timothy_nelson

Much good advice above. I join them in urging you to use ViewScan to run your

scanner. In addition to the advantages already described, it includes many film

profiles that can match more closely the characteristics of your film than the generic

profiles used by NikonScan and other such software. You can test different profiles on

the same raw scan and view the effect before you save it, or you can save the raw

scan and apply a profile later. ViewScan is the only software I've tried that enabled my

Nikon scanner to capture full range scans of my TriX negs, without shadow or

highlight clipping. My experience has been that with the right profile, TriX and Delta

100 scans look like straight contact prints, without resorting to scanning as positives

and inverting. My Fujicolor negative scans, with VS set to automatic white balance,

seem to need little other than a little boost in saturation in Photoshop, and usually

not even that. All you really need to do in Photoshop (or whatever you prefer to use)

for straight photos is to downsize, sharpen, convert to sRGB, and Save for Web.

Rob, et al.,

Tim Page's books are pretty amazing, too, especially in combination with Dispatches,

by Michael Herr, Coppolla's Apocalypse Now, and other deep travel into those days

and places. The PJ's seemed to have quite an impact on the public in those days.

We have many such old/new choices these days in areas in which technology changes

tools available to creative people. The new tools are always more capable in their

specifications, but this may or may not be positive. For example, a digital synthesizer

can create many more sounds than an acoustical piano, its output can be more

accurately to pitch, the player's performance can be "corrected" in time and pitch, and

it can perhaps make sound output indistinguishable (or sampled) from the piano.

However, the player has a different feedback and feel from a synthesizer than from a

piano, and this certainly influences what he/she creates. I think about cameras in this

way, as instruments. As some above said in various ways, how the thing feels in the

hands and how the world looks through the finder matters for some of us more than

how fast you focus or how accurate the exposure. I get more inspired to see by

"classic" manual cameras with their uncluttered VFs, solid (heavy) feel, and lack of

buzzing motors than by the automated plastic gizmos marketed today, but then I

admit I'm a dinosaur. To others, the automation makes the tool more transparent and

the right instrument. Making it easier can make it more accessible, but it also

encourages more visual "chatter" of thoughtless images, just as email has made

improvements in fast communication at the expense of the tons of chatter we all now

endure (including my wordy post here).

Bruce, Requiem editors were Horst Faas and Tim Page, published by Random House

1997. You can still see a gallery of photos from this project, which was also a

travelling exhibition, at the Digital Journalist website archives, maybe a couple years

ago. I don't know if the book is still in print, but probably plenty of used copies

available. As you can imagine, there are some astonishing photos in there.

A query to Rob on his Don McCullin anecdote: Are you sure of the year and camera?

I'm no expert, but I don't think the F2 had made its appearance yet in 1968.

Re: the Vietnam War era, a lot of the PJ's used Leica M for wide and normal, plus

Nikon F with a 105. If you check out the book Requiem (the work of killed-in-action

Vietnam war photogs), or various books by Tim Page, you'll see many photographers

in

action with their cameras. Larry Burrows appears in most pictures with 3 cameras:

Leica M3 with 21mm, M3 with 50, and Nikon F with 105. Tim Page used a similar kit,

as did many others. Interesting side note: the AP photogs who used this combination

supplied their own Leicas, because Nikon F was standard issue to staffers.

Any chance your automatic aperture stop-down is sticking on the lens? The smallest

aperture is the biggest job for auto aperture, and if the blades are sticking, this is

probably where you'd see it first. You could try that combination again, but manually

stop down the lens first.

I didn't know Sam has a showroom/shop in Fairfield. I thought he was entirely web/

mailorder.

They shut down the Orange store, but are back in a space in New Haven/Amity, by

appointment only. I think this is explained on their website, or perhaps I got a

postcard a while ago.. Remember that Sam Shoshan (Classic Connection) is also very

nearby in Woodbridge, CT.

