jtdnyc

<p>For recent photo.net members who didn't know Al, his blog is archived here:</p>

<p>http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>Note that a memorial scholarship has been established in his name for photography students at Barry University in Florida.</p>

<p>Although I never met Al in person, we corresponded by e-mail and spoke on the phone once. He was the model of what a photo.net contributor should be: knowledgeable, helpful, entertaining -- and a talented photographer. RIP Al.</p>

<p>Anybody have any pictures to post of him?</p>

<p>If you rate XP2 at 400, meter off the palm of your hand and then shoot without adjustment, chances are you are underexposing by about one stop (i.e., using EI 800), since the typical human palm is about one stop brighter than medium gray.</p>

<p>Metering off the palm and then giving one more stop of exposure is, in effect rating the film at box speed (400).</p>

<p>Personally, I'd meter off my palm, open up one stop to account for the reflectivity of the palm, and then open up some more, effectively downrating the film to 320 or 250. If your plan is to scan, that's the limit of how much I would downrate it, since whatever slight improvement there might be in graininess would be offset by increased difficulty in scanning the denser negative.</p>

I'd use a B&W film and shorten development. Nowhere did you specify that digital is your only option. Most of the time, it's

possible to get the job done with either capture medium, but this sounds like a job for film. If you insist on color, a film

intended for portraiture, such as Portra NC, might give a satisfactory result.

 

I'd also wait for a time of day when the lighting ratio would be lower and use my most flare-free lens without a filter.

<p>I can think of three possible explanations that wouldn't imply a defect in the lens, camera or the scanning:</p>

<p>1. You weren't far enough away from your subjects to give the perspective you want. Headshots are usually shot from about 6-7 feet away, and fashion shots are often shot from an even greater distance.</p>

<p>2. Tilting the camera will introduce keystoning, a form of distortion.</p>

<p>3. Faces near the periphery of the field may appear distorted, even with a 35mm lens. And the more familiar you are with the "real" appearance of the subject's face, the more apparent the distortion will seem.</p>

<p>I have experienced all of these forms of distortion. Try shooting from further away, holding the camera level and placing the face in the center of the field. If the problem persists, then you'll have to look for another explanation.</p>

<p>An Uncle Sam's Umbrella is, most likely, the sort of umbrella originally sold at Uncle Sam's Umbrella Shop. The shop was located near Carnegie Hall, where many prominent photographers used to have their studios. (Carnegie Hall is more than just a famous concert venue; the complex includes many studio spaces as well, which have been used over the years by photographers, painters, dancers and other artists.) <br>

I remember reading somewhere -- don't ask me where -- that umbrellas were first used as diffusers when a fashion photographer noticed the effect that a regular white umbrella had on sunlight. Before such umbrellas became a photographic specialty item sold at places like B&H, it's likely they would have been purchased at Uncle Sam's.<br>

Here's a link to a story about the closing of the shop:<br>

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/04/nyregion/last-of-a-drying-breed-is-folding-up-shop.html?pagewanted=1</p>

<p>Scott, from the point of view of handholdability, I think there may be a significant difference between shutter shake and mirror shake. The mirror moves <em>before</em> the exposure, the shutter bounce/shake/impact occurs mostly <em>afterwards</em>. Thus, mirror shake would be more likely to blur the recorded image. For that reason, and because of the continuous viewing that is possible with a rangefinder but not an SLR (except pellicle models), I think further experimentation involving on-film results may be indicated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3. And a side question: Are the movements in a rangefinder the same as an SLR with its mirror locked up</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Besides the mirror movement, there is an additional movement in the SLR even with the mirror locked up: the closing down of the automatic diaphragm. The timing and magnitude of this movement are such that they shouldn't affect the image at all, but strictly speaking it is an additional difference between rangefinders and SLRs (unless the diaphragm on the SLR lens has been stopped down manually, which might not be the case even with mirror lock-up).</p>

