lutz

...and it's a third thing to assert that the joy of handling a perfect tool for your needs can be very liberating, inspire confidence and ultimately translate your efforts into what you envisioned.

Wise words, indeed.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6406605-lg.jpg"></center>

Well, now that it appears to have been safe enough on a short term experiment (I would *never* have risked to do that, without asking anybody knowledgable *beforehand*...), why should it be riskier on the long run? A bomb usually explodes the first time it's triggered, not thru wear an tear, or does it?

Samuel, your contributions are as informative as always and well documented, too. Thanks a lot!

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6334069-lg.jpg">

Ewan, with the asph version coma is much more contained. BTW, try <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003N7w">this link</a> for a comparison on bokeh.

Umut has it. It's particularly pronounced with the 35 lux pre-asph wide open and shows especially with strong highlights. Stop the lens down to f2 and it's practically gone.

Nicolas, thanks for the Constantine Manos link. Impressive work I wasn't aware of. Still, the most recent work shown there dates from 2003. So...?

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2597126-lg.jpg"></center>

Hmm, Simon... The 45/4 Fujinon being of excellent quality, corner to corner, I don't see the use of a 35/4 neg/slide which would need to be cropped in order to give the same pano ratio to about the equivalent of a, say, 40/4. Less neg space, no RF coupling, unwieldy set up... what gives?

...available <a href="http://www.konermann.net/photo/reportage/attrape_small_flash/index.htm">here</a>.<p>

If mouse over won't work for identification of the files, turn the "?" button on. As a last resort, close all other open tabs and toggle the URL bar of your browser off, to make space for the captions of the portrait oriented pics. Thanks for bearing with me. :-)

In Firefox the file names will appear when you mouse over the thumbs, plus you can switch on the captions (=file names) with the "?" button to the right. I understand that both can be awkward with the portrait oriented shots and screen sizes below 1000 pixels height. Sorry for that, I might have to shrink the pics for selection...<p>

Thanks for your two Euros, Peter. ;-) Now, a controlling idea might be "the public and the private", based on my observation, that a lot of energy is being pumped into the performance that needs to get restored in between shows/days. Don't know if that could work...

Hmm, it's working fine on my Mac with both Safari and Firefox. To start a slide show, hide the thumbnails or show the file names you would have to use the buttons on the lower right hand side of the screen. Thinking of it, on dial-up the loading of the mp3 audio file might take a while to complete, though... if the problem persists I might have to sacrifice that feature for now.

Volunteer editors are most welcome to counsel me on shrinking my <a

href="http://www.konermann.net/photo/reportage/attrape/index.htm">pre-selection</a>

of my coverage of a French Cabaret theater company rehearsing, performing and

living in around the Avignon theater festival in the south of France, earlier

this summer. The sequence presented has been selected for private use by the

company members from 15 rolls shot during a reportage workshop in Arles, guided

by French photo journalist Eric Bouvet. The order is strictly chronological for

now, covering four distinct days.<p>

The aim would be to downsize the lot to about a quarter or third, possibly

accompanied by a score assembled from their original tracks which I have

uploaded a sample of. But, anyway, I'm open to any kind of suggestions. You

might also just indicate your preferred dozen. Thanks in advance for your

inspirations! :-)

Thanks, Brian, for providing all these most inspiring details. As far as I understand, OFD has basically been sort of an "investment" - a very successful investment, artistically speaking, IMHO. Keep up the antithesis, and keep us posted! :-)

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6347088-lg.jpg"></center>

Very good work, Brian, and an excellent presentation. Congrats! <p>What I'd like you to share is the amount of time you invested in the coverage, i.e. how acquainted did you get with what was going to happen, and for how long did you accompany the firefighters? How did it all start, out of personal interest or was this a commissioned job?<p>

BTW, among the many fine pictures on your company website I really like the "Moments" gallery. Are those pictures on the site a group effort or all yours? Cheers, Lutz

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6334069-lg.jpg"><p><i>Saint, Avignon 2007</i></center>

You did what, Charles...?<p>

Thanks for your advice so far. The most thorough reply I got offline from Al Kaplan, one of the most knowledgable contributors here for years, who is still suspended from actively participating in the Leica Forum... ?-(<p>

"When Leitz marketed the rapid load kits they never sold very well. You still had to pull the spool half way out to zero the frame counter on the M3, and the film leader didn't always "grab" when it was pushed into the slot on the on the new slotted spool. When Kodak decided to make the film leader shorter it increased the problem. You really need to trim the leader like you would for a thread mount body, but it's still hit or miss. If the thing that fits on the baseplate doesn't push the film far enough the sprockets won't engage the film perforations.<p>

 

I bought two of the kits when Leitz decided they weren't selling and they closed them out for $12.50 each. After trying them for a few months I went back to the original spools. A couple of years ago I sold them on Ebay at a good profit. It was never as foolproof as M4 style loading.<p>

 

My advice would be to go back to just using the original spool."<p>

Moderators, when will Al be allowed back?

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6250528-lg.jpg"></center>

I'm new to the quickload spool for my M2 which failed on me recently not

advancing the film correctly: ... 36, 37, 38, 39 ... ouch! A whole roll of nice

pics superimposed with the roll not advancing as it should... :-(<p>

I had a closer look now, practicing a bit with blank film. Hmmm... It seems to

need some clever trick to make 100% sure the quickload spool will take the

beginning of the roll properly. Which are your tips, secret how-to's?

Hi John, well, why not? I think there's a number of interest groups which do not necessarily intersect. Shall I post it or will you? Philippe Bachelier is reliable source. He develops Sebastiao Salgado's negatives. The initiative has been his (since in view of his "Genesis" project Salgado regretted that B&W manufacturers were pulling out of the 220 market). Cheers.

Hello administrator, did you delete my earlier post re: ? If so, why?

Here's news from <a href="http://www.film220.com">www.film220.com</a>, Philippe

Bachelier's initiative:<p>

 

"Kodak is now decided to make TX400 in 220. There will be a batch of at least

20,000 rolls made by the end of the year. I will tell you more about that when I

have more information. You can tell this in the forums."<p>

Cheers.