Since you already have a full Leica M kit, why start all over with another system unless

you immediately need the "throughput" efficiency of a digital camera system? I agree

with those who suggested just shooting color neg and scanning. You'll need a

significant investment in a digital system, bodies and lenses, to duplicate what you

already have in your Leica kit, and the digicam world has generations of development

to go before the standards and qualities of compact M-like cameras stabilize. Let the

consumer masses pay for those disposable generations. If you instead put $1000 into

a film scanner, you'll have a complete system, at least for the years it takes to get to a

digital M. True, you can get nice image quality from the new generation of consumer

level digi SLRs, but if you're a longtime RF user, those short-lived plastic things are

probably not going to make you happy. Think about how many color images you

really want to take to the excellent print stage---film processing and scanning is

probably an acceptable alternative to a new digicam system.

A caution on the suggestion that the the metal circular vented hood 12585 might

work on the 4th (pre-ASPH) 35/2. It may well work on the ASPH 35/2, as Andrew

says, but I can attest that it vignettes the pre-ASPH lens at wide apertures. I have this

hood and used it for many years on the 1st 35/2, but discovered it cuts the corners

off images of the pre-ASPH (4th). You might only notice if you print full-frame, and

might be able to get away with it altogether if you only shoot slides with mounts that

crop. Get the rectangular hood for this one, either the one they made for it, or the

current ASPH rectangular one.

No one can tell you what works best for you and your photography style, of course.

Since you ask, though...I travel with 2 M bodies, but load one with slow color neg (Fuji

Reala) and the other with fast color neg (Fujicolor Press 400 or 800). Outdoors, I use

the slow camera with a 28; indoors, I switch to the fast camera with 35 or 50. Not

sure how you travel, but I end up in alternately high and low light level situations, and

it's easier to switch cameras than to switch lenses.

IMHO, it makes sense to have the SLR for macro and tele, but why wideangle and

standard? Leica M can't be beat in this range, and short SLR lenses would be

redundant. If you already have the Nikon gear, I'd personally keep a macro lens and

whatever teles you use. I use this same combination. The Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 is

awesome and fairly cheap, and the manual focus Nikkor 105/2.5 and 200/4 are

excellent, inexpensive and fairly small. Is the Nikon focus and shutter speed direction

such a big issue? Leicas for short & standard and (manual focus) Nikons for long

lenses was the standard kit of many photojournalists in the 60's and 70's. Even if you

got rid of all of your Nikon gear, there are loads of cheap used manual focus Nikkor

lenses out there, some of them superb, and the current FM3a manual focus Nikon is a

nice one. Anyway, I'd reconsider your excluding Nikon gear as a complement.

Stick with Reala, if your workflow includes scanning and adjustments in PS. You can

always dial in more saturation and contrast if you want the Velvia look. You can have

slides made from your digital files, although that will be pricey. The Vuescan profiles

for Fujicolor films are great, IMHO, and you can make your own film profiles for your

scanner if you shoot an IT8 target.

Fujicolor Press 400 is the same as Fujicolor Superia 400, but without the individual

box packaging. When you buy Press 400, it comes as a single box of 20 plastic cans.

The last batch I purchased (from B&H) had the edge strip marking S-400, which is the

Superia 400 code. Some are/were marked P-400. I called Fuji, who confirmed it is the

same film, different packaging. The Press line of packaging was created at the

request of press photographers, who didn't appreciate opening all the little boxes.

Before the stampede to digital, this was THE film for many newspaper photogs.

I wonder whether Left-Eye dominant photographers are Right-Brain artists? Are

Right-Eye dominant photographers (Left-Brain) more analytical? Just kidding, but

there may be an interesting correlation to explore....

I use archival storage supplies from Light Impressions. Cut roll into strips of 6, strips

go in individual plastic sleeves, set of 6 sleeves goes into small index-tabbed

envelope (one per roll), 50 envelopes go into card stock box. Boxes store efficiently

on bookcase shelves in my office, which has decent air circulation. I just number

each roll sequentially as it is processed, so every image has a unique identifier roll-

frame number. I use the same folder and numbering system for my computer image

files. Raw scans and improved images go into folders organized by roll number. Real

or virtual contact sheets are marked with the unique roll number. Prints are marked

with the roll-frame identifer (on the back). Conventional B&W negs are very stable if

processed correctly, but color negs benefit a lot from low humidity, low temp, dark

conditions.

A tip on the Domke bags: you can speed up the softening of the bag by giving it a

wash. This removes the sizing in the fabric that makes it stiff. Alternatively, just rain

and sweat will soften them with time. Another tip: vacuum the bags on the inside

occasional, because they accumulate dust and grit just where you don't want it.

