nickdemarcofoto

<p>thanks<br>

you can see 2 pages from the journal on the front page of my website<br>

www.nickdemarcofoto.com</p>

 

<p>This June's LFI (04/10) has published a 12 page portfolio of my Cuba work taken with the Leica M8<br>

nickdemarcofoto.com</p>

<p>I was thinking about getting this for a while, but the clearance problems put me off. In the end I picked up a Contax 18mm f4. It's a brilliant lens and renders colours beautifully. No clearance problems on the 5D Mk II and I use it much more than I thought I would. I also have a Leica 21mm Elmarit R for the 5D, but since getting the Contax 18 I have never used it as the Contax is much better.</p><div></div>

<p>Afraid the optics are probably closer to the FED than the Leica BUT I have posted my first shots with theShanghai-58 and absolutely delighted I found a Shanghai that works very well after much trying.<br>

Here are some of the images: www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/shanghai_cameras<br>

The Shanghai 50/f3.5 lens is pretty soft and has a light patch, plus it's very hard to get the focus right (maybe misaligned), despite a brighter than usual viewfinder on this 58 than all my others - but it is far better than any other Shanghai lens I have so far used.</p>

<p>Many of the pics are taken with a Leitz Summaron 3.5cm f3.5 screw fit from 1953 I recently picked up. Very happy with these.<br>

It's most pleasing to produce colour images which match many a DSLR (but have more atmosphere for me) on a 1958 Chinese Leica copy and a 1953 Leica lens.<br>

The two black and white shots at the en of the gallery are testing the same Shanghai 50mm lens on a Bessa R3M camera and show it is the lens which is not perfect.<br>

Which leads me to a question - I still have an ambition /obsession to use the original Shanghai camera and Shanghai lens to make some decent (albeit with a certain date look) photos. I realise that the optics may have never been that good, and with ageing uncoated lenses like this can get pretty nasty (I have a 50mm Summicron from the same time which is softer than than the Shanghai!). But is there any servicing I can do - or get someone else to do, that would improve the lens?<br>

Comments appreciated. Nick</p><div></div>

<p>Having recently got back into film I'm spending my nights scanning negs these days (joy) I use Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm negs and VueScan 700 for my MF negs.</p>

<p>I would really appreciate some expert tips on settings, or links to rescources if anyone has them. In particular:</p>

<p>1. Generally I don't have a problem scanning black and white. I use maximum resolution settings on both. On the coolscan I recently have scanned the negs as colour and convert to b&w in photoshop as I'm told this gives greater tonality. Is this correct?</p>

<p>2. Colour is a lot more difficult to get right at first. With the coolscan some film colours look very weird. I have tried fiddling with the slides in the tool box but it usually makes things worse. My best results seem to come from using the white balance tool on a particular part of the shot. How do you do colour?</p>

<p>3. Also with colour negs do is digital ICE a good thing? I prefer the results and hate spending hours getting rid of hidden dust specs. What do others think?</p>

<p>4. With the MF scanner, do you use film profiles? they seem a little hit and miss.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading and any advice appreciated. Nick</p>

<p>645? Mine is 6x6. Although I guess there must be an adapter or something as there is a window for 15 or 12 shots</p>

<p>I've been collecting Shanghai cameras for a while, got a few 58s now (35mm rangefinder based on the Leica-III) and a recent medium format rangefinder, the shanghai 203. A fascinating camera. Anyone else collect these?</p>

<p>For photos and information please visit my gallery http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/shanghai_cameras</p>

<p>Thanks Nick</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Bruce<br>

The "Tailor's scissors" was one of many photos I took with the small, inexpensive and quite wonderful Oly Zuiko 50mm f1.8. I often used it wide open, or at f2.8, because it works beautifully there and has great bokeh. The bokeh here is entirely in camera at one of the wide apertures.</p>

<p>Another great thing about the 5D II (and other Canons) the ability to use third party lenses which create a "feel" one misses with a modern zoom often</p>

<p>Last two main galleries from my Myanmar series now complete<br>

Trip to Mount Popa & Hotel/Self<br /><a href="http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/trip_to_mount_popa">http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/trip_to_mount_popa</a><br>

A trip to Mount Popa, near Bagan, where wild monkeys line the steps up past Nagas covered in money, some shots on the journey back to Old Bagan including a Palm Oil farm and a great tailor who fixed my broken photography bag perfectly for a dollar, and finally various shots from hotels I stayed in during the trip (in Myanmar and Thailand) including some self portraits</p>

<p><br />And Myanmar through an M6<br /><a href="http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/myanmar_through_an_m6">http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/myanmar_through_an_m6</a><br>

I took my brand new Canon 5D Mk II to Myanmar, and with some third party manual lenses I was very happy indeed with the results. But I am glad I took my old Leica M6, just one lens (35mm Summicron f2 with deep red filter to increase contrast) and some Tri-X film, because there is something special about the results.</p>

