jacques_balthazar1

Thanks Mani. I was feeling nauseous till I got to your post... If I

were a radical mollah in a Karachi madarsa, or a luminous path

activist in the suburbs of Lima, I would print out the rest of the

thread, and pin it to the wall. There are enough testimonies of

obscene western self indulgence in here to remotivate thousands of

jihad or maoist fighters !

Charles,

<p>

I intensively used 55mm thread B+W Softars 1+2 on the Elmarit-R, and

they made a wonderful couple. I've tried the nail polish trick, and

I've tried cheapo competitive filters with pseudo-softar "dimples":

the real Softars render obviously much better. Strickingly so.

<p>

Those "dimples" are in fact miniature lenses that seem to have been

calculated in a way that brings absolutely predictable results,

gently smearing highlights into a loose gradient halo

and "equalising" the texture of more uniform surfaces (skin) while

keeping overal sharpness impression almost intact. They are magic.

<p>

Now my question: why the h... is there no CZ Softar anywhere in 60mm

thread (neither Contax, neither B+W, neither Heliopan) ? They would

be so useful on the 100mm macro-elmarit and 75 'lux... Step up rings

block the sun shade, and step down rings induce vignetting on the

75 'lux....

<p>

I sold my Elmarit-R in a swap deal, but still use the 55mmm Softars

on my R8 through the adaptall-2 version of the Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro

lens... They will do wonders for you on your Elamrit-M !

meanwhile, get yourself a Tamron adaptall-2 24mm f2.5 for under 200

USD 2nd hand! Much better than its extremely low price and discreet

carrier might lead you to expect, and probably just as good as the

24mm-R. Of course, as an object, it lacks the Leica look and feel...

I fully understand Steve's request, and also mostly understand the

responses. Some day, sociology students will produce doctorates

analysing the internal communication dynamics of Internet based

community groups. Intuitively, I recognise patterns and cycles that

seem to be common to all the groups I have visited, and even

recognise communication patterns in my own behaviour within those

groups.

<p>

My suggestion to Steve is to hang in here, and make the most of this

group's Lusenet interface. It is quite unique to benefit from a

format that allows you to easily select the threads you want to see

(judging by title or initial poster) and not be submitted to the

sometimes horrific vision of dozens of off-topic posts simultaneously

saturating your own inbox or the group's web based interface. Take a

look at the Topica LEG page or to the LUG archives, and you'll see

how unmanageable things can get elsewhere. With all its quircks, this

forum still remains the most factual and the easiest to consult...

Great and telling one again Mike, thanks. And you are right: same pic

with G is near impossible, not only because there is no 75mm, but

also because there is no f1.4 option anywhere in the range, and f2.8

means 4 times less light, or ISO 3200 instead of ISO 800.

<p>

The 90 f2.8 is the nearest thing approaching the 75mm. Its focusing

is an erratic hit or miss business, especially in low light,

especially in crowded setups such as this one. I shiver imagining the

AF hunting back and forth in endless loops in that bar, and me

praying that when that black dot shows up in the viewfinder display,

it will mean the gizmo has focused where I am aiming. Such was not

usually the case with the G2 I sued for over a year.

<p>

And Mike: that pic is really quintessential 'lux (though I would

probably print it with a little harder contrast paper). Do you feel

the Noctilux virus bugging you yet ? ;-)

The R8 is a wonderful body. Perfect ergonomics, great features (such

as the flashmeter), the unique option of not having to use a motor

(and thus silent wind/rewind), beautiful viewfinder, reassuringly

dense and heavy . Shutter is state of the art, and so are the light

measurement options (matrix, centreweighed, spot). The different

exposure modes are foolproof and easy to access. They work with all R

lenses manufactured since the mid-seventies.

<p>

Only downsides (in my opinion): needs to be turned on to view frame

number (I hate that), leather hand strap only available with larger

motor (it can thus be very tyring to handhold the R8 vertically with

lenses such as 180 elmarit without that motor), choice between well

designed heavy and expensive motor or poorly designed lighter and

more affordable winder, motor works only with dedicated Leica battery.

