bill_schneider1

Alan:

I did have the baseplate installed as one would have when normally loading film. I wound on to about frame 5, then carefully opened everything up without rewinding to have a look. That's when I made the photo.

BTW, the makeshift shims seem to be working fine. Test pictures are tack sharp, and the exposures are where they should be on the negative. I'm happy and taking pictures again.

TO M

I don't live in Columbus anymore but did live there for about 10 years. I'm now located about 2 hours away in Athens Ohio.

I get to Columbus infrequently except for summer months when I visit about once per week. I visit Midwest Photo, Cord on 5th, and the Columbus Camera goup when I can. I especially like Midwest because I've known the people there for a long time, and some of them are active photographers. Abdi, for example, is an avid Leica user.

So you were at Cord Camera - the larger store at Fifth Ave. I guessed incorrectly!

Go to MidWest Photo Exchange on N. High St. for a real walk down memory lane. They started as a used camera dealer, but now also carry new equipment.

Also Columbus Camera Group is located in a white church in the residential neighborhood just a little east and south of Midwest.

I was in that very same Columbus Ohio store this weekend buying as much Kodak Polymax as my credit card could bear. Wasn't much I'm afraid - probably just a bit over a year's worth of paper.

I've know the people who operate that store for years. They are good folks to deal with.

I'm curious what brings you to Columbus for the summer - but you seem to be discouraging that sort of inquiry.

What's "bloody mad" is the month's salary for the camera, but I've had equally poor luck with other less costly equipment. It all drives me crazy, trust me. Let's see what I can list...

1) When I purchased a Wista view camera back in the early '80s I found a dismal mounting plate for the tripod socket. Weak and positioned poorly, the camera would bob around when fitted with a long lens with the bellows racked out. I turned the fix into a small enterprise by designing and casting stout replacement baseplates. (Wista users - sorry, I have sold out of them, and you can't have mine.)

2) Hasselblads would lock up if you tried to change lenses without first winding the film advance. That's by design, not an individual fault of my sample. Got me once or twice.

3) My Olympus XA purchased in the early '80s (a camera that I dearly loved to Velcro to myself when bicycling) didn't last long - a several years max. The side film guides were made of plastic, and many rolls of film run through it wore a notch in the leading edge of the guides. The notch would then catch the film with so much force I could not advance or rewind the film. I had to go to a darkroom to open the back and remove the film. I saved the camera for the Velcro.

4) My 8x10 Deardorf - what a dim ground glass after so looking through so many nicely Fresnelled 4x5 cameras. WHen he was still in business, I called Jack Deardorf about fitting a screen, and being the abrupt type that he was, told me I didn't need one. Fine. I bought a finely divided screen from Edmund Scientific and used my father's woodworking mill to shape it to fit. Works great.

5) Wista again. The position of the ground glass didn't match the position of the film when a holder was inserted. Slightly soft pictures, but nothing terrible. Still it nagged me about why the pictures weren't as good as from my older Graphic View. One day a gent showed up to have one of my Wista baseplates installed. He had a SERIOUS ground-glass to film holder mismatch. We fixed his problem temporarily by reversing the ground glass/fresnel assembly. When I checked mine, it was off 0.020 inch. Strips of paper shims to move the ground glass away that amount made a noticeable difference and I was finally happy with the camera. The paper shims are still there doing an excellent job.

6) Wista #3. Long exposures showed a lot of blur on stationary objects. Suspected that the springs for the back of the camera were not sufficiently strong to clamp the film tightly in the holder. Fix was to tap the film holders to seat the film down against the stop BEFORE inserting into camera. School of hard knocks provided that knowledge.

7) Hexar AF - after about a year, release button worked only part time. Focus locking using half-press didn't work. Sent it in to be repaired. Status - working, but the slowness of using the camera puts me off in people situations where instant shutter release is needed. Leica excells there.

8) Nikon N90s - I dislike the way it won't rewind when you press the buttons if the last exposure was very near the end of the film. Solution, turn the camera off, then turn it back on, then press the rewind button again. I can live with that quirk, but it's aggrevating to experience at an event when seconds count. Also dislike the autofocus hunting in dim light. You can't make an exposure while the thing is trying to focus, and manual focus is difficult with dim finders found in many of today's cameras.

OK, I'm tired of listing things, and I could recite an equally long litany of repairs that have gone wrong too.

You see, mechanical things aren't perfect, nor are the people who work on them. Knowing a little about the equipment will provide a competitive edge for any serious photographer. Above all, I wouldn't be afraid to attempt small fixes. For further reading, try the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" to see where I'm coming from.

