Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello to all, Anyone has a N*k*n to Alpa adapter for sale? I'm a regular M3, M4P & SL user, but would like to have an extra long telephoto to be used on my Apla 9D on some occassions. Joe L. - ---------- > From: Leica Users digest <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > To: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] Leica Users digest V7 #12 > Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 12:01 AM > > > Leica Users digest Friday, February 19 1999 Volume 07 : Number 012 > > Topics in this digest: > [Off topic] Darkroom Survey Response > Domke bags > 4 Leica & tri-X > Drying Marks > 3 now:B&W photography > 2 Drying marks > 2 "Darkroom Cookbook" > RE: [Leica] Film reels (was: B&W film (long)) > RE: those movies > another oxymoron > My M purse (quite long) > RE: RE: Photoflo and plastic reels > 2 SPR: OFF-TOPIC > Leica Abuse! > WTB 21mm f2.8 M Aspheric lens > FS Leica Leather > R 19mm Old v. New > Identity of Leitz Easel? > Items for Sale > Delta 3200 > Re: "An Anthropologist on Mars" > 2 now:B&W photographynot Titalic > 2 RE: [Leica]now:B&W photography > photoflo suggestions > 2 long lens tests > fs: friday > Film, Cameras, Customs & France & Arrogance > Film reels (was: B&W film (long)) > 2 Elmar C 90mm > RE: Tri-X and Kodak vs Ilford? > was Tri-X vs Ilford?now:Tmax fixing. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:47:20 -0800 > From: "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] [Off topic] Darkroom Survey Response > > Might as well add me to the list - for a while I felt guilty about not > responding, so I didn't add my .02 worth. > > I've done all my own B&W for 25 years. I currently have a darkroom that is > about 7'x7' with a 6' sink. Enlarger is a Saunders 6700 that I bought when I > had a previous darkroom where size was a major issue. Nikon 50mm 2.8 and > 80mm 4.0. Kinderman stainless tanks and reels after playing around with just > about everything else out there. I was a devoted Tri-X user for over 20 > years but have recently (and after a tremendous amount of consternation) > switched to primarily Ilford HP5 usually developed in ID-11 if I've > remembered to mix it up ahead of time or in Ifosol-S if I haven't. I also go > through periods where I use Edwal FG-7 a lot. I use a lot of different > papers, but use fiber double weight for everything except contact sheets. I > selenium tone most prints and mount them with an ancient Seal dry-mounting > press. Leica rangefinders (2 M6's and an M2, with 21mm, 28mm, 35mm Summilux, > 50mm Summicron, Noctilux, and 90 Summicron) and my beloved (but old) Rollei > 2.8F TLR. I will confess to periods of several years each involving Nikons, > Hasselbalds, Leica R, and Olympus OM's. Always come back to the Leica M's > and the Rollei TLR, though. When I travel I usually take everything along > with a Gitzo 226, Leica tabletop tripod and ole Leitz large ball head as > well as a Sekonic L-408 and an old L-398. I always liked the fact that with > the 398 and Leica you can be completely independent of batteries. > > > Bryan > - -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Colburn <jc60714@navix.net> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 2:10 PM > Subject: [Leica] [Off topic] Darkroom Survey Response > > > >Hello- > > May as well add me to the list. Enlarger is a Frankenstein creation, I > >think it started as a Vivitar. I got tired of the vibration, so I replaced > >the column with a piece of hydraulic shaft. Got tired of the head, > >replaced it with a Beseler, IIRC. Then the base wasn't to my satisfaction > >so I replaced it. Lenses are various El-Nikkors. There is also a 4x5 > >enlarger of unknown origin in a state of disassembly in one corner. > > Tanks and reels are a twenty-year accumulation of assorted stainless > >steel. Easel is a 4-bladed homemade result of frustration with a factory > >easel. > > Most of the B&W film I shoot (this month, at least!) is Techpan or HP5+. > >Developers on hand are HC-110 and Microdol. Papers are Ilford (and a > >shrinking hoard of carefully stored Oriental-glad its back!) This may all > >change, I am going to pick up some TMZ and TMax developer tomorrow, and try > >Eric's technique for TMZ @ 6400... > >Jim Colburn > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:54:51 -0800 > From: "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Domke bags > > Does anyone besides me remember that about 10-12 years ago Domke made a bag > specifically for Leica M cameras? I don't think it had a designation number, > but was called the "M" bag. I bought one from Camera One in Florida and > still have it. I've never seen it in any Domke catalog and it's different > than any other Domke model. It's actually a very well designed bag. It will > hold two M bodies and 2-4 lenses as well as a a dozen or so rolls of film. > Mine is grey with khaki trim and has a large "Domke" label sewn in the back. > > Bryan > - -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Feldman <brucef@waw.pdi.net> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 4:11 PM > Subject: [Leica] Domke bags > > > >I used the F-802 Reporters Satchel for several years, and now have the > F-806 > >Bureau Chief Satchel. Real improvement. Yes, the padding isn't that great > >and the sections are too flexible, but it's better than the 802, except for > >the bottom panel. (Don't drop the bag on the floor. By doing that I bent > >the take-up spool knob on my M4-P inside and had to bend it back again > while > >sweating about whether it would break. Fortunately, it didn't.) > > > >Unlike the 802, the 806 has a free-swinging, detachable strap that doesn't > >get twisted and can be replaced. Like the 802 it doesn't look like a > camera > >bag. Recently, on a trip home to Philadelphia, I had in there my laptop, > >M4-P, two lenses, and Nikon FM2n and lens with room to spare. > > > >Old Adam Domke was a staff photographer on the Philadelphia Evening > Bulletin > >before it went broke. I think he must really know his