<p>

The lenses are absolutely gorgeous, with benchmark items such as the

new (unaffordable) 15mm elmarit or the more reasonable 19mm elmarit,

28mm elmarit, 35mm 'lux and 'cron, 50mm 'lux and 'cron, 80mm 'lux,

100mm apo-elmarit or 180mm apo-elmarit and 'cron, plus a whole series

of unaffordable exotics in the longer range. Not mentioning the

current zooms, which are systematically rated as top performers

(except the 28-70).

<p>

OK, the price tags are high. But so is the M system's price tags.

However, at that price, you get Leica construction and Leica optics.

Manipulate R lenses in shop, and, if you enjoy fine mechanics, it

will be torture for you to leave them behind. You alone can judge if

it is worth the effort and sacrifices.

<p>

Visibly, the market as a whole has voted against the R system. I'm

convinced the real reason is lack of AF, something ageing amateurs

and pressurised pros seem to require. And no I do not want Leica to

follow the disastrous example of Contax N....

<p>

So try it, and enjoy it, while it is still there !

Campion, Alpha (addresses above) and PCH on rue du Midi

(near Place Rouppe) for nice Leica, new and 2nd hand.

<p>

Brussels goes way beyond the clichés, and takes time to

discover. Do not waste your time taking pictures of Grand Place

and other tourist hotspots: buy postcards instead. Great source

of great Brussels images is Plaizier, just of Place St Jean,

downtown.

<p>

Get out of those tourist trails if you want to bring back interesting

images.

<p>

Do not assume Brussels is dull or safe: it is neither. Keep your

camera under your jacket, and do not dress up in branded

sportswear, if you really want to explore. Avoid the so-called red

light district: it is sad, derilict and violent, and taking pictures of

those heavily exploited Albanian or West African women is not

an innocuous activity, unless you want to testify of man's

bestiality. It is not comparable to the touristy Amsterdam quarter.

<p>

Night life in Brussels is however fun and full of surprises: buy Le

Guide du Routard's latest edition to get the right addresses. Well

worth carrying a 35 'lux or Nocti...

While most of the images are of high standard, I do not believe b/w

used this way can convey what the visual richness of the scenes you

were witnessing.

<p>

The Jam-el-fna and Marrakesh souk views beg for saturated colours. So

do the fishing port scenes (Essaouira?)

<p>

I know quite a few of these locations quite well and feel like

turning the colour "on" when I see most of your pics.

<p>

On the other hand 707668 and 707676 have a compositional purity that

is very well served by your choice of media.

<p>

I have not always had an easy time photographing people in those

places, and hope that you have managed to grab these life slices in

agreement with those people...

Godfrey,

<p>

still on that Epson scanner. Are you contending that the

(potentially) beautiful quality contained in SWC slides/negs is given

justice by that flatbed? In other words, do your final files provide

you with a high enough quality source for subsequent large format

printing that would induce BETTER prints than high quality 35mm

slides/negs processed through the pro or semi-pro digital chain?

<p>

And talking about inkjet printing: how large should a print be before

the viewer might notice on inkjet print the tonal and definition

advantages of a 6x6 neg ? I'm not so sure the format advantage would

become visible before, say, A3. But I am interested in your own

experience on this...

Rob,

<p>

Another masterpiece. Thanks.

well Godfrey: that is a mighty jump from Minox negs, eh?

<p>

I've also had the chance to use one of those, and, yes, spectacular

slides indeed.

<p>

Same problem with the SWC as with all medium format equipment though:

what the f.. do you do with the film after it has been exposed.

<p>

If you are not supplying cover material for glossies or if you are

not exhibiting giant enlargements in trendy galleries, you are left

with beautiful bits of emulsion that cry for full home lab and/or

medium format scanner and large format printer. Money, space, time,

and money...

<p>

there is a reason why God has created 35mm !

My key word is "relevance". I like this word because it directly

connects the image to the viewer. The viewer(s) will decide how

relevant a picture is, based on his/her subjective appreciation of

image aethetics, originality, information content, etc.

<p>

As a viewer, I judge image quality according to my own criteria, and

these criteria do include a reasonable request for being submitted to

at least one of the following qualities: novelty, audacity,

compositional discipline, strong feelings and/or intense information

content. My judgement of images also refers to my own historical

references: I hate being submitted to pale imitations of images

already circulated a million times before.

<p>

As a photographer, I strive to produce images that convey those

qualities (even if in very low quantity) to the viewers of my images.

