alexander_rosser

In 1970 I bought a Leitz Focomat enlarger, and for an enlarging lens used a Summicron f/2.0 50mm. It unscrews and the lens part together with a Leitz adapter goes into the enlarger. I do remember years later some expert advising against using a camera lens as an enlarging lens as the heat of the lamp will damage the adhesives joining the lens elements together. "Except for Leitz lenses, they don't have that problem."

I would comment that that lens gave excellent results. F/2 for a nice bright image for framing etc. I usually used f/4 when exposing as the wider aperture gave exposure times too short to expose accurately, not because of lack of definition.

After 50 years it is still a very good enlarger, though I confess to being more digital these days.

I don't have a Monochrom (yet) but I'm sorely tempted. Not for technical reasons, but being constrained to B&W changes ones mind-set. One has to think mono from the start. And having the viewfinder show mono helps the process.

The Leica M8 is pretty sensitive to IR. Leica had to offer IR cut filters to those who complained that their blacks were magenta tinted.

 

Re lens markings. Few have an IR setting, I have a 50mm lens with the IR mark beside f2 on the DoF scale. That's the f2 on the infinity side of the scale. So having focused using normal light, shorten the distance by that amount. Elsewhere I've seen a recommendation to use the f5 mark.

Ron, did you get an IR filter for your old 'lux?

<p>I don't have a Monochrom, though I am contemplating getting one.</p>

<p>Apart from the motives put forward by others on this thread there are two additional reasons (for me anyway)<br>

1) If ones camera ONLY takes B&W, then you HAVE to think in B&W. Every scene needs to be evaluated in terms of composition and light/shade. Too easy to click and shoot in colour.</p>

<p>2) I am also a bit of a stargazer. The extra definition and ISO makes a big difference. Also, a star is a single point of light, so a well focussed lens will have that light hit a single pixel - red, green, or blue. Makes for pretty pictures, but quite unreal. Some astro-photographers defocus slightly so that several pixels, not just one, are exposed.<br>

<br />On the negative side, if the new Monochrom uses the same IR filter as on the M, then the Hydrogen Alpha line is reduced by 90%.<br>

<br />I don't think the Monochrom supports electronic triggering (needed to eliminate tripod shake and take multiple pics over several hours) or an external power supply (needed as batteries at low temperatures need frequent recharging)</p>

<p>Nick, have you considered dark ground viewing? Hold the neg. with the emulsion side toward you, a dark background (so that you can't see through the neg.) and shine a very bright light on the emulsion side (direct sun is excellent). Bingo, your negs are now positives, albiet mirror imaged.<br>

Cost? Nil!</p>

<p>Thanks guys for the feedback. I now know that it is not worth my while to pay $25 per year to be a subscriber, as I will still be swamped with flashing, intrusive, migraine-causing ads.<br>

Regrettably, it also means that my visits here will be infrequent as the content is very good.<br>

I am also a little surprised that photo.net receives over $25 PER MEMBER in ad revenue. Otherwise they would net more revenue by offering a "pay for no ads" option.<br>

Alex</p>

<p>Hi all<br>

This is really addressed to the moderator or to the photo.net management though other comments and advice would be welcome.<br>

I'm a newly registered member and I think the content of the site is excellent. However I'm one of those fuddy-duddies that have real problems with flashing ads - they give me a migraine. Somewhere it say that subscribers (i.e $25 per year) get "reduced" advertising. What does that mean? Virtually none, or just slightly less? Do all those garish flashing ads go away? Especially that one that starts with "Congratulations" (I couldn't read any further - it hurt my head.)<br>

Alex</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I'm a new registered member. The info content of photo.net looks great; however I find the intrusive ads quite off putting. If I subscribe ($25 per year) I am promised "reduced advertising" which is pretty meaningless. I would pefer zero advertising fo my money. What residual advertising is left?<br>

Can someone, preferably from in house, please give me a straight answer.\.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>LCL</p>