<p>As always, thanks for looking and for your comments<br>

Nick</p>

<p>Inspired by looking at some Horst photographs, and wanting to try my new Elinchrom studio lights at home to create some classical/surrealist lighting, I took this gallery of black & white photos with Canon 5D Mk II and a Mamiya RZ Pro II medium format film camera: http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/light_experiments_2<br>

<br /><br>

Please have a look and tell me what you think<br>

Here is one</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks Ben that is all very useful indeed.<br>

I think I have lined up a vicar to let me use his church from some rather controversial stuff, so that's good. Other than that no great scess but I am going to try my luck in Camden this weekend with a model and without doing any of the permits/sensible stuff you recommend. Just see how it goes.<br>

Your advice re derelict buildings os very useful</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p>Thanks Charles but I'm thinking of a shoot for most of a day with some models and fear local hitlers will stop me if I don't have permissions. Are any of the places you mention hassle free ( I know Coven Garden/Kew Gardens would definitly require permission)</p>

<p>OK i have now the gear (two Elinchrom heads, reflector) and some experience using them. I want to shoot some location stuff in London. But I don't know where to start finding locations/getting permissions.<br>

Some stuff I would like to do indoors, preferably gothic bulidings but also industrial. Deriliect even better. Other stuff outdoors, parks, cemetaries and urban look. Does anyone know easy places to use/hire/get permisison. Access to main electricity is a bonus, but not essential as I can alwasy hire battery power.<br>

Thanks<br>

Nick</p>

<p>This, next gallery in my Myanmar series, is in my opinion the best of them. I took the series of portraits of the young novices of Kamma Kyawi Monastery in Bagan on two separate days. It was obvious from the first shoot there were going to be some striking images here and so I arranged another afternoon in the monastery a couple of days later to take some more of the novices (in the first shoot I had taken 4 of the novices to one of the Pagodas of Bagan). Not one of the novices had been photographed before, let alone posed for staged photos, as most of these are. They spoke no English and me no Barma. They after a few first difficult minutes they became some of the best and most natural models you could work with, they became quite easy to direct, and they loved the excitement of being photographed which was good. </p>

<p>I think their faces have a strange mixture of innocence and pain or contemplation which makes them most interesting. All of these photos were taken using only natural night which in Myanmar was so great it is hard to think it could be improved by studio lighting. I'm most grateful to the novices of of Kamma Kyawi and their Chief Monk who made these photos possible. </p>

<p>Please take a look at the gallery <br>

http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/novices_of_bagan</p>

<p>Nick</p><div></div>

<p>Another of my Myanmar galleries is now complete: Irrawaddy My friends Ya-Lut and Phutta in Bagan lived in a small village on the banks of the great Irrawaddy river, hidden behind the hotels. Village life revolved around the river. All the men fished there. The women washed cloths there. And it was a communal bath, place to wash and brush your teeth for everyone, since the basic village was without water or electricity. It was also the childrens' playground. I visited them by the river for a couple of sunsets and made this gallery. Irrawaddy Photo Gallery by Nick De Marco at pbase.com Please take a look at the gallery and your comments are appreciated as ever. Photos taken with 5dII and Leica M6 Thanks Nick</p><div></div>

<p>Try the Olympus Zuiko cheapo 50mm f1.8 with adapter, its better than the Canon 50/f1.4!</p>

<p>My 6th gallery from Myanmar is now completed - Bagan, the City of Pagodas, in colour. http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/bagan__colour P</p>

<p>lease take a look and leave any comments. Thanks Nick</p><div></div>

<p>

 

<p>Cheers Marco. You are right. I have read enough threads where people ask, for example, what is a good wide angle lens to use on their 5D, and some say what's wrong with the 24-105? This comparison addresses that sort of question, so it is valid to that extent. It also shows, I think, why a goo prime (and tI am sure this should apply to the Canon 24L too) can often greatly outperform a good zoom, especially at wideangle - something many people still dispute and the lens manufacturers often suggest otherwise. Unless I have to for convenience now I don't use zoom lenses at all. If you have bought a 5D II and want the best in quality why would you? (The 70-200 f2.8L is an exception to this, it's a great lens but I don't use t often because it is huge and the heaviest thing in my cupboard)</p>

<p>I am still working on my Myanmar photos and by the day surprised at just good (sharpness, colour rendition, bokeh etc.) he ultra cheapo Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2.8 performed. I did a 50mm lens test when I got back (also on my site) between the Contax 50mm f1.4, the Olympus f1.8, the Leica Summicron f2, Canon's f1.4 50 and a Nikon and Yashica 50. The Contax was my favourite again, but the Leica and Olympus were about evenly placed and both, in my view, far better than the Canon. Unfortunately, I think some people take 'brand loyalty' too far and don't want to hear something might be better than their chosen brand (whether Canon, Leica or whatever). But one of the things I think is very good about Canon DSLR is the ability to use non-Canon third party often far superior lenses. You should and can go for the lens that best suits you, whether it is a Canon, Leica or Olympus.<br>

And in their defence Canon make some remarkable lenses too. The 35mm f1.4 and the 135mm f2 are both examples of L lenses which I till think are as good, or better, than any Leica/Contax or other opposition in the same range that I have seen.</p>