The viewer is the key. I have the luxury of very often being able to

choose my viewers, and try to tailor my images to my understanding of

those viewers' desires. It is out of respect for the mass of viewers

I do not know that I do not post my images in discussion groups such

as this one, and feel sometimes agressive towards those who should

have the decency not to publish theirs.

<p>

Images must be relevant to the viewer(s). The photographer (myself or

someone else) and the photographic process itself do not count in

that equation.

<p>

I find both your today's images to be beautiful and relevant, for

very different reasons.

this is Flight over a Cuckoo's Nest !

<p>

Wonderful image Rob. When did you take it ? Current times are

not really the best for landscape shooting in the Hebron

heights!!! Such a wonderful land !

it is regrettable that this discussion group is not limited to pure

ASCII

<p>

the tire traces are kinda cute. I'm sure that MoMA will purchase.

<p>

I guess this does replace the good old camera club, and yearly themed

exhibits. Only in those times, as boring as one's pics might

objectively be, utmost care was brought to try and shine amongst

peers. Especially crucial if you have to confront said peers face to

face at the opening cocktail.

<p>

Here anything goes, I guess. So minimal effort is OK, and cynical

comments such as mine are politically incorrect. A bit like those

absolutely crappy end of year kids performances some schools impose

on parents: minimal effort, no work, maximum applause.

Erwin is a better photographer than practically all of those who

have posted pics on this list. He is not a jpeg addict and prefers

carefully crafted traditional printing to web publishing. I have

seen some beautiful bw work of his, on big enlargements, and

they show great craftsmanship. He masters the whole process,

from shooting to printing, with utmost care. I cannot prove this

point here since he does not scan 'n post, but his prints are very

good illustrations of Leica quality.

<p>

That said, Erwin is a Leica fan and has decided to focus his

excellent technical skills and his curiosity on all things Leica.

That is his choice, and if that opens doors for him in Solms, then

more power to him. Most of his comparative work on non Leica

lenses is on lenses targetting the Leica market segment or

refering to the Leica architecture (Cosina, Konica, etc), with very

few exceptions. When I read Erwin's tests, I know I am reading

from within the Leica community.

<p>

There is a wealth of knowledge being shared thanks to his

research, and all Leica fans should be grateful to him.

<p>

That said, I do add a pinch of salt to his editorial output. His

usage of superlatives, and the repetitive construction of many of

his articles, are irritating.

<p>

But that does not allow me or anyone to question his honesty,

his dedication and his capabilities.

oops, confused the "benevolent cop", who is Tony of course, not

Robin. Apologies to both....

I second Robin here: the way this bbs is built, each thread really

has a life of its own, and the interference between threads is very

low. This is radically different to e-mail based lists such as the

LUG, where one is submitted to ALL threads.

<p>

Once you realise this, you'll find that there is not much use in

initiating police threads such as this one. Robin is our

benevolent cop and intervenes when he sees fit.

<p>

While I do produce my fair share of posts that seem rude to

some readers, I personally find there is also rudeness in the

following:

<p>

- initiating threads on this Leica list that are not directly related to

Leica matters: many other lists specialise in other topics;

<p>

- posting low quality images or irrelevant images in the hope that

being member of the Leica "family" will induce more tolerance to

incompetence than what is found in the many lists dedicated to

image critique;

<p>

- posting images or initiating threads that are not meant to

trigger exchanges of opinion related to Leica specific issues.

This list is not called "my personal photo album" or "general

photography";

<p>

- asking a question that has been asked and fully answered

many times (a categorised repository of past threads is available

and useable, though not best of breed in search functions I must

add);

<p>

- posturing all over the threads as a seasoned specialist when it

is quite obvious that there is no meaningful practical

photographic experience to support the pseudo knowledge

being disseminated. Compulsive textbook posters, when

merged with compulsive equipment collectors, are a plague (not

refering to historical collectors here, those are really cute !).

<p>

When confronted with those signs of rudeness, I tend to respond

in kind, when I'm too wound up to shut up. I know that is wrong

but that is the way I am.

<p>

I find that usually, here and elsewhere, on-topic threads initiated

in good faith are quite immune to rude posts. On this list, I find

that "on topic" means "Leica photography", and I view this in a

restrictive way.

kristian,

<p>

I am pretty confident your problem is more with action focusing

with tele + M rather than focusing precision. The 0.72 and 0.85 M

are, I find, very easy and reliable to focus with 75/90 lenses. But I

agree they are not fast to focus: subject's main feature in RF

patch, focus, reframe, shoot, with none of the prefocusing

flexibility of a 35mm lens (even with the latter at f1.4).

