.

Very balanced composition for what looks like a grab shot.

<p>

Black and white is much more flexible than color, with much more

control over acutance(percieved sharpness), tonality, and grain

structure. I rarely concern myself with the grain issue, as

acutance/tonality is much more important to me.

<p>

Which leads me to ask if you are processing or if a lab is.

<p>

Even if you do not have room for a darkroom, I still think it is

advantageous to process your own for these reasons:

<p>

1) Control- once a neg is developed, that's it, I believe. There are

reducers and intensifiers, but I would resort to those in absolute

last-ditch efforts. I think my local lab does a great job printing,

but I don't agree with their choice in developer. They are a full-

service lab, but don't offer developer choices for black and white.

Tri-X of all film will probably be best for the lab to handle, and

it's a pretty safe bet shooting this film with the intent for Pro lab

processing. I just find that I prefer the higher acutance developers,

preferrably compensating(developer exhausts in the

highlights, "fills" in the shadow detail), to give me the "sharp"

look when using both the faster (Tri-x, Neopan, HP5+) films as well

as the fine-grain films(Tmax 100, Neopan Acros, Delta 100). Diafine

is good, I personally use Photographer's Formulary FX-2. I was very

surprised and pleased with the results from this switch.

<p>

2) cost- a contact sheet costs half of what a roll does, and it costs

me much less than 32 dollars to process/contact 4 rolls. If you are

lazy/cheap about contacting(like me) and spend (a lot of) time

peering at actual negatives (not as easy as the contact print) you'll

save alot.

<p>

3) satisfaction. (may vary)

<p>

It might cost around 100 ducks for a good stainless tank and reels,

maybe less. Chemistry is pretty cheap.

<p>

I hope you consider developing your own, I know you can do it! The

Film and Processing thread on the greenspun server is full of

archived messages that will help immensely. Two different developers

may affect the results more than other variables (such as camera

make), but not as much as lighting/subject/composition.

<p>

Again, thanks for the image. That is what it's all about.

The Leica has such an understated exterior, I don't think they'll

ever look nearly as attractive to a theif as the nikon f series with

a zoom attached, black tape or not. Crazy as it may seem, I'd rather

the thief see me with the Leica, chances are he doesn't know it's

value.

A year ago my 180 took a 20-foot drop inside a bag loosely filled. I

had to replace the mount and aperture ring. Still shooting it- focus

is dead-on @ infinty- but I can't vouch for the 24/2.8D and 85/1.8-

the construction isn't reassuring.

<p>

All of the Leitz glass I've handled is solid, end of story. If and

when I own some, I'll expect to take it to the grave.

I would agree with all... If I understand correctly, you're

relatively new to this, and if so you're making great progress. I

esp. like the OOf areas in the backcground. Tri-x is a great film-

magical for some, and one would do well to stick with it awhile.

<p>

Thanks for sharing your photos, Alfie.

Dave-

<p>

When I originally posted this image of Regina, I made no metion of

the equipment used. I don't feel that is was my Nikon that made the

image. The equipment will always take the backseat to the image. It

was my technique and approach to photography that <u>I</u>consider to

be "Leica Photography". My back to roots approach to photography is

echoed by thousands of Leica users today.

<p>

Today I confirmed that I can practice Leica Photography without ever

touching the german gems.

<p>

Leica is more than a camera, I'm sure you'll agree. It's a camera,

yes, but I would agree with Ken- it's<I>"a certain set of values and

orientation to photography"</I> that will be evident in the resulting

image. After all, that's what it's all about. I change my values and

orientation to photography radically, and it's not Leica Photography

anymore. Not so hard to understand, is it?

I've given a lot of though the merging of digital capture and

traditional film cameras. In theory, slapping a back onto your

exixting camera is a great idea. Not without problems, however.....

<p>

CCD's carry a static charge. Imagine if film did this.

(AHHHHHHHHHRRRRGH)

<p>

Most digital SLRs' chip will multiply th focal length by 1.5(approx)-

The only 24x36 sensor I can think of is Silicone Film Tech's

offering. A very cool product,indeed- drop in like film :-)

(only1.3mp :-( ).

<p>

This increase in focal length combined with the weaker retrofocus

Reflex wide-angles is a recipe for disaster- just to get a "normal"

focal length.

<p>

A full 24x36 designed as a rangefinder? why didn't I think of this

before?

<p>

I think it might work with a dedicated body designed for such use.

<p>

Ideally, however, there would be some sort of protection over that

CCD or CMOS element to keep dust at bay. And no focal length

increase.

<p>

Just my thoughts.

Yes, Robin, you all have been quite nice.

