kirk_thompson

Start by making some RAW files to experiment with. The best way to learn is to make a series of prints. Enlarge to the largest size you're likely to print. Within the parameters that your websites & books suggest, vary different combinations of A, R, & T settings to see what results you get. You don't have to make whole prints; you can line up small crops on one big sheet (New File with small images as Layers).

The grossest of overshparpening artifacts is a white line around something against a background - for example, a tree or telephone pole against a sky. Or things like grass & skin-wrinkles start to have exaggerated outlines. Just play around & you'll see.

There's no answer for all cameras, print sizes, subjects, & contrast ranges. The easiest practice to get a print right is to aim a little high on sharpening, & then if you don't like the print, back off by using Edit > Fade Unsharp Mask (if you have that feature in Elements). Checking the Luminosity blending mode in this box may also reduce artifacts (again, assuming you have this option in Elements).

Gerry, I was about to change scanners, but perhaps too soon - to

what forthcoming 6000 dpi scanners are you referring?

Kirk

Some follow-ups:

Johann: the consensus seems to be that the Grey Balancer,

where available, doesn't do a 'Leica quality' job of producing

neutral tones; better options are ImagePrint (expensive), or free

software from Bowhaus.com, discussed (along with other

options) at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

Matt: The 7600, besides larger size & greater ink economy, uses

a superior set of profiles made by Bill Atkinson (avilable for

download on Epson site).

Again, the 3200 scanner won't consistently do 'Leica quality' job,

because its Dmax/latitude is lower than the Nikon 4000 dpi &

Minolta 5400 dpi scanners - and your Leica lenses are good at

producing contrast. Also I don't think it has the multi-pass

feature of these scanners to reduce shadow noise. (Correct me

if I'm wrong.) But it's the preferred affordable scanner for

medium-format folks.

Michael, the Epson 2200-7600-9600 pigment inks don't fade in

the way you're describing, when prints are stored in the cello

print bags that good photo stores sell now, or are displayed in

frames & out of the sun. But for a conservative view of inkjet

longevity, see Stephen Livick's website. My own view is that

inkjet prints with appropriate paper & ink now match or exceed

Type C prints in longevity; so anyone who's sold Type C prints as

fine art is obliged to accept inkjet, right?

Kirk

Answers to your three questions:

1. In a film scanner, look for latitude & resolution. The best

current options are Nikon 4000 dpi & Minolta 5400 dpi.

2. You might want to stick with Elements for a while. The main

thing that's missing is Curves (which John Paul Caponigro says is the

one feature he'd least want to part with!). But it's a very good

learning tool, & we already have rumors about Photoshop 8, which

might include the RAW file plug-in for digital work & an extended

capaccity for processing in high-bit mode (less data loss).

3. With Epson 2200(or 2100)inks, Wilhelm rates several of the papers

of fine-art quality at about 50 years without significant fading (if

framed & kept away from sunlight). You'll find this info on the

Epson site under each paper. The Watercolor paper, which has a

rating of 91 years, doesn't have a very rich tonal range, & the

glossy paper doesn't print well, so look at the others. On many

papers longevity is greater than Type C prints.

And a freebie answer for a question you didn't ask: Inkjet printing

is much easier in color than in BW, which requires some extra, &

expensive, software.

Kirk

I've been doing some print scanning & found that a consumer scanner can't match the quality of commercial Scitex flatbed scans. I've been working on 8x12 1970s BW prints in which the grain pattern is an important part of the image (negatives developed in Rodinal, prints made on Focomat 1c). On an Epson 1620 scanner the grain structure softens, & sharpening with USM doesn't get it right either, but the Scitex scanner reproduces the grain structure perfectly. The only problem is that the price is high for Scitex scans; locally it's $30 for a 30 MB grayscale scan, which allows 360 dpi resolution for a same-size print, & less for quantities. You can get drum scans for about the same price, but a careless drum-scan operator could damage a print.

The most surprising result of this sort of scanning is that you can augment shadow detail. It's like using split-filter printing in the analog darkroom (which wasn't an option when the prints were made on Portriga 111). Though differences in tone between Zones II & III are hard to see in the prints, the scanner does pick them up; and then you can increase the separation between Zones II-III-IV with a Curve in Photoshop.

Ray seems to want a more definite answer than we can give

him, but we can still offer some help: He's asking, I assume,

about sharpness in circumstances where he has a wide choice

of aperture & shutter settings & is not primarily concerned about

DOF. Besides the Erwin Puts site, consult www.photodo.com,

under "Products," for Leica lens tests (& many others) using the

equipment at the Hasselblad factory. We're given no serial

numbers or ages for the lenses tested, and N is presumably 1,

so the results must be taken with several grains of salt.