<p>

I'm sure the 85mm Nikon AF will bring you that speedy

response, even if it is at the cost of a format that you see as a

"threatening" combo. BTW the manual focus 80mm 'lux on a R8

is just as "threatening" as a a Nikon F100+85mm.

<p>

Another one to consider, despite your strict instructions: the

Minolta 85mm f1.4 + Dynax 7. A fabulous combination. Do not

believe those who say that contemporary AF is not reliable

enough for such a focal length and max aperture. It is plainly

untrue. And, with the D7 (and Canons) you can take back full

manual control with no fiddling around whenever you feel it to be

useful....

<p>

The Dynax 7+85mm f1.4 D is the ultimate 35mm portrait making

machine: the lens is on par with my 75mm 'lux, and the features

of the body (besides AF) will not be seen on Leica SLRs before

2025. That range includes other specialist portrait lenses such

as a 100mm with complete soft focus control and the 135mm

STF with fine and superb bokeh management.

Elrina seems to have a glowing personality, well fit for such a

combination of atmospheric ambient light and superb

management of the thin DoF provided by the 'lux at f1.4 at table

wide distances. Intimate café photography is a nice way to use

the 35mm. The 50 is often too tight in that environment. very nice

bokeh. very nice lady.

Marc,

<p>

My experience does not coincide with yours: ambient does not only

influence the background, it also influences the subject. Sending

flash output on the subject means you have to underexpose ambient for

a given amount. The more flash you send, the more daylight compatible

the color on subject becomes while ambient influence diminishes (to

the point where it is reduced to background lighbulb points and

halos), and, therefore, the less atmospheric the shot (unless you

take control of all parameters and set up that portable multiflash

studio of course).

<p>

And I am not sure I like that mix of casts: main subject bathing in

daylight equivalent while rest of party swims in yellow...

<p>

regarding speed: around 1/15th and below, wide open, with ambient

light in good quantity in final balance, the subjects must remain

still to avoid very typical ghosting effects. Yes, the flash output

does freeze a subject, but if subject moves, you are confronted, next

to that frozen subject, with the traces of what you would have gotten

if you had chosen not to use flash. That ghosting effect was

fashionable 10 years ago when auto fill-in flash became mainstream,

but has become a no-no through market saturation.

<p>

So, again, my advice is to use fastest lenses, with the film that

allows reasonable handheld shooting speeds. A Summilux at f1.4 and

1/30th sec can easily mean iso 1600 in many indoors situations

(parties, etc). In turn, this encourages opting for b/w.... ;-)

Andrew,

<p>

I am quite well acquainted with Photoshop and agree that a lot can be

done to tweak colour balance with that software. I do not agree that

it is necessarily as efficient and as fast as you say, in the

circumstances discussed here. Mixed light situations (tungsten+all

sorts, as described in my 1st post)have consequences on the content

of the negative itself, to the point where exposure discrepancies

appear between the way the various layers of emulsion catch "their"

wavelengths from the various lightsources. A daylight negative shot

under tungsten and/or mixed light is not simply a negative where the

balance shift has gone the wrong way. RGB curve corrections are fine,

but they will not necessarily bring back a properly balanced image:

some noise here, some posterisation artifacts there, some strange

casts elsewhere, etc.

<p>

Just went through that exercise a couple of days ago with a picture

taken of a new born at hospital (mixed fluorescent/tungsten): when I

finally got the whites whitish and the skin tones acceptable, the

baby's eyes were green instead of blue (Fuji 800)...

<p>

Not saying it cannot be done, and not saying that certain films are

not easier to manage in that respect than others. I'm saying it is a

drag. And so is the usage of colormeter and filters. So my answer to

Bob's initial question is to favour bw in those conditions.

<p>

A good digital camera managing sophisticated white balance does at

preshooting what Photoshop does postprocessing. Undoubtly one of the

unsung key differenciators in favour of filmless photography... ;-/

Jeff,

<p>

You currently have 2 lenses opening to f2.8 and 2 lenses opening to

f2.