<p>When commentators talk about the handholdability of rangefinders, they usually mention mirror shake and shutter bounce. For me there is an additional consideration: continuity of vision. I suppose this doesn't matter at very fast or very slow shutter speeds, but in the range around 1/8, I believe the continuous viewing possible with rangefinders gives such cameras an edge. I've never done any controlled experiments and the benefit could be purely imaginary, but it's my impression.</p>

Living: too many to name

 

Deceased: Al Kaplan

<p>I am sorry to hear of his passing and extend condolences to his family.</p>

<p>Al was a true gentleman who continued to help other photographers after his departure from this site. He was unfailingly generous with his time and knowledge. When I could no longer stay in touch with him here, we began corresponding privately. He sent me one of his prints and two long rolls of a special order film, gratis.</p>

<p>Among Al's clients were some universities in the Miami area. It would be fitting if one of them offered an Al Kaplan Memorial Scholarship in photography. I imagine that his many friends on Photo.net would contribute amounts large and small to endow it.</p>

<p>I hope that his heirs choose to preserve and exhibit his photographic legacy.</p>

<p>Paul, what do you have in mind?</p>

I did this walk, north to south, last Sunday, with a Leica M8 and a 28 mm lens (35mm equivalent). Could have used 21-

90 equivalents, which I'll carry next time. Beter to startin the north, as you'll be facing the sun and finishing in Battery Park,

where there's now a beer garden. Email me for details.

<p>Thanks, guys, for the advice. I must be doing something wrong. I think I'll head over to the Apple Store for a one-to-one session and try to figure out what it is.</p>

<p>The problem may have arisen when I installed the driver from the original disk and then accepted an HP update which didn't do the trick.</p>

<p>When I get this all figured out, I'll report back. Thanks again for your help.</p>

<p>Is there any way to get an HP 7960 to work with Snow Leopard? I have a new MacBookPro with OS 10.6.1, and HP has apparently not updated the 7960 software to make it compatible. Is there any way to get the 7960 to work -- or must I consign the 7960 to the dustbin of history?</p>

<p>Bill, are you sure the M8.2 had frame lines accurate at 7m? Though good for landscapes, this could easily result in clipped heads at common portrait distances. If your information is accurate, I wouldn't describe a reversion to 1m as a downgrade.</p>

<p>I've never liked having the frame lines set for 0.7m, as has been the case for about the last 30 years of film Ms. I believe the frame lines in the M3 cameras were accurate at 1m, and that's good enough for me.</p>

<p>One more thought: Looking through the brochure quickly, I didn't notice any mention of silver chrome lenses, and the the option of a silver chrome body has apparently been replaced with gun-metal grey. I wonder whether all lenses will now be black or if there will be gun-metal grey lenses in the future. Not the most important issue, surely, but it did pique my curiosity.</p>

<p>Several observations:</p>

<p>1. Ton and David, yes, almost all cameras can be used to capture decisive moments, but not all photography is decisive moment photography. The term has a special meaning in the context of the history of photography, and I would assume you're both aware of the term's origin and meaning. (If not, there's always google.) The Leica M series has been optimized for that genre of photography. Other cameras are optimized for other purposes. Still other camera systems are designed to be universal, in that they can do all things reasonably well without necessarily being the best at any one task. I think the brochure makes the design philosophy and positioning of the M9 quite clear.</p>

<p>2. The unusual thing about the photos in the brochure is not the irony of using an expensive camera to shoot in a communist country, but the fact that Leica chose a particularly challenging subject: dark skin, highly reflective from perspiration, in bright sunlight. I have an M8, but with subject matter like that, I'd probably reach for a film M and load it with a low-contrast portrait film. I wonder whether the M9 is superior to the M8 in its ability to record a greater subject brightness range.</p>

<p>3. Andy, I've learned never to argue with people who introduce the word "fanboy" into a thread. It's just not fair of you to fight insults with facts!</p>

Leica M photography is about capturing decisive moments, not about chimpiing the LCD monitor.

