jim_simmons

I can't seem to type the word "not" today, which is missing in my last post - "I'm NOT taking this personally."

In saying, "btw, what is that ugly commercial pic you posted? I hope you made some cash with it, because it sucks. Big time." This was not said of my work, so I'm taking this personally, but your statement has now told me all I need to know about you. I will not be be responding to any more or your posts, Ray.

These books are written for the professional or the serious amateur. So yes, they pretty much are written with photoshop in mind. Most of the concepts are independent of photoshop, but when the talk about image-editing software, they talk about PS. If you go to amazon.com and search "Mastering Digital Printing" and "real world photoshop" you can see the tables of contents and indexes for these books, which should tell you a lot. It's nice to have access to lots of info here on photo.net, but getting all the info in an instantly referenced source will speed you along. Although some folks will tell you that you've got to spend lots of money right away to get good prints, most would advise that you take it in steps until you're consistently getting prints that satisfy your needs. Start with Adobe Gamma. Odds are that the next step is a monitor calibrator. That may do the trick, but if not, then the next step is to pick a paper you like and get it profiled for your printer, using one of the $40 profiling services you can find out more about as you need to.

Duh, last sentence should end "you will simply NOT come away satisfied."

OK, Ray, you got me to bite on this subject other day, but I'll bite again, even though there was no response to what I thought was a reasoned explanation of my true experience. So, to start with, I'll repeat a portion of that posting:

 

quote begins - "Back in the days when I hung a 35mm camera over my shoulder every waking hour of every day, I took photos of many ordinary street scenes I came upon. The scenes were ordinary; it was the quality of the light that I was usually stalking - a hard, crystalline light in which objects jump out at you like cutouts.

 

One day my local camera store took a Leicaflex SL in trade and shoved it in my face that afternoon, hoping they'd make a sale. I put my Nikon down, put a roll of Plus-X in the Leicaflex and went outside and shot the roll up. That night I developed the film and made a couple of prints. The next morning I went to the camera shop and put the put the Leicaflex on layaway. It took me 3 months to pay it off, and I lusted for it every day of that 3 months. Why? The quality of the images from the 50mm Summicron at f/8, that's why. Crystalline edges and textures, but creamy tones all at the same time. The Nikkors I'd been using (50mm f/2 and 35mm f/2.8) were muddier by comparison, less sharp at hard contrast edges, and didn't contain the microcontrast in finely textured areas. As Ray says, "Maybe I'm missing something." Well, I'd have saved some money over the years (or had a larger lens collection) if I was not able to see the difference, and some people can't, but if you can see the difference, you really appreciate the qualities these lenses can bring to some styles of photography. So believe me, it is possible to be an equipment freak AND be into the art of your imagery. When the two come together, it can be very satisfying. BTW, I believe the 40mm Summicron has the same qualities as the 50mm Summicron R, although I'd have to do a tripod-based test to sense the resolution difference, I believe." - quote ends

 

It would make no sense for me to post scans of those negatives, as the qualities we're talking about here simply do not show up on a computer monitor screen. They show up in an 11x14 print. And yes, displaying images on a monitor has become an important part of the photography world. But it has not replaced the print component of that world.

 

In that other thread you made some comments that are the beginning of an enquiry that is worth pursuing. You said, "I've never understood why people are so focused on lens characteristics. Maybe I'm missing something." and you said, "Photography isn't about lenses really, is it?" Here's my response to you. If this were a master/teacher situation (I'm NOT the master here, this is just an example) your master would congratulate you on asking good questions. And would then guide you in discovering the answers to these questions yourself. The master would not provide proof to you of the answer that you might ultimately find. It is your job to refine your questions, devise a method of discovering the answers to those questions, and then to do the work that answers those questions with a truth that is YOUR TRUTH. Photo.net comrades can assist in explaining the personal truths they have discovered for themselves, and they might offer suggestions as to how you might discover your own truth. But it is not their job to do your seeing for you. Only you can do that. And you should not tell others they what they see does not exist. Your answer is out there. If you are asking people to help you find it, great. But if you are demanding that others defend a vision that they have proven to their own satisfaction is true, you simply will come away satisfied.

I agree that 28 and 35 are too close together to make that much sense for carrying around. I use a 40 and a 25 and like that combo a lot. However, I really do like a 28 all by itself. I think what you're hearing is that 35/40 is a good "natural" all-round lens, and then when you want to go WIDE, then jump down to 24/25 or 21. But 21 is a handful of image challenges that takes some getting used to.