<p>

What you want today is a lens that helps you go the extra mile, when

the others are just too slow. That eradicates VC or L collapsibles.

<p>

You are left with 3 real choices: VC Nokton, L summilux and L

Noctilux.

<p>

If money is no issue, get the Noctilux (and keep your 'cron). You

will gain fantastic new functionality.

<p>

If money is an issue, exchange your 'cron for the Nokton, and keep

all your bucks. Not quite a full stop faster, but almost, opening

access to shots that are not possible with what you currently own. Is

considered by Erwin the Puts as better than the 'lux (which is no

slouch).

<p>

You will NOT notice any practical trade off in quality terms compared

to what your 50 'cron currently provides to you. That is if you are

man enough to live with the VC badge of course... ;-)

I find that Marc's remarks on subtle flash/ambient balance for

indoors shooting are practical only when said ambient is relatively

strong. Otherwise, even wide open, to get the ambient right in the

background, you'll need very slow shutter speeds, which in turn,

added to flash, are a recipe for typical ghosting effects on main

subjects. Or you use the lowlight 800/1600 ISo films and you have a

real hard time not burning up the main subject through the flash

blast while making flash active enough as to tweak the color

temperature on the subject. The balance is darn hard to get right.

<p>

Now, if you like doing "wireless slaving" with a "great number"

of "light modifying/diffusing devices ", my guess is that you will

not be using a Leica M setup. You will be using a modern SLR system

capable of managing ratios for multiple flashes in an easy and

painless way, and a couple of dedicated tripods for the flashheads,

and a couple of reflectors, and etc, etc, etc.

<p>

I'm not sure that the Nocti or the 'luxes were invented to serve as

interfaces for a portable studio.... ;-?

Doug from Tumwater is absolutely right in his advice on how to

properly use color film for flashless pics indoors. It does sum up as

a drag, though... ;-)

<p>

Post processing corrections of negative films are also a major drag

(you can go on tweaking Photoshop for a long time to correct mixed

light negs, or decide to accept being submitted to the arbitrary

filtration decisions of the printing lab...).

<p>

So, if you do NEED color indoors, and want to do a proper job, get

the colormeter and the filter set.

<p>

Or level it all out, and destroy all atmosphere, with a dose of flash

(yuk!)...

<p>

I strongly advise to stick to b/w 400 iso, or even tmax 3200 at 1600

iso, with fast lenses indoors. You capture the light balance and

atmosphere without having to worry about color shifts. The faster the

lens, the more flexibility and the more chances to avoid tmax 3200

grain...

<p>

I also use Tungsten balanced Portra 160T once in a while, but it is

not made for low levels of light and is unpredictable in mixed light

situations (genuine tungsten temperature light mixed with 'economy'

long life bulbs, halogen, the occasional tubes, the occasional ray

of daylight, the stage lightshow, etc...). Can yield some nice

effects though when you know how this kind of film works (I cannot

say I do)...

From Kristian "Somehow I imagine it to be surprising it hasn't been

done before. At the end of the day, no matter what equipment we use,

or how much we think we know, the end result is the IMAGE. "

<p>

Nothing wrong with your initiative or your focus Kristian, but I

personally really have a hard time understanding why people who want

to discuss their own images or view the images of others do not

simply use the dozens of excellent web sites and lists that

specialize in photo critique.

<p>

This is an equipment centric list (a *Leica* list). I do not come

here to view or show images. I come here to discuss Leica. I might

however be interested in posts that show specific pictures that might

highlight certain particular imaging behaviours of certain Leica

lenses (as Mike's pics often do). But I am personally not interested

in seeing your private photo album in this particular framework, or

in seeing other posters private albums and, even less, in sharing my

private photo albums here. This can be done elsewhere with a larger

and more educational echo.

<p>

This does not mean that I have no respect for your or their images.

Simply I really do not feel this is the place. I believe I am not the

only one with such an opinion.

<p>

There is therefore nothing surprising in the fact that such threads

are in the minority. If they became too recurrent or overwhelming on

this bulletin board (as the horrendous PAW project that has been

infecting the LUG/LEG), most Leicaphiles who come here because they

are interested in discussing all sorts of hardware trivia would

simply have to migrate to other lists...

<p>

OK I had nothing to do on this thread, nothing forced me to check it

up, and I have no right to disrupt it, so....