There are two sets of rails - one set is designed to bear against the face of the film and to locate it properly in the plane of focus when the pressure plate presses it into place.

The outer pair of rails is further away from the film plane. They are taller and situated to provide a "channel" in which the film travels. The film edge is supposed to bear against these for lateral guidance.

In my case, the film rode up over top of the outer rails where it didn't belong. The focus error with short lenses was huge. My 90mm didn't care.

To answer the warranty repair questions, I bought the camera second-hand. The Passport warranty is not transferable. I called about that.

For those wishing to see the web page of a fix, it appears that a server is down temporarily. I'll get that taken care of in a couple of hours.

To answer the film loading quesion, I've never had a problem with my previous M bodies except for one isolated incident. That's out of a thousand or so rolls of film. I do seat the film cannister firmly before closure, but I'm not about to be patient with slow loading techniques. That's why the shim appeals to me - I can now slam the film in there, and return to taking pictures.

I'm always a little hesitant to send in a camera for repair. I've had some incomplete repair jobs on Leica equipment by the "big names". In one case, a simple relube of a Summicron, the lens returned with an excruciatingly heavy action, and worse of all, when I mounted it to a camera, it was upside down. That's why I began to fix my own equipment when possible.

That knowledge has come in handy. When in Italy for a month in 1997 I had the front element assembly of a 35mm Summicron come loose. Back in the hotel room, I used jeweler's screwdrivers that I carry to open the lens, tighten the loose retaining ring (accessible from the rear), and was back in action the next day.

But then again I have a background in engineering, so I have compulsive urges to tinker. Your own inclinations may vary.

I recently had a bit of bad luck with an MP that I had droppped.

Focus was usually in front of the subject. The rangefinder checked

out OK, but then I found the cause was film that wasn't seating

properly in the guides.

<p>

I fixed the problem using shims, and I put up a web page describing

the steps on:

<br>

<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8es2x">this page</a>

<p>

If someone else is having problems with front-focused pictures, maybe

this is something to investigate.

<p>

Bill Schneider

My new MP rewinds without a problem like you described. I was surprised how well it worked - even better than my M6 bodies when my fingers slip off the rewind lever. It's not wobbly either.

I do have a touch of dry shutter release with my MP though, although I'll give it a little more time to wear in.

Be sure to list specific problems if you send it in for adjustment so that they don't get overlooked.

Bill Schneider

My older Elmar 50/2.8 does the same thing - turning the aperture ring causes the focus to rotate so that you can't get the aperture changed. I assumed that's why the infinity stop was there - lock it down, change your aperture, and then refocus.

A friend's new collapsible 50mm is designed differently. The aperture end doesn't rotate with the focus, and it's easier to use.

The build quality on the old Elmar is definitely nicer though. For example, I counted something like 21 aperture blades on mine. It is realy built to last.

Bill Schneider

I just dealt with Glazer's for an MP and a 35mm Summilux. It was a very pleasant experience.

Both items were in stock and shipped promptly. They must carry a respectable inventory.

Mark Vercammen is Glazer's Leica specialist and saved me hundreds on the package. Over the phone he discovered that I was an educator and was eligible for a discount (something I didn't know) and sent along the paperwork for it. It was first-class service all the way, and I'd certainly recommend visiting them.

Bill Schneider

99% Tri-X

1% other b/w films.

No color.

If someone is looking for a new 50mm Lux, Sherry Krauter's web site lists one:

Stock Number: ML00026

Description: 50 f1.4 Summilux, #377XXXX Black Chrome, New old stock

Condition: new

Price: $1150

http://www.sherrykrauter.com

>>Is there a better way? What about massive overexposure, normal development, and printing on a very soft paper?

The trouble with that plan is that it is almost impossible to find very low contrast graded papers (grade #1, or less). Mike states that VC papers won't work well because of insignificant contrast changes in the highlights (This reminds me of an old Phil Davis article that I need to find).

There's another limited option - "flashing" your paper to knock down highlight contrast a bit. Just as lens flare affects the shadows in a negative, a brief exposure to white light affects the highlights the greatest. The flash exposure isn't quite enough to fog unexposed paper, but it's close.

There's an old article by Howard Bond called "Remodeling Paper Curves" that describes the process. I believe it was in Darkroom Techniques magazine before the name changed to Photo Techniques.

Bill Schneider

I've never damaged the viewfinder window of either of my M6s or my CL.

However, I find that (in my hands at least) they are huge fingerprint magnets, especially when I'm sweaty and I happen to flip the camera over to change film.