Mary-Anne, there's a lot of information to absorb if you want to get on top of digital color management. I'd suggest getting a good book on the subject. Your first read will actually make your head spin, but as you absorb the concepts, you'll get it and your work and prints will really benefit. It depends on what your standards are, but if you're the least bit picky, then Adobe Gamma won't get you close enough. I would start there, though, and see how much of a difference it does make. I learned recently that a friend's cheap LCD monitor couldn't even come close to being corrected with Adobe Gamma, so let's hope your monitor is good enough that it can. One book I have that I recommend is "Mastering Digital Printing" by Harald Johnson. The Real World series on photoshop and on color management are also very good.

This has been a great thread to read. Real users of BOTH the 1800 and 2400 giving the 2400 a thumbs up. And a real user who's moved from 2200 to 2400 and reporting the results on matte and glossy, color and "neutral" B&W. Thanks! (and I didn't even ask the question)

Back in the days when I hung a 35mm camera over my shoulder every waking hour of every day, I took photos of many ordinary street scenes I came upon. The scenes were ordinary; it was the quality of the light that I was usually stalking - a hard, crystalline light in which objects jump out at you like cutouts.

 

One day my local camera store took a Leicaflex SL in trade and shoved it in my face that afternoon, hoping they'd make a sale. I put my Nikon down, put a roll of Plus-X in the Leicaflex and went outside and shot the roll up. That night I developed the film and made a couple of prints. The next morning I went to the camera shop and put the put the Leicaflex on layaway. It took me 3 months to pay it off, and I lusted for it every day of that 3 months. Why? The quality of the images from the 50mm Summicron at f/8, that's why. Crystalline edges and textures, but creamy tones all at the same time. The Nikkors I'd been using (50mm f/2 and 35mm f/2.8) were muddier by comparison, less sharp at hard contrast edges, and didn't contain the microcontrast in finely textured areas. As Ray says, "Maybe I'm missing something." Well, I'd have saved some money over the years (or had a larger lens collection) if I was not able to see the difference, and some people can't, but if you can see the difference, you really appreciate the qualities these lenses can bring to some styles of photography. So believe me, it is possible to be an equipment freak AND be into the art of your imagery. When the two come together, it can be very satisfying. BTW, I believe the 40mm Summicron has the same qualities as the 50mm Summicron R, although I'd have to do a tripod-based test to sense the resolution difference, I believe.

The minimum focus distance on the 40mm Summicron is 2.7 ft or .8 m. But the focus rings turns to what I would extrapolate to be a little over two feet or about .7m. And yes, the bokeh on this lens is very nice. And if you include the rendering of color as part of your definition of bokeh, it's very nice in this area also.

There's a reason Leica made the 40mm lens the standard for the CL. It's an amazingly versatile focal length. I used nothing but that lens for many years. However, it suited MY style of photography and may not suit yours. This really is a choice you have to make in sync with your style.

with my family in tow - Leica CL with 40mm Summicron

 

by myself - everything

At these prices, you should be able to set the dial where it belongs and that's that. No jiggling should be necessary. If the same problem exists on multiple cameras, then it sounds like a design engineering fault to me. No amount of sending it back will fix it unless an official is developed and sent out into the repair field for implementation. When I built movie cameras, this happened frequently to new models. Anytime a camera camera back for any reason, we'd make all the little updates to problems like this. And the design engineers would implement a modification to the manufacturing process for all further manufacturing runs.

Are you performing the function on an image layer (such as the background layer) or on another layer. If you try to do saturation on a contrast layer, nothing will happen. Check to see what is highlighted in the Layers palette.

Ed's point about using the tabs to prefocus as you lift the camera to the eye is well taken. It's not for everybody, but it's sort of a jazz music approach to shooting. Very freeform, but you've gotta know your equipment intimately.

 

We used to play a game in school all the time - at unpredictable times, one of us would call out a challenge: guess the distance, exposure and framing of a scene. The challenger would call out the lens and the ASA speed. Then we'd all make our guesses, setting our cameras to their settings by feel. Then someone would meter and rangefinder the scene, and we'd see who got it right. After a while you get pretty good at this.

 

My 25mm "snapshot" Skopar even has little detents at 1, 3, and 5 meters, so you can feel your hyperfocal distances. The lens doesn't even couple to the rangefinder. No need to at that wide a focal length.

 

This is very much the way that Winogrand shot.

I'm sure that their highest profit margins are on the contracts they sign to slap the Leica name on the products that Panasonic manufactures and sells. OK, maybe they have their engineers bless or tweak the designs or whatever, but still, no manufacturing or overhead issues makes for a sweet business model.

