jonathan_reynolds

<p>Thanks for looking. <br>

I guess lots of people buy a succession of correction lenses as their eyes get older, so I'm hoping that someone might have one of these that they'd care to sell? I need it for my M6. Would also be interested in the +1.5 and +2.0 in anticipation of years to come!</p>

<p> </p>

I had this same issue a couple of years

ago. I don't have it now. The only

change I have made to my processing

is that I now filter the fixer (after

dilution), as well as the final wash water

with its added wetting agent. I'm pretty

sure either the fix or the wetting agent

was growing tiny crystals in the bottle

of concentrate.

 

I hope this helps. The problem was

especially noticeable with Delta 100 for

some reason.

<p>I gave up on finding a quality scanner at an affordable price. I built myself a luxurious darkroom shed for a lot less money, and now I just do wet prints, which is far more satisfying than overseeing a scanner. The finished print is also a good deal more attractive than a screen image. The obvious downside is that I can't share photos online, but my chief reason for taking photos is to stick them on my own wall and enjoy them. I would like to be able to digitally 'rescue' negatives that have been damaged through bad storage, but not at the price of a Coolscan.</p>

<p>Perspective depends on viewpoint, not on focal length. Worth thinking about how close you want to get to foreground subjects, how much angle of view you want when you are there, and how much depth of field. Try a wide-angle zoom on a cheap s/h digital slr, and note what focal length you end up using most. <br>

Then as Jim A says, there's no substitute for trying them out, because actually your shooting style changes to match the lens, and the suitability of a lens's optical "character" will depend on how you end up shooting.</p>

 

<p>I don't think there is a special Leica feel, but I am reluctant to join those who rubbish the whole notion.<br>

I have an M6. By the time they produced the M6, Leica had bundled together the best of what you need to make excellent people and landscape photos in 35mm. Some would say they had reached an earlier peak with the M3 and its contemporary lenses. I don't know whether digital Leicas have reached another similar peak yet.<br>

When I bought my M6 (second-hand) a little over 10 years ago, I stopped feeling that my failed photos might have been better if only I had a better camera. To be honest, having falling prey to the hype, I was expecting a step change, but it wasn't like that. Practically speaking, the differences in successful photos I took pre- and post-Leica are small once they have been properly printed. It's hard to tell which of them was taken with which camera. I do get many more successes with the Leica than I got previously, but then again I am a more experienced photographer too. Quality differences I do notice in the images are: (1) when I get the exposure right, the resolution of shadow details is fabulous, and that adds considerably to the rich look of the print; (2) full-aperture shots in low light are frequently excellent, something I had never experienced before.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Seems a terrible shame, Paul. I'm 59, so I am getting age, and arthritic hands too - seeing a consultant next week. It simply hasn't occurred to me to give up, in fact I feel I'm only just getting going. Fixing a new weather door on my darkroom this weekend, and looking forward to less work in years to come so that I can pursue more photo opportunities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's only original once.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Think how many times it could be useful. Life is short. Use the darn thing. (Or give it to me to use.)</p>

<p>I think the whole problem is that defining genres is a retrospective act. You can recognise a vogue for street photography in hindsight, but to set out to do 'street photography' like those of the past is to behave like a sheep.</p>

<p>I have only 2 lenses: the non-APO 50mm Summicron and the APO 35mm Summicron. The 50 has frustrated me a good deal with veiling flare, while the 35 has not. That makes a strong reason (among several others) why I tend to keep the 35 on the camera. It's a pity, because when flare hasn't occurred, the 50 renders shadow detail like nothing else.</p>

<p>Ian . : 'Back from Tibet' is wonderful! Extremely atmospheric, no interaction with the photographer, great use of depth of field. I love it.</p>

<p>Mukul, my sympathies, I went through all this too. I couldn't understand how photographers like HCB, Erwitt, etc could achieve compositional accuracy to the extent that they printed the film surround as a black border. Left to itself, my M6 squandered film area profligately. Both the afore-mentioned photogs used external viewfinders; but not always, and Erwitt currently uses an M7. This is a revealing but still puzzling documentary about Erwitt: <a href="http://www.themastersofphotography.com/the-project/">http://www.themastersofphotography.com/the-project</a><br>

I too rejected an external viewfinder because it undermined the integrity of the M6. In any case, there is always some movement within the flash shoe, and dialling in a distance setting would slow you down quite a bit. Getting the finder mask replaced is apparently possible but for me unthinkably expensive.<br>