<p>

Leica designs their products very well. Utmost attention is paid to

quality- of the equipment itself, and the images they produce. Which

may explain their narrower range of products offered. The Nikon

equipment I deem acceptable for use is very limited in comparison to

their incredibly comprehensive line-up of cameras, lenses, flash,

etc. I almost want to cringe when I hear "Nikon". To me, It seems

like they lost focus(except that FM3a-Whoa!). But I am not sure that

switching to the R will give me much better performance. I've used

the R5 and R6.2 briefly a few years (OK, several) ago, and wasn't too

impressed. A recent thread (Should I switch to R from Nikon?), got me

thinking, so I went through a lot of unprinted work to see what I

liked and didn't like. This time around I paid more attention to OOF

areas, as there is probably not much difference between Nikkor and

Leitz @f/8. I do have to admit that my 50/1.4 has HORRIBLE "Bokeh".

In one shot (I really need a scanner) I watched a single line at the

bottom of the frame separate into two lines, and a double image

surrounding the OOF areas. I'm 100% sure that a 50 Summicron would

have done better, and am not sure about the 'Lux. I could argue that

the summicron is pathetic at f/1.4, but I can push film, I love grain

when it gets me the shot. A beatiful image is a beautiful image. I've

decided, however to stick with my current reflex rig.

<p>

Well, most of it. That 50/1.4 and the 35/2.8 I use aren't too

smashing. The shop I work at just sent a M3(SS) to Leica, and there's

a 35/3.5 summaron and 50 'lux available. I think this would be a

smashing outfit and would compliment my current system.

<p>

Anywho, I posted the image because I liked it, and I hoped others

would too. I expected criticism. I'd be stupid to think the image was

universally loved.

<p>

I feel that the posted image was totally acceptable. Remember, half

of "Leica Photography" is Photography. Had I been holding a Leica

R6.2 and 60mm, I don't think the result would have been much

different.

<p>

Lastly, I check on this forum because of the intellegent

contributions that seem unending. Have you seen some of the other

forums? I don't think I need much expaination as to why I'm here vs.

somewhere else.

<I>We talk here because we have discovered Leica; it IS different to

Nikon and Canon, not eliteist or better or even perfect, just,

different. </I>

<p>

Little would change if I had a 6.2 and similiar primes. If Nikon "got

a hold of me(af+zooms+color+flash)" it would change radically.

<p>

I'm sad you "discovered Leica". I would never claim such a thing.

Discovering a new way of shooting, however......

Well put, Doug. I like the s/n ratio- good analogy.

<p>

If there is such a thing as "Leica Photography" or "Nikon

Photography", I doubt I would fall into the latter camp, as Nikon

sales show that Zooms are far more popular than primes, and built-in

flash, dependence on batteries, etc. also being repeating themes.

Using primes, abandoning flash, and other back-to roots efforts has

been very rewarding. I know that here no-one will tell me to buy a

zoom, flash, or color film, for that matter. That's why I love this

forum.

And again, someone please define leica photography and how it differs

from non-leica photography.

Again, what is Leica Photography?

<p>

<I>More specifically, the stated purpose is:

This forum is for discussing Leica cameras and any associated

equipment in the persuit of great photography. You are encouraged to

post any questions, or contribute any answers, about Leica

photography. </I>

<p>

Discussing Leica Cameras <u>and</u> ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT IN

THE PURSUIT OF GREAT PHOTOGRAPHY.

<p>

Or is the forum for discussing "Leica cameras and associated

equipment" primarily, with the second criteria, "the pursuit of great

photography". If so, many of you don't belong here because you are

not collecting cameras vs. images. Lucky you own a Leica, I guess.

<p>

So I take it I am not welcome because I don't own a Leica? Very

Elitist. Anyone disagree?

Read my follow-up post as for why this image is HERE in Leica

Photography. Photo.net was a quick and simple way for this image to

be viewed. I'll be using my web space in future, although when I am

not sure.

I recently posted a link to a fairly recent image I shot (with an F3 and 55/2.8) in order to have it critiqued. I got a few responses, but one in particular disturbed me- I was told I was in the wrong forum!

I thought this was absurd, so let me explain.

<p>

The Leica came about in 1924 (I think), and I'm sure many will agree with me when I say that they popularized 35mm for the masses. Of course, Henry Ford would have had to have been an idiot to think that he would be the only one to build an automobile. So too, Leica probably expected many competitors to adopt the configuration of their cameras. Admirably, Leica had remained relatively true to the original design, which explains their cult following today.

<p>

But what is Leica doing with a reflex system? A moving mirror? I'm sure you will all agree with me when I say that for some types of photography, the SLR is preferable. I'm sure more would agree with me when I say that for some types of photography, the Rangefinder is preferable. Nevertheless, Leica makes a reflex, complete with AE bodies. Does this mean that one who simply uses (or more correctly, owns) Leicas is practicing Leica Photography? I don't think so...

<p>

In the entire scope of photography, there are a lot of possiblities, many possibly unexplored. Using a Pinhole vs. a TLR vs. Pen+Ink+Camera Obscura can yield wildly different results.