Nevertheless you can get general ideas from Puts & Photodo

about which lenses are more useful wide open, & which must

be stopped down to f4 or f8.

Kirk

I think what's relevant about digital cameras to the Leica forum is that if you're accustomed to Leica image quality, you won't be happy with a digital camera other than a 10D or D100. Unless you're just looking for a digital point-and-shoot, which is pretty far OT.

Kirk

If you have the good old-fashioned habit of printing on single-contrast papers, go for it; but the Ic filter drawer over the condenser is a 'must' for multi-grade. The beauty of the Focomats is that they hold film flatter than any enlarger without a 4-surface carrier. To introduce a 'softening factor' - a filter below the lens - would seem to undercut the usefulness of the enlarger; and of course it defeats sharp split-filter printing.

Kirk

Thank you, Doug, but I already have a finder & I ordered a new

adapter along with the lens. Maybe someone else will be

interested.

Kirk

No, it's not just a trick. I always use color negative film (to have more latitude for scanning) but sometimes see things that 'want' to be BW. With Photoshop, this is no different than picking up a second camera body with a different film.

One of Photoshop's designers is a BW photographer, & legend has it that PS is carefully designed so its Grayscale mode corresponds to Plus-X film in its balance of R, G, & B sensitivities.

The other methods mentioned above are alternatives to Grayscale; also using the Luminance channel in LAB color. I usually convert by making 3 or 4 conversions from color to BW: Grayscale, Best Channel, Channel Mixer, & Luminance. I make work-prints of all 4 on one big sheet, & look closely to see if one method has a bit more 'glow' than the others. Either Channel Mixer or Luminance usually wins.

Don't let anyone be so 'pure' as to discourage you from doing this!

Kirk

You can get less expensive Voigtlander-Cosina finders from B&H, & probably CameraQuest.

Kirk

Hi, Todd -

I have the same problem w/ glasses & will use my old Leitz 28mm finder, but the V-C finder is much less expensive, $139 @ B&H.

I ordered the lens from Stephen Gandy & will compare it, when it arrives, to my middle-aged 28mm Elmarit, by the usual casual test method (photographing some sheets of newspaper). I'm trying the Skopar because older Elmarits block the M6 meter. (Incidentally, if anyone wants a Canadian 28mm Elmarit, 231xxxx for M2-3-4, please e-mail me. I don't know what they sell for.)

Remember that you have to budget a screw-to-M adaapter ring, $49, if you don't have one. The Skopar uses a clunky lens hood, $49, that you can see on the CameraQuest site; I'm hoping my Elmarit hood will fit it.

Kirk

I'm interested in the V-C 28mm lenses & have searched for direct

comparisons between the f3.5 Color Skopar and the f1.9 Ultron, but

without success.

I'm not very interested in low-light-level photography, but am quite

concerned about sharpness. Does anyone know how these lenses compare

in the f4-F8 aperture range? Either a site on the Web that compares

them, or personal experience?

Thanks for any help -

Kirk

I didn't think the images were reproduced as well as in many other photo books.

Kirk

I'll follow Rolfe's advice, because I want to keep using the lens. A search of the archives led me to Sherry's e-mail address, & I've written to her re: servicing this lens & another (with some mechanical friction but no optical problems).

Kirk

I've heard many people, including myself, say they want a digital M6. No SLR-type stuff - no autofocus, no zooms - just a 'real' Leica M with a large sensor, & a computer & CF card where we used to put our rolls of film.

Kirk

My middle-aged 50mm Summicron has developed two spots between its

elements (specifically between its front element & its diaphragm).

They're fogged spots, 1+ mm across, one with a dot that looks like a

piece of dust in its center.

I haven't had an internal lens problem before (in 30 years of Leica

use). I've been testing to see what the effect might be at different

apertures. But in general, do you try to ignore this sort of defect,

or throw the lens away? Or is repair possible? If so, by whom??

Thanks for advice.

Kirk

I own an elderly Canadian 28mm Elmarit 2.8 (234xxxx), purchased for

an M4; it's not a retrofocus lens, & the rear element seats close to

the shutter curtain. I understood it could not be used on an M5 (or

CL), because the rear element would have interfered with the pop-up

type of meter.

Now I've purchased an M6 body & find that I can get a meter reading

with this lens: the LED arrows don't blink, as if the lens cap were

on, so some light is being measured.

Do these older Elmarits work OK on M6s?

Thank you for advice,

Kirk

PS: I searched the site for this info but didn't find it; is there a

place I should have looked?