stephen_jones4

"Don't think twice, it's alright"....

Why do the same old bullies try to smash down any and all disagreement with their views? If they are sure of their opinions, perhaps they ought to be a little gentler expressing them.

In answer to the question - yes, it seems clear to me that there is a graphical quality to many digital images - semi-posterised would be one way of describing it. Presumably it is due to lack of grain (texture) and a reduced palette of colours (through sharpening, sampling, whatever). In this way, very noisy images (such as those posted above) tend to look more like film, while those cameras such as the latest digilux or the Minolta A2 which have higher noise give images that look closer to what we might expect of film.

Grant and Conboy - very nice pictures - esp'y Grant: 1 and 3.

Vic/Melvin

I tried this recently and, of course, it works very well. I'm grateful for the tip.

Stephen

My best results with delta 100 were with id-11 1+3. That way you get very good sharpness (the higher dilution prevents the sulphate grain-softening effect) and full film speed. If you don't want to use powders (you can breath the stuff in when you mix it) use DDX. Always use distilled/de-ionised water for best results. Microphen is a speed enhancing developer which will give you a 60% increase in real film speed for some loss of quality. You'll need to experiment with times to get the best results contrast-wise (if results are too flat, next time increase time by 20% etc.). It's a very good idea to settle on one developer and stick with it, simply changing times/agitation slightly as you go along. All the best.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I'm inclined to think that we must be focusing on something that's "really there" and as Bob says above it must be that I'm re-composing and therefore shifting the effective focal plane. I suppose another possibility is that I'm not keeping the camera correctly orientated in relation to my face - I find myself "looking round a corner" in the vf - probably laziness on my part, coupled to wearing glasses and therefore being further than ideal from the camera eyepiece. Anyway, I'll test the re-composition theory by taking some centred close-ups...

I used to take reflected meter readings from the back of my hand by

making my hand fill the vf. Obviously, the lens could be pointing

anywhere (and not at my hand). This was how I rather foolishly

discovered "metering parallax". Would the same problem apply to

focusing at close range? i.e. are we not actually focusing on what we

seem to be in the viewfinder? I notice a few problems with portraits

if I am "looking down" on the subject at an angle of e.g. 45degrees.

Could this be why?

Jamie J - you tease! Digital perhaps?

Jamie J - beautiful tones. What equipment did you use?

I have the TA one. I've lost numerous frames through the camera going off in my bag. I finally got around to testing to see whether it allowed me to hand hold at slower shutter speeds: in my case it didn't (in fact, I'm slightly worse with it than without).

Gay pride pic. seems very nice to me. Thanks for the interesting review. I might just get one.

Bob - that's not what I take from the review. What EP says is that the performance of the new lens at 1.4 is not quite as good as the performance of the summicron at f2. ('tho he says flare control is better). He goes on to say that once you stop down to f2 the asph lens is better than the summicron.

FWIW, the summicron still has a beautiful colour rendition and bokeh etc. I wouldn't worry too much about it (many people prefer the pre-asph 35 for instance)

I enjoyed these. FWIW I prefer the original, lighter version of the pretty little girl: it seems to capture a little of the summer. All the best, Stephen

better than latest 50 summilux for R, according to charts...

Of no interest to me.

It's a wonderfully dynamic picture - there is a great tension in the stillness. The elegance of the chair and the rather regal pose of the cat add humour. There may be a pun in the shadows of cat and human head - morphing into one another - a kind of mimicking of those ape to neanderthal to homo sapiens clichés. The leg of the chair at bottom left mimics the leg of the animal - underscoring the humour but also pointing to the grace of the cat.

Point taken, Robin. I suppose I probably meant to factor in the wide range of focal lengths covered. I doubt that even this exceptional performer would compete with the 35-70 f2.8 (not that I've ever even seen one).

My experience is almost exactly as per Kai's although, fwiw, I didn't think that Contax G and Contax AE/MM had quite the same look. Lets face it, the best of the Contax mf line-up is unbeatable (50mm 1.4, 28 2.8, 100 f2, 85 1.4 etc. - the V/C lenses won't really match them, but they tend to be cheaper and are very good in their own right) Most of the Voigt. lenses seem to give fairly similar looking results to Contax - watch out for the Nokton 50 if you're concerned about smooth bokeh - it's a bit harsh compared to the Planars and, of course, you won't get the smooth shutter release you get on an RX if you use a Bessa R.

BTW, to my knowledge the 28-85 is the best zoom lens ever made (although it has a lot more distortion than equivalent Zeiss primes)- not that you'll have to worry about such things if you go for a rangefinder.

I've used both: They are both fantastic. I worry a lot about the future of Contax... Still, I worry quite a bit about the future of Leica R. When I owned a Contax RX and RTS3, I loved the cameras (smooth shutter release, ergonomics etc) but had reliability issues and was very unimpressed with the Customer Service in the UK. Things may have changed. I didn't think much of the N1's autofocus (and the AF 85 is almost the price of the Leica R lens anyway) - I'm waiting to see what Contax do next.

BTW, it's true that people buy into Contax for this lens - it's very flattering for portraiture - beautiful tones in B+W - the 50 1.4 mm/ae is wonderful too - and cheap compared to Leica.

Mine is marked "GG" - i.e. in German. Don't know the answer to the second question.

what doug and robin said.

cheers.

Mysterious - intriguing - funny - great. I like it.

Martin - Thanks- you're quite right: I had tried "Beauty in photography" to no avail - that's search engines for you. Appreciated.

Martin P-S - amazon.co.uk doesn't list it under "Adams" or "Beauty in Photography" - how did you find it?

Thanks to the people who responded to my questions ie. "Has anyone read it? Is it recommended?"

super-duper

I've often thought of getting hold of the above title, but it seems

that it involves a certain amount of hassle to get it delivered to the

UK. Has anyone read it? Is it recommended?