david_clark4

<p>when scanning XP2 B&W negs with VueScan & Dimage III... is it better to do the scan as a B&W neg. or a c-41 color neg. Thanks.</p>

<p>I have Russian lenses, and I've had to shim one into focus. It has been a while ago, but this is how I did it. I put some scratches into a piece of film and then put the film into the camera I wanted to calibrate. Then I put the lens in question on the body - naturally in front of the scratched film. Opened the aperture wide up, and then turn the focus to infinity. The I took a 35mm SLR with similar focal length lens to the one in question, and focused it to infinity. Both lenses at infinity, OK. Now, look through SLR into the Russian, and try to bring the scratches into focus moving the cameras, the scratches should be clear and magnified. If you can't bring the scratches into focus - well, then I assumed that Russian lens was improperly shimmed. I took the lens barrel apart, and I found I had to add shims. And I made the shims from aluminum cooking foil. Anyway, that's how I did it, and it now works fine. Good luck.</p>

<p>IIf with coated 50mm Elmar proved handy and discreet to me. I'd stick with Leica because of avalibility of parts and service and re-sale value. But Kodak Retina series is pretty close competition for good images in my experience. I don't know if I would care to place a bet on the best of images from my Lecia IIf and my Kodak IIc. I don't know if M series is "better," it's different. It is a bigger heavier camera. Different range of lenses.<br>

I don't know if any Leica shutters are 100% light tight when changing lenses under a sunny sky. You can test the condition of the curtains by removing the lens and systematically working the film through the camera to expose it to direct sun light under one curtain and then the other. This method should point out pin holes.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the price too steep for a beginner at this Leica business. You should be able to buy a IIIF cheaper, but then you have to factor in a cleaning. If you know a good tech., you can get a deal on cleaning, but if you don't then cleaning from a name tech. can be a considerable portion of the purchase price. It's hard to say about the lens, as time and circumstance happens to them all. So, the lens might have to be cleaned and adjusted as well. 750 is on the high side, and if cleaning and adjustment is called for, well you can see how much you could be into it for. Regarding the comparison between Canon lens and the Leica... I think you can safely say the resulting images images will be different, but the judgment as to which is better is going to involve considerable subjective stuff. Your viewfinder question is challenging to address. There's a huge difference in the experience of looking into a modern Canon EOS and peeping into a tiny hole in the back of an old range finder. All I can say is I suspect that the rangefinder user has, from experience, the final image that they are striving for in their imagination, and with experiece they have an idea about how it's all going to come together. At least that's how I seem to think about using the two forms of technology, SLR vs. Leica IIIf (with the Leica, I use a 50mm view finder on top the camera to help me). With practice, some folks have become very good and very fast with the IIIf, but it is still a marginalized technology today. As you can see, there are no clear cut answers to your questions. Best regards.</p>

<p>Hi Andrea, I had some light-leak problems with a similar Canon shutter. To find the holes, I took it out in the sun without a lens, and I progressively ran film through it exposing both of the shutters to light. Once I assessed both shutters, I proceded to patch the curtains with the contact cement you use to glue patches to bicycle tubes. I used a little artist's brush to apply it, and I mixed in a little black paint. I took a few coats to cover all the holes. Once finished, this camera was more light tight than any other Leica I had. Good luck.</p>

I've been looking at the B&W photography in John Ford movies, specifically comparing "Stagecoach" with "Grapes of

Wrath." And I have a question regarding soft focus vs. sharp focus. According to the commentary of the Stagecoach

movie, it was shot in soft focus, and I gather from the commentary that this was a fashion during the 1930s. The

reviewer contrasted Stagecoach with Grapes. Grapes was meant to evoke a documentary style, and as a result shot

in sharp focus.

 

Well, I would not have known Stagecoach was shot in soft focus if not informed. My question is: how are these two

different effects achieved? Both movies were made during a period of time when I think I can assume that the same

choice in equipment was at hand.

 

How was Stagecoach soft focused? Was it the effect of a special lens? a filter? the focusing of the camera? How

do you fine tune the limits of your sharpness to the point it is exactly where you want it? vs. accepting what

the lens maker or filter maker gives you. Is this the difference between uncoated Elmar and late model coated

version?