Bought a IIIf with 35mm f/3.5 Summaron in 1976 from Studio City Camera in LA for (I think) about $150. Did a day trip the next day to Tijuana and shot some in some amazing situations with it. Developed the film only to discover that the aperture scratched every roll down the middle of the image, and all the pictures were a little soft, no matter the aperture. Very nice 1930s tonality, though. The store graciously took the camera back. A year later I got my Leica CL with 40mm lens, and still have it today.

I leave the VC 25mm viewfinder on my CL all the time, whether I'm shooting the 40 or the 25. I used to have the 90mm f/4 Elmar, but sold it. I decided I only like using a rangefinder for wider lenses. I use a 90mm Summicron on a Leicaflex, as I like to previsualize out of focus feel when I shoot.

The first time I ever saw the 1930s FSA photographs was when I left Arkansas and went to California Institute of the Arts to study photography in 1973. My new California and New York friends were apalled at "how people used to live back then." I said, "Back then? Hell, nothing's changed, really." A few months later I did a semester of independent study, went back to the Ozarks, and took photos that ended up in a show at CalArts that showed them what I was talking about. They still found it hard to believe that this level of poverty existed in the US, especially white poverty, I'm afraid to say. I'll attach one of those picture, from about 1974. I'm no Disfarmer, but I do feel that I've got a feel for the world he lived and photographed in, as my gene pool runs to about 1865 in the Ozarks.<div></div>

My favorite (worst) drop stories: left a Nikon F on top of my Karmann Ghia. Drove off and, hearing something sliding backwards on the roof, looked out the rear-view mirror just in time to see it slide down the rear window, bounce off the rear of the car, and fall out of site to the street. Panic! but amazingly the camera landed on a corner of the bottom and worked flawlessly for several years. Next story: wildly gesticulating whilst telling a story and holding a Leicaflex by its 50mm Summicron, I squeezed the tabs of the lens hood such that they released. My hand retained the lens hood, but the camera and lens went flying up into the air to about eight feet high over and behind me. Came crashing down to the concrete sidewalk. I thought I'd destroyed it for sure. But no, again it landed on a corner of the baseplate, then flopped over and bent in the filter retaining ring, but not enough that it wouldn't come off. Again, amazingly the camera and lens were fine. Shutter speeds checked out accurately, and the pictures were just as sharp as ever. I've not dropped a camera since then, but I certainly don't baby my 'flex!

 

Sorry, Ryan, that your story sounds worse than my lucky stories, but I'm sure you're going to enjoy that new modern 50mm you'll be getting.

I use the C84 with the MIS EZ inks and am very please with them. If you want warmer tone than the neutral inks, you can use just the Y-gray (in the yellow slot) for a mild warm, or the M-gray for warmer or the M+Y carts for even warmer. I can't remeber what the C-gray cartridge meant warmth-wise. I tried the M-warm, and it was too warm for me. The Y-gray was about right, but on the matte papers I use the neutral gray aren't too cold for me, so I've gone back to them.

Moderator - please archive!

The Michael Harris book "Professional Architectural Phogography" has a few pages of charts call Sun Finders that show sun position at various latitudes and times of year and day. For both north and south hemispheres. A little hard to read a first, but once you get used to them, they're quite handy. Somehow he got permission (?) to use them from a book called The Professional Guide to Photo Data, by Richard Platt, 1991. I've not photocopied these so I can take them into the field, though, and have thought about doing that. To anwer your question, Michael, I would be interested, especially if southern hemisphere was easily distinguished from northern. I'm in New Zealand and STILL getting used to the sun being low in the north in the winter. I too do architecture, and need this ability. The streets of my newly adapted city, Wellington are not laid out laid north/south, but curve around the harbour, so getting my bearings has been challenging!

Horseman's 4x5 cameras are built to Sinar specs in some areas, I'm not sure which. Lensboards, reflex viewers, bellows, and some other accessories perhaps are interchangeable. This gives you one way of getting reasonably priced add-ons for a Sinar. A reflex viewer for studio and architectural work is a nice add-on.

The r2400 is a good bet. Get a hold of prints from various printers if you need to make a comparison. (Not the differences of opinion on HP vs. Epson.) Unless you've already done this, definitely plan on getting calibration hardware/software (Monaco, Gretag et al). Not spending that money means you're wasting what the R2400 is capable of in terms of color/tone/contrast control. And that advice about saving some of the money for ink and paper is ON THE MONEY. You'll spend it.