<p>

Street shots? Learn to use the AF on an Olympus Stylus, turn the flash off, Load some fast film, and I'm sure you'll be surprised.

<p>

Tonality? Get A LF camera. Have to handhold it? Get a MF rangefinder.

<p>

Portraiture? Just pick a camera and get on with it!

<p>

Within this scope of possibilities, I admittedly am within a narrow sliver, shooting B+W stictly, processing and printing myself, limiting myself to the 35mm SLR and a handful of good primes. This is how I like to shoot. Often times it's handheld. Sometimes I'll flip the mirror up to reduce shutter lag, guessing where in the frame my subject will fall(surprising what hyperfocal+4 f.p.s. can do). Other times, I need to (and look forward to using) use my tripod. At a relatively low cost, I am able to take care of my shooting needs with equipment that satifies me. It just happens to be a Nikon. I doubt an equivalent R system would change my shooting style or images. An M, however, probably would change my shooting style, and thus, my images would change too. I can't say how, but give me an M and I'll show you :-)

<p>

Leica Photography(to me) means excellent 35mm image quality and has little to do with equipment. If you disagree, maybe we should destroy this forum (Oh no- what would Alfie do? Work??) and split into two camps, "Leica M Photography" and "Leica R photography". That may be tragic, however, as this is a very popular forum. That's why I posted here. I wanted responses from shooters who think photography (an image is worth much more than 1000 words), rather than just speak it. Here is where I have found them. Unfortunately, some Ferrari owners rave about the ride, but have been waxing it more than driving it. So too, I'm sure many who frequent this forum spend more time looking at their cameras rather than their images. Yes, the Leica is beatiful, but you aren't a photographer because you own one. You just own a Leica. Photographers use them. And Nikon. And Canon. And Contax. Photographers are those who pursue the image, not simply a camera. I love coming to a place such as this to communicate with Photographers.

I understand the allure that is Leica, and fine if you are wrapped up in fondling Leicas, you belong here! It's OK, you can admit it! But don't claim to be a local circuit racer if all you do is wax.

<p>

Leica Photography means Excellent 35mm Images, if you were to ask me. Photographers pursuing such should be welcome here as well. You might help "convert" them, whether image or equipment-wise.

I'm in the wrong forum? Whatever, you elitist. You obviously looked

at the image, O/W why respond? Was it the Nikon that was used?

<p>

Which leads me to my next post- "What is Leica Photography?"

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/465032&size=lg">Regina 4mo.</a>

<p>

Tell me what you think.

Chi:

<p>

I do my Clark Kent thing during the day at a repair facility, not as

a technician, but rather as support. I hope some or all the the

following will help you.

<p>

One of the checkout procedures is lens flange- making sure the film

rails are parallel to the lens mount. This has to be maintained for

obvious reasons. I don't see alot of bodies go out of tolerance and

come back in. The lensmount rests on a front plate in most instances,

and an impact strong enough to bend this (not necessarily the lens

mount) would cause damage to related structural or mechanical

components. Your R8 however, is probably worth enough for a repair

to be economical. We've got an F5 in for the same problem, and it

makes sense to take care this accident of on the top-end bodies.

<p>

That Leica glass, however, deserves to have perfect bodies behind

them. But truth be known, I'm not sure how much warping it would take

to start affecting your photos, but I don't feel like testing. Alot

depends on the lens' back focus, and this varies from optic to optic.

To eliminate all doubt, buy a new body. Realistically, I would

probably send the R8 to Leica. There are problably other independent

shops that could do an equally good job, but don't just drop it off

with the first or the cheapest guy you find.

<p>

Hope this helps, and I am saddened at your unfortunate accident.

Sorry if I offended you Doug, but I see way too much wildlife pics by

local pros, and as a result, I'm a bit turned off. Maybe I'm just a

bit impatient. I would agree too, Jay, that AF is not essential for

this kind of work. However,I have the suspicion that AF would lead to

a higher percentage of keepers in this hit-or-miss practice. I am not

too fond of AF either, but here it makes sense, IMO.

The F3 is very easy to focus with the grid/matte screens and better

than 2.8 primes, which I use. IMO all SLR's are a pain to focus with

non-2.8 zooms, and I'm sure you had a prime on the RX. A brighter

focus screen doesn't always ensure easier focus, and an SLR's

effective baseline changes with lens, so ease of focus will follow

lenses more than the cameras. After all, you are looking Through-The-

Lens, remember? Of course a crappy screen is a crappy screen, I

understand.

<p>

To get by all that crap(looks like there's alot of it) and make it

easy and swift to focus, you would do well to use the M. Autofocus

SLR's won't cure it. Leave those gadget bombs for the wildlife geeks.

<p>

What do you want for your F3?