 

Thanks

It seems like a long time ago I happened across an article that, in brief, said that some pros will tape a camera because they are going

to do a big job with it and after they finish the job they will pull the tape and the camera looks new although it has had a ton of film

pumped through it. And it's easier to sell, before the photographer moves on to the next big job. So, well, after I read that I kind of forgot

about it. Then one day I ran into a friend in town, and he had just purchased a used camera from another guy I knew. And my friend was

raving about what a great deal he had got on this wonderful professional camera. And I knew the history of that camera, and indeed it

had been up a jungle to photograph a great animal book. It must of had a thousand rolls of film pumped through it. And it still looked like

it was new. I thought my God, that thing has about a dozen more snaps left and it's history. But I knew the guy who bought it would

never use it - so, what'd you say. I just want to say I witnessed this. Tape does wonders. Myself, I tape the base plate of my M because

I was tired of listening to it clank around on table tops when I changed film. And I tape where the straps would wear on the side, a Leica

repair guy taught me that one.

Well I used a IIF with 50 elmar around bus lines for a couple of years in Toronto. This was year around. I photographed bus lines, people

waiting in line to get on buses, and people getting on buses. Through hundreds of exposures and thousands of people, I had only two

people ask me any kind of question. One young man who was art student recognized I was using a Leica, and he stopped to tell about his

camera. And another guy asked me who I was working for. Most people just ignored me, several can be seen in the prints looking at me.

One other guy said something one day when I was photographing a real long line with a Russian panoramic camera, he said someone

should be documenting the problem.

I have a couple f models (BD & RD), and no two sound the same. One IIF you can barely hear the shutter, and one IIIF positively clanks.

It's very loud by comparison. Both were professionally serviced. While acknowledging that a lub job once every decade or so is probably

not a bad idea, I'd run a roll of film through it and see if there is a systematic difference in the shutter speeds. You should be able to look at

the screw heads and see if it has been tampered with or adjusted. Good luck

I forgot to mention that I am scanning B&W negs exclusively.

I've recently began to use Epson 750V with Silverfast to batch scan 35mm negs into Lightroom. And I find the

complexity of the software presents a steep learning curve. Can some one recommend a few steps, a general

approach, that would sort a batch scan into thumb nails and place them into a folder that I could access with

Lightroom?

I have a V500 I have been successfully scanning 35mm B&W negs with. But I have some shot with a panoramic camera,

and they are 58mm X 24mm. I've tried to scan them with Epson software, and it wants to scan 35 X 24. I've tried

entering new values in the size boxes, but with no luck. Do you know if it is possible to get a 58mm scan with

this software?

Thank you folks, thanks for all the information. I was watching these black and white John Ford movies, and I just could not get over the composition. And I said to my trusty Leica, "Are we doing something wrong here?" The long shots, that is the landscapes, they were especially interesting. I haven't had the opportunity to go out and experiment, but I just can't see what angle of view lens he is using. And I can not help but wonder how I could squeeze something similar out of my camera. Or the inside shots that take in half the cast, the floor, and the ceiling. It must call for a lens wider than I have. Thanks for all your responses.

Yes, I can see my question would have been better stated as field of view. Take for example the film "My Darling Clementine. It says on the DVD cover the aspect ratio is 1.33:1. I wonder what lenses Ford had to base his compositions. I wonder if he was thinking in terms that would be similar to the basic 35, 50, 90 field of view? Or would they have used a zoom lens? I've never seen how movies are made, and I can not get a sense of how close the camera to subject is in some of the episodes. Especially his long shots. Thank you for your responses.

I was recently watching a John Ford western, and as the movie jumped from closeup to long shot I wondered what

the equivalent focal lengths would be for my Leica 35, 50, 90. As far as I know, those movies were made with 35mm

film, is there someone with movie experience who knows what lenses/focal lengths they would have used for their

work. Also, is day-for-night photography possible with regular black and white film? Thanks.