 

</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. I agree a test between the 25 f2.8 Zeiss and the new Canon 24mm f1.4L would be a much fairer one, but I don't own the 24L. I would like to, but it is twice the price of the Zeiss and, and this means a lot to me, much bigger. I like to have the smallest lens I can get away with if I can. I have seen one far more scientific test on the web between the two lenses however, and it rated that Zeiss as just, only just, slightly better than the 24L. Of course you have the benefit of AF and f1.4 with the Canon, so it really depends what you want.</p>

<p>I don't think the 24-105 is a rubbish lens, as I have said on the test. Again it depends what you want. When I did a model shoot this weekend it was the preferred lens. It is pretty good at the telephoto end, its a very useful range for an FF camera, and it has a AF. But I don't think there is any question that at wide angle it is no match at all for a good prime, like the Zeiss. I was slightly more surprised at how much better the Zeiss did than the 16-35 f2.8L. I regard that lens as one of the best wide angle zoom lenses in the L range, but again I think the Zeiss is much sharper. And again, it's smaller.</p>

<p>There is something in the "Internal Dissonance" phenomenon, no doubt. But I have a variety of lenses, both Canon and various manual (Nikon, Leica, Cntax/Zeiss and Olympus). Different lenses are good for different purposes. I am more than happy with the Canon 35mm f1.4L for instance (which I reckon easily matches Leica or Contax 35s) I wanted one good wide angle that I could use in various situations, was not huge, and had the least distortion possible. The Zeiss sounded god to me, and I think the tests confirm that it is a very sharp lens, with attractive bokeh and, compared to the competition even though not cheap, is reasonably priced. I shall now want to sell my Leica and Olympus lenses in the 21-28mm range as I think I will never need them again.</p>

<p>But my main reason for doing this test, and 'promoting' the Zeiss with it, is that it is not made for Canon users yet, and to my knowledge very few Canon users have tried it. I want to let those Canon users interested in a very sharp wide lens with typical excellent Zeiss colour rendition know this is one lens worth seriously looking into. And frankly, also, I think anyone who really wants to take good wide angle landscapes/architectural shots and only has the 24-105L lens should at least try and see the difference a good prime lens could make</p>

 

<p>

<p >I have now done the lens test with my new Zeiss 25mm f2.8 Distagon ZF (with Nkone to canon adapter) v the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and the Canon 24-105mm f4L. You can see all the results here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/25mm_lens_test" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/25mm_lens_test</a></p>

<p >Maybe not a fair test (a prime v non-primes) and really just testing for image quality. But the Zeiss wiped the floor with the Canons. My final scores were Zeiss 25/2.8, 13/14 (93%), Canon 16-35 f2.8L II, 8/14 (57%) and Canon 24-104 f4L, 1/12 ( 8%).</p>

<p ><br />I have alse put up some more photos taken with the Zeiss in different conditions, and using an IR filter. You can see them here:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/zeiss_25" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/zeiss_25</a><br />I think this 25 will become my favourite lens for general wide, wide angle photography</p>

</p>

<p>I have now done the lens test with the Zeiss v the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and the Canon 24-105mm f4L. You can see all the results here: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/25mm_lens_test">http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/25mm_lens_test</a></p>

<p>Maybe not a fair test (a prime v non-primes) and really just testing for image quality. But the Zeiss wiped the floor with the Canons. My final scores were Zeiss 25/2.8, 13/14 (93%), Canon 16-35 f2.8L II, 8/14 (57%) and Canon 24-104 f4L, 1/12 ( 8%).<br>

I have alse put up some more photos taken with the Zeiss in different conditions, and using an IR filter. You can see them here:<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/zeiss_25">http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/zeiss_25</a><br>

I think this 25 will become my favourite lens for general wide, wide angle photography</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Please let me have your comments/critiques</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/derrick</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p>(warning for the prudish - contains some semi-nudity)</p><div></div>

<p>This second panorama is taken in the more 'traditional' way - I took 8 frames all from the same central spot, panning the camera left to right (as opposed to moving the camera position from left to right in my other panorama). The advantage of this one is that it shows the pyramid properly and I quite like the 'fish eye' type distortion it creates with the building. The other panorama is better, however, for showing the natural proportions of the architecture.</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/image/110478717<br>

Again this file on 'original' size os very large, so you can see the detail. To view the whole photo choose 'large' size. The actual original size of this, at full best quality print resolution, is a whopping 1.5 metres wide! </p>

<br />

<p>The 5th of my Myanmar galleries from this year is completed. This is of the city of Pagoda's, Bagan, in simple monotone http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/bagan__black__white<br /> Photos take with Leica M6 + 35 Summmicron, Canon 5D Mk II and various lenses Please take a look. Thanks Nick<br /> From my Myanmar Collection: http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/myanmar</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks John. I am afraid I did not keep a record (but I will for the tests I do on Saturday). However, the first two are, to my best recollection, either f11 or f16, or the half stop in between, and I am pretty sure the river one was f8 as it was getting too dark to do f11 with no tripod</p>

<p>Nick</p>