That said, some condensed breath and my undershirt make a great cleaning combo for the windows. If they can survive that, those windows are tough!

Bill Schneider

Mike:

Your "old" picture is pretty much on the mark for tonality that I see in vintage photos. The nicely open shadows are the biggest indicator for me.

I also noticed the "blown out" blouse in the "modern" picture that may not be typical of pictures from a careful contemporary printer. Why did you choose to do that?

Because you mentioned spectral response, I assume that you started with a color negative. I'm guessing here, but was red reduced proportionally more than the other channels?

Bill Schneider

I don't think the "look" is limited to just Leica b/w photos from the period. I remember printing one of my father's negatives made in the '50s - the blasted thing was nearly bullet-proof, but when coupled with a soft paper, it make wonderful tones and had a "look" that I couldn't get myself.

I do believe that point #1 (generous exposure) is accurate, especially when coupled with gentle development.

Another factor appears to be frequent use of filters to make the sky a bit more dramatic. I made note of how many times the sky was "picture perfect" in many of the photos on the web site.

I have both 40mm and 50mm Noktons for my M6. The 40mm is the newest lens and is seeing more usage right now.

Considering frame lines for the 40mm - I just use gaffer's tape over the preview lever on the M6 to bring up the 35mm frames. Close enough for me.

The 40mm is considerably smaller and has a focusing tab. I am firmly in the camp that believes the tabbed lenses are easier to use. Others disagree.

The 40mm Nokton has a much better hood, although it's extra cost and adds to the size of the camera. The 40mm also doesn't require a SM to M adapter to fit your M6.

Whichever you choose, both lenses are sharp enough wide open that you will be pleased.

I once made a fairly complete handout for using filters with b/w film. It has filter factors, tests for establishing "personal" filter factors, etc.

It's a pdf file found here:

http://tinyurl.com/8gnst

I've been in a similar situation when I've traveled to Italy several times in the past. I enjoy photographing more when I'm not carrying an arsenal with me.

I discovered that when I carried just a CL with a lone Summicron 40mm, I had a respectable increase in keepers compared to other trips when I had more gear.

Look over my abbreviated web portfolio of Italy pictures at:

http://tinyurl.com/avxn8

and notice the number of shots made in 1993 when I carried the CL and just one lens. By contrast, I carried a 21, 35, 50, and 90 with me in 2001, but wasn't quite as successful in making pictures that stick with me.

1) I have more control of contrast using b/w (large-format trickle down from younger days)

2) Wider choice of printing papers for traditional darkroom work

3) About 20 years ago I carried equipment for both b/w and color. Too cumbersome, so I simplified and chose b/w. Never looked back.

4) I get some quiet time alone in my darkroom with my choice of music in the background.

5) I do b/w better than color.

6) Silver prints have a nifty look.

7) Platinum prints look nifty too.

8) The darkroom smells make me think I'm doing real work.

B

Of the film shot in a year, it's 10:1 B/W over color.

As the original Leica lenses have been stolen from our school enlargers over the years (even after gluing them in), we've replaced them with 50mm Nikkors. The autofocus, as mentioned previously, doesn't work as well because of the difference in focal length.

I do remember using or changing a clamp collar in the autofocus mechanism on one or two enlargers in an attempt to get autofocus somewhat close with the replacement 50's. The kludge worked fairly well. It required a focus touch-up after changing enlarger height, but not much. Wish I could remember more detail about the fix, but maybe it's enough to spark an experiment.

If anyone sees some 40mm Leica enlarger lenses with pink paint on them and residual glue on the threads, please tell them to come home to Ohio University.

Bill Schneider

I have a black M6 that started to overexpose at the high speeds so I checked its shutter with my tester. The 1/1000 was one-stop slow, 1/500 and 1/250 were half-stop slow.

After a trip to Leica NJ for a CLA and other repairs, the shutter speeds all checked out within a fractional stop of the target - EXCEPT for 1/500 the first time I fired it. The first trip of the shutter at 1/500 was a half-stop slow, but every subsequent release afterward was less than a tenth-stop off.

That was nearly 3 years ago, and I haven't noticed any symptoms of overexposure since. Then again, I shoot b/w negative film exclusively in this camera and also seldom use 1/1000 so it's not critical for me. Out of curiosity, I'll have to dig out the tester and see how well the shutter speeds have held up over time.

There's some wisdom in "exercising" your shutter - especially just before you go out shooting. It is also true that the fastest speeds loose accuracy first. I've seen this over and over with the various cameras I own.

I would also guess that an electronic M7 would retain accuracy better than an M6, Mp, etc.

Bill Schneider