It seems that you could just non-expose a few frames in your camera, that is with the lens cap on, or the camera in a blacked out room. Then make a few exposures like your bunny shot. Then develop as usual. At that point, with normal contrast filtration, expose the clear frames to find out the correct time for D-max. Then use that time to see how blocked up (or not) the guy's white shirt comes out. Something like this process has worked for me anyway.

Did the light leak come from the exposure you made with the lens? Or, is there a possiblity it occurred while you were changing lenses? I say this because I had to learn the hard way about changing lens in daylight with LTM.

Howdy, I've been using Rodinal with APX 100. I rate the film 50 for sunlight and average contrast. I mix the Rod 100:1 with 600ml of water at 68. I use the Paterson two reel tank. I shake for the first min., then I invert once every 10 min for an overall time of about 40 min. I've been doing this for a couple of years, and it works for me.

I have some Kodak 35mm negatives from the early 1940s. The film strips were

wound around a small Kodak box all these years. Now I want to straighten them

out so I can scan them. Does anyone know the best way to straighten these

negatives. Is it as simple as submerging them in a water fotoflo solution and

hanging them, or should I just roll them out and place weight on them? Does

anyone have experience in film restoration? Thank you.

Is there a wireless remote release that will serve as shutter trigger for both

an EOS 3 and a Rebel XTI?

What worked for me was a IIF red dial with CV view finder. Most time I pre-focused for f8. It

is very quiet and small. Out of hundreds of people, one guy came up to me and asked me if it

was a Leica. People just don't seem to notice it. I took a Canon EOS into a crowd once and it

seemed like every woman was reaching for her hair brush.

I would like to know if there is a difference in the image quality between the Vario Elmar 35-70 and the

Olympus Zuiko 35-70 Auto-zoom. Also, could someone tell me if the lens are of comparable size. Thanks

Well, in a practical way, you can sit up a test target. I used a Kodak grey scale, a white

towel with texture and something very black. And in a shady place you make exposures at

different f-stops (keep good & careful records of exposure and time). And make sure to

leave unexposed film to calibrate your enlarger time. Use normal contrast. In the

darkroom, with unexposed part of film, find the minimum time required to get max-black.

Now run the test shot negs. on that time. You are looking for best white with texture in

your print in comparison with the best black. When you find an effective ASA that you

think works, go outside and find a contrasty scene that you want to work in, and take a

bunch of shots and return to the darkroom to see if you like the results. Essentially you

have to make your own formula for your own film and sensibilities.

 

If you find your highlights are blocked-up, that is there is no texture, cut back on the

amount of developer or the time you develop. If your white is under exposed, if it turns

out too grey, increase time or amount of developer. Best.

Hi Darko, I use APX and Rodinal. I never rate the ASA for full advertized value, but I would

rate it for half of what they claim. For instance, I use APX 100 35mm, and I rate it at 50 or

even 25 ISO for a bright sunny day with dark shadows. Also, I like to stand develop, so for

the above conditions I would develop in Rodinal at 100:1 and let stand for 40 min. I

aggitate for first min. and then for about 10 sec every 5 min. This is for very hard water we

have, and your water will probably be a factor. On the other hand if the day is overcast and

I have to pump up the contrast I shoot it at 100 ASA and then develop in Rod 25:1 for

about 8 or 9 min. The more contrast you need, the harder you have to hit it with

developer, although you might increase the temp. I usually stick to 68 degrees, but you

might try 50:1 and increase temp to 73 or something?

 

I think in past I rated APX 400 at IS0 320, and you might get 640 out of it with Rodinal,

but to push beyond that you might have to go to "The Film Developing CookBook by

Anchell and Troop for another developer. Good Luck

I have one. I can not comment on the image aesthetics or contribute a picture here, but I can

tell you that this is a heavy lens on a f body. Compared to an Elmar, this lens makes a IIF

front heavy. It throws off the balance of the camera. It seems to me I'm sometimes fighting

the weight of the lens while composing. Also, unless you have good eyesight reading the f

stop index can be a pain as the numbers are very small compared to say the Summarit.