I have and use them both. A few cautions with the F-5XB: The zipper is nice for

assuring things don't tumble out while traveling, but I find it does get in the way

when grabbing things out of the bag to shoot. I end up grating my fingers a lot on

the zipper, and my gear does scrape against the zipper often. The Velcro that secures

the flap does make quite a loud noise--not cool at a quiet concert, for example.

Finally, I prefer the fact that the F-803 strap runs all the way under the bag. The F-

5XB strap attaches to stitched-on rings on the sides. The F803 is deep, but I keep

rolls of film or other small bits in small padded bags under the lenses or bodies in

each slot. Both bags are nice, but they differ in how you access your gear.

The book of his behind-the-scenes film-making panoramas has been out since last

Fall. Published by Powerhouse Books in the US. Creative use of the Widelux, and nice

association with widescreen movie format. Up there with Michael Graffenreid's book

on Algeria as a classic of reportage-style panoramas, IMHO.

I agree with John that current ISO 400 color neg films are so fine-grained as to cover

most situations with good image quality. When I sometimes change films (to 100 or

1600) in mid-roll, I write the number of exposures on the leader of the partial film

with a marker pen, so I remember how far to advance the film when replaced in the

camera.

When I travel, I take 2 M bodies and load one with ISO 100 for all outdoor shooting,

one with ISO 400 or 800 for all indoor shooting. I find that I constantly alternate

between indoors and outdoors when touring a new place, and it's hard to anticipate

which film should be in the camera. I would be fine with just ISO 400, but the extra

quality of the slower film makes it worth it to carry the second body if possible.

You can avoid Newton rings by making an overlay mask from exposed & developed

(black) 6x6 or bigger film with a cut-out window for your 35mm frame. The idea is to

overlay your neg with a spacer to break contact with the condenser. You can cut it to

shape with a razor to fit in the Focomat neg holder, against the alignment pins. There

used to be a template for cutting these in the 1950's Leica Manuals from Morgan, as

a routine fix for the Focomats. You can basically follow the shape of the Focomat

negative holder. Much much cheaper than the anti-Newton glass accessory, even if

you can ever find one. Works just as well, too.

Here's my very cheap and non-destructive solution: make a tether out of high-test

fishing line. Wrap and melt-seal a loop above the base and below the finder to tightly

hold the line to the finder. Melt-seal a larger loop at the other end to slip-knot

around the strap or other convenient fixed spot. Even if the finder comes out of the

accessory shoe, the tether prevents it from falling. With the loop at the free end, you

can easily remove the finder without untying any knots or undoing any glue or tape.

You can decide how long you prefer the tether to be to stay out of your way yet do its

job.

My experience has been that Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) does a far better job

controlling the Nikon 4000 ED (I have one, too) than does the Nikon software.

Vuescan provides a variety of profiles for B&W negs that give you control over the

interpretation of the RAW scan (can also save a raw scan). I had great difficulty

controlling scans of B&W negs until I switched to Vuescan. It does a good job with

TriX (I usually use the "D-76, CI= .55" profile). You can test view different profiles on

the raw scan without re-scanning. I batch scan the entire roll at low res (500 ppi, 8-

bit, JPEG greyscale), make a Photoshop contact sheet from this, and scan only

selected ones at full 4000 ppi and 16-bit TIFF greyscale. My experience has been that

Vuescan sets the exposure and output of the scanner to capture the entire density

range for negs or slides, while the Nikon software always clips B&W or color

negatives, regardless of exposure or output settings. The Nikon software was fine for

the narrower range of slide film, but for me was never able to take advantage of the

Coolscan's terrific ability to scan negatives. Not sure why you think scanning takes

"too long." The Coolscan 4000 takes less than a minute for a full resolution single-

pass scan, and I scan an entire 36-exposure roll at low res in only about 15-20

minutes, once I lock the exposure from a preview scan. Maybe that's intolerable if

you're a pro on a schedule to crank out many photos, but if you're an amateur just

printing your favorites (like me), it doesn't get much easier unless you go digicam.

Check also that the lens release button is going all the way down. With the M2, which

does not have the guard ring around the button, vulcanite can chip off, lodge under

the button, and partially or fully block the release button movement. This happened

with my M2 a while ago.