If you want to shoot, chimp and reshoot, perhaps you'd prefer the S2. :-)

<p>Mightn't a perfectly round aperture appear non-round when photographed off-axis, as in the picture above?</p>

<p>As far as the play in the aperture ring, my 35 Cron ASPH's ring moved slightly beyond f/2, and so I called Dave Elwell at Leica to find out if that was normal. He said it was. Relieved, I've used the lens for 5 years without a problem. It's a stellar performer.</p>

<p>Well, you're lucky not to have stepped on the bees' nest but, had you done so, the wisest next step would have been to <em>jump</em> into the lake!</p>

<p>"Apple's site lists both as having the anti-glare option."</p>

<p>Yes, the site lists it that way, but at PhotoExpo last year and at the Apple Store last month (when I made the purchase) I was told the opposite. No matte screens were on display, except for the 17", and none were available for order. If they are now available in other sizes, this is a very recent development. I <em>hope</em> it's true, but I suspect that the Store is right and the site info is out of date.</p>

I chose the 17" for one reason: the matte screen, which is better for photo editing and is unavailable in the 15" model.

<p>Peter, I agree with you that digital gives results at least as pleasing as film results in most situations, and as a result I find myself reaching for my M8 much more often than my MP.</p>

<p>And Daniel, I agree with you that digital postprocessing and printing are faster, more consistent and in some ways simply better than anything that can be done in the wet darkroom. That's why I bought CS4.</p>

<p>But that's not the whole story. There are still some situations where there is a lot to be said for capturing the image on film, even if the final output is digital.</p>

<p>1. Film can record a broader range of brightnesses. This doesn't matter if you have control of the light, or if the light ratio falls within the capabilities of a digital sensor. However, in a scene having brightly sunlit areas and deep shadows, you have a better shot at retaining detail at both extremes if you shoot film. Of course, in the final output, the brightness ratio will be determined by the output medium and the illumination, but a film capture of a "sunlight & shadow" scene will give you more to work with in your postprocessing decisions.</p>

<p>2. Slow-speed films can resolve more detail than a comparably-sized digital sensor. This usually doesn't matter, because digital looks smoother and often sharper, and because people who care the most about extreme resolution usually choose to shoot in a larger format anyway. But in terms of actual information recorded, a slow film can record more than the M8 sensor (which is no slouch despite its moderate megapixel count since it doesn't suffer from the degradation of an anti-aliasing filter). That's why I still keep some Agfa 25 and Kodak Imagelink in my freezer.</p>

<p>3. For images where noise or grain is unavoidable, grain looks better because its pattern is irregular. As a practical matter, I find that noise or grain is not a problem at moderate speeds and that digital has an edge over film at the highest speeds. But, when shooting around EI 1200, I like film grain better than digital noise.</p>

<p>In addition to these situations, in which the issue is film vs. digital, there is also the related but distinct issue of the film camera vs. the digital camera. Peter, since you were shooting with an M7, the issue of battery independence didn't arise, but with the MP, a battery is needed only for the meter, and for many b&w photographers, the meter itself isn't necessary. Additionally, because of the M8's crop factor, you can achieve a wider angle of view on the film Leicas. By the way, these two considerations -- battery dependence and extreme wide angles -- don't really matter to me, but they do matter to some photographers.</p>

<p>In short, I agree with your analysis and therefore shoot as you shoot and print as you print. But I don't think that's the whole story and I think there is still a place for film.</p>

<p>On the iPhone, I have found various websites' "mobile friendly" versions to be less usable than the original interface. I hope that any mobile-friendly version of Photo.net will come with the ability to disable it permanently, as the Wikipedia site does.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ron. That does indeed help.</p>

<p>Ron, modern films seem to have an edge (pun intended) in terms of grain size, speed and sharpness. On the other hand, they seem to require greater precision in exposure and development. Assuming my premise is correct, would you care to comment on the relationship, if any, between technical superiority and process sensitivity?</p>