There is some helpful information on Andrew Nemeth's site here: <a href="http://leica.nemeng.com/006ba.shtml">http://leica.nemeng.com/006ba.shtml. </a>In the end I have come to accept that advice, and I have gravitated towards a 35mm lens anyway, so I just do my best and tell myself I am developing total familiarity with my equipment. It's a kind of bovine acceptance rather than peace of mind; but I'm not sure the Leica M can ever be 100% satisfactory.<br>

I gave up on black lines around my prints.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If it was a darkroom print, you'd dot in to break the line up into sections, then repeat for each section and subsection until the whole thing is filled. The point is that no two dots are exactly the same, so it looks natural. So I do the same thing on screen: I use the clone tool to copy from an area adjacent to where I'm going to dot, and I break the line up into sections, and so on. Takes a little while, but looks perfect. Make sure the edges of your dots are soft. (I'm a Mac user, so I'm doing all this in Aperture, not Photoshop.) I never use ICE.</p>

John H, I would go with either Tri-X or

HP5+ with Emofin or any other 2-bath

dev. (I use Barry Thornton's formula,

which I mix from raw chemicals.) You

won't get any increase in speed (that's

a pipe dream), but you make the most

of what there is. The 2-bath formulae

also restrain highlights, which is very

handy in artificially lit situations where

there may be light sources in the

picture area.

 

I have used Delta 3200 with Emofin too,

but felt the increased speed wasn't worth the sacrifice in image quality.

Aren't all photos historical?

 

Thanks for the link, I only wish there were more to see.

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand why people would want a picture of someone they don't know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My Granny used to say that, when I was in my teens. "Who's that?" she would ask, about my latest photographic effort. "I don't know," I would say, "just someone I saw." "Why did you take a picture of him if you don't know him?"</p>

<p>The answer, if I could have articulated it at the time, is that people can be funny, noble, beautiful, heroic, pitiable, graceful, darn' ugly, strange, or simply a characteristic part of their time. I like funny and beautiful best, but all these things are worth capturing, if you want to be able to see them again and again. If the photo doesn't bear repeated viewing, either the subject matter was mundane or the technique was poor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thought I read a couple of years back that Leica had decided to develop their firmware in-house, in Germany. Anyone else remember that?</p>

<p>I take absolutely no responsibility for what I am about to say! From my experience of making stuff in leather, you cannot get a new dye colour to penetrate the leather unless you first remove any surface wax and finger grease. You can do this by rubbing with alcohol (isopropyl or meths). Liquid leather dyes (stains) are easily available from cobblers. It is difficult to get the dye even. Make regular stripes side-by-side without overlaps, then repeat in a second direction. Even it out and chase it in using a cloth soaked in alcohol. Then re-wax with a hard colourless wax and lots of buffing, to seal the dye in and stop it coming off onto your fingers.<br>

It can be done really well with a little experience, especially on small areas, but your favourite camera is probably not the place for your first experiment. Personally, I wouldn't dream of attempting to dye leather already attached to the camera. So I really do think your best bet is to re-cover with a new leather in the colour you want, as others have advised.</p>

 

<p>I adore my (current model) Summicron 50 and have had some stunning results with it. Resolution wide open, sharpness in the corners, and shadow detail are all amazing. It has a tendency to flare more than I would expect, but maybe I expect too much.<br>

However, ultimately I have found the 50mm FOV too restricted for general use, so I bought the 35mm ASPH Summicron. Now that is really something. Same Summicron 'feel', bitingly sharp detail, very resistant to flare, compact, and of course tabbed. That would be my recommendation, FWIW. </p>

 

<p>Here's another example.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16676775-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="463" /></p>

<p>Good. Some of them may be streaked from the edges, but from experience 50% or so will be fine. Bad luck, but definitely worth processing.</p>

<p><img src="../v3graphics/cover.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /><img src="../v3graphics/cover.gif" alt="" />Merrie Olde England<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16598653-lg.jpg" alt="" width="840" height="573" /></p>

<p>Thank you, Charlie!</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16576934-lg.jpg" alt="" width="573" height="840" /></p>

<p>I just can't believe it is anything to do with the development process. I have used Paterson tanks since I was a school boy in the 1960s, and I have never seen anything like this.</p>

<p>I don't know what has caused this, Jim, but poor agitation and hard water seem unlikely causes. The streaks seem very regularly spaced, and given that there are about 24 light/dark pairs across the negative, each pair can only be about 1 mm across.<br>

Are the streaks visible on any blank (unexposed) sections of the same film?</p>