I agree, Bob. Very thought provoking, indeed.

<p>

One of the first thoughts through my head was film's influence on all

of the above. True, a lens' ability to render a (more) complete tonal

scale is a finite specification, but perhaps the better lens will

perform better using a lower contrast film/dev combo, or a tranny

film like Astia. Astia has noticably better highlight/shadow detail

than that of Velvia or (god forbid) E100VS. I won't get into print

films, too many variables.

<p>

I think what it boils down to is the quality of glass and coating

used in the lens. When we are able to bend light without glass, then

it won't matter. Until then.....

<p>

I was a bit disturbed at david's comment re: the nikkor 28/1.4, as I

know it is not as sharp as the 2.8, or the 24/2.8, which I own. I'll

address this in a bit-

<p>

Speaking of the 24/2.8, I was shooting with it at Ekutna Lake (near

Anch, AK) at sunrise sunday. Quite a bit of fog persisted, and

illumination was fairly even.

<p>

I composed a shot near the lake's edge, and consisted of frost-

covered foliage and rocks, and was very abundant in highlight values.

I bracketed quite a bit (8", 4", 2", 1", and 1/2" @ 22) and processed

the Delta 100 in ilfosol 1:14, which has given great high-key detail.

It was a very high contrast scene, with dark rocks in shadows

underneath the fronst-covered foliage. The results gave me lower

contrast in the patches of frost, and I was admittedly disappointed.

I haven't finished printing it, so the jury's still out. I think by

using the split-filter technique, I can squeeze an acceptable print.

<p>

Which makes me wonder what the equivalent Leica glass would have

rendered.

<p>

OK david, about that glass-

The lenses listed are not exactly what I would consider the cream of

Nikon's crop. The 28 is a PJ's lens, the 85, yes is nice, the 105 I'm

not sure about, but the 180 is near flawless. However, these are

some of nikon's fastest- Leading me to wonder if that might be a

contributing factor- Yeah, sure the 28/2.8 is sharper, but will it

render a more complete scale? I don't know....

<p>

Finally, Andrew, I'm glad you enjoy the 85/1.8D. I use this lens on

my F3HP and love the combo, esp. for children. A very wonderful lens,

I believe it's sharpness is indistinguishable from the R 90/2 APO

@f/5.6.

<p>

I'm looking forward to further discussion on this topic- very thought-

provoking indeed.

""""Neopan provides me, so I's look for a High- Acutanced

developer""""

<p>

oops, I meant "so I'd look for a High Acutance Developer"

David-

<p>

You're already using fine-grain Ilford films, so your request "to

acheive fine grain results" strikes me as odd. Funny you should

mention "apparent sharpness" in the next line as well- this is the

definition of acutance! The "triangle" of speed, acutance, and

tonality is funny in that you can't advance towards one or two of

those without receding away from one or two of those. Methods to

reduce grain generally result in poor edge effect, or acutance. This

is not the look that I prefer, as it's very soft-looking to me. I am

not too concerned with fine grain as I know that I will be happier

seeing sharpness, even if grain is noticeable. Your films are finer-

grained than my usual 35mm neopan 400, and I'm extremely pleased with

the sharpness the Neopan provides me, so I's look for a High-

Acutanced developer.

<p>

I would suggest Ilfosol-S 1:14 for 10min 68deg. F for Delta 100.

Gives me very sharp results in 35mm.

<p>

I haven't shot FP4+ enough to recommend any developers, but I'm sure

Rodinal will yield a great negative. Check www.Unblinkingeye.com- I'm

sure you can find an applicable time.

<p>

Hope this helps.

I don't know much about glycin, but it is a key component to my

particular process.

<p>

I develop my Neopan 400 and Tmax 100 in PF FX-2, and Glycin is

present in the mixture part A. The one and only time I have ordered

this solution, I got 4 kits, 3 of them looked as though they had been

at least packaged at the same time, with similiar labels, etc. The

fourth looked older, due to faded packaging and streaky shrink wrap.

I mixed this one first. In the kit contains a 15gm black bag of

Glycin. It had a tannish color. Mixes hard. (BTW- if someone has a

method for dissolving glycin w/o alcohol, please let me know.)

<p>

FX-2 also contains metol as a developing agent, 5gm in pt.A.

<p>

I haven't really experienced any shift in going from old to newer

kits, so I assume it shouldn't matter.

<p>

Hope this helps.

I would try to ignore it, although your psyche may not allow. Worry

if it breaks. For comfort, though, IMO that pivot is a blessing. I

feel bad when people don't "get" the pivot.

<p>

I think that you can epoxy the pivot, but if I remember correctly,

this turned out weird (feel-wise, aethetically it's unchanged)

FWIW, My favorite filter is B+W's 023. Works great and achieves

excellent highlight separation in snow. I should super-glue it to my

24mm.