stuff. > > > > Regards, > >Bruce Feldman > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:09:59 -0500 > From: Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica & tri-X > > At 04:40 PM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > >Hi gang, > > > >I'll just use Tri-x on a shoot or two and look at what the results are, if > >they aren't any worse than what the film and developer looked like from 37 > >years ago I'm going to look pretty damn good. :) Let me assure you, I doubt > >it's going to look worse than T-Max in T-max developer! > > > >After all these years I may just switch back! > > > >Let you know. :) > >ted > > > > ted - > > I have been going through exactly the same feelings as I scan some of my > old negatives. I'm very tempted to go back to Tri-x; however, I do end up > pushing a lot of the 400 to 800 and TMax does push better than Tri-x. > Tri-x tends to look better at 250 - 300. I'll just have to try Tri-x again > with my fastest lenses :-) I took about half Tri-x to the Czech > Republic but haven't had a chance to look at that yet. Have you tried the > XTol developer? I like it better than TMax. > > Leically, > > Tina > > > Tina Manley, ASMP > > http://www.charweb.org/arts/open/tinamanley > http://www.photogs.com/manley/index.html > http://www.pomegranates.com/frame/manley/index.html > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:18:02 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Drying Marks > > "Anderson, Ferrel" wrote: > > > > Martin: > > > > I eradicated drying marks on negative strips by making three, consecutive > > one minute rinses in distilled water at the end of the washing step.snip > > Ferrel Anderson > > What does " three, consecutive one minute rinses in distilled water at > the end of the washing step." mean? > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:14:25 EST > From: RBedw51767@aol.com > Subject: Re: [Leica]now:B&W photography > > Mark: > > It is really scarry.. I find myself agreeing with you much too often! Has > nothing to do with you as I don't really enjoy agreeing with anyone > frequently. My wife will agree, I'm sure! As for Titanic I have not seen it > because I knew I would end up puking. Not really interested in puking! > > Bob Bedwell > > << Mark Rabiner wrote: > <snip>Titanic made me puke. I think Linda Hamilton knows something. > Terminators' were great though. Titanic made me more than puke, I am > ready to join discussion groups to sit around and creatively badmouth it > in my spare time.<snip> > > Kind of like we do here? Still the cinematography of Titianic IMO was > better. > > Peter K > >> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:13:39 -0500 > From: Bill Welch <welch@pressroom.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Drying marks > > Martin, Sorry I'm late catching up with your discussion. Here are my > suggestions: > If you are using Kodak Photo-Flo, I suggest you use half their > recommended amount of solution in water, or less. As Michael said, more is > definitely not better. Film scum seems to accumulate from too much > solution. I prefer the alternative wetting agent sold by Edwal, with the > minimal recommended solution per liter, or one drop. > Also, your five minute soak strikes me as excessive. I just dip the film > in for 10 or 15 seconds, then remove it. This is a surface wetting agent, > so I see no purpose in a long soak. Then, I hang the negatives directly in > my film dryer. I do not like to squeege film if I can avoid it. > I do not agitate. Agitation creates foam. Foam and bubbles are what you > do not want on your negatives. > I use filtered water for most other solutions, but I mix the wetting agent > in distilled water and have had no difficulty I can trace to the water. > I'd like that final bath to be as pure as you can get it, since what's left > behind will be stuck to your film. That's my opinion, anyway. Good luck. > > Bill > > > At 12:50 PM 2/18/99 +0100, you wrote: > >In any case, the problem I have is that I'm getting drying marks on my > >films, despite precautions. I use a wetting agent in the last rinse, > >with the right dilution, and let it sit in the water for about five > >minutes. ... > >Still, I keep on getting little white marks on the film. What am I > >doing wrong? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:49:48 -0500 > From: Bill Welch <welch@pressroom.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Drying marks > > Martin, I'd suggest you try a couple changes in your methods. > If you are using Kodak Photo-Flo, I suggest you use half their > recommended amount of solution in water. The film scum seems to accumulate > from too much solution. I prefer the alternative wetting agent sold by > Edwal, with the minimal recommended solution per liter. > Also, your five minute soak strikes me as excessive. I just dip the film > in for 10 or 15 seconds, then remove it. This is a surface wetting agent, > so I see no purpose in a long soak. Then, I hang the negatives directly in > my film dryer. I do not like to squeege film if I can avoid it. > I also do not agitate. Agitation creates foam. Foam and bubbles are what > you do not want on your negatives. > I mix the solution in distilled water exclusively. Tap water, even > filtered, will still contain some minerals and other impurities. Even if > you're using unfiltered water to wash, I'd like that final bath to be as > pure as you can get it, since what's left behind will be stuck to your > film. That's my opinion, anyway. Good luck. > > Bill > > > At 12:50 PM 2/18/99 +0100, you wrote: > >In any case, the problem I have is that I'm getting drying marks on my > >films, despite precautions. I use a wetting agent in the last rinse, > >with the right dilution, and let it sit in the water for about five > >minutes. ... > >Still, I keep on getting little white marks on the film. What am I > >doing wrong? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:23:18 -0500 > From: Bill Welch <welch@pressroom.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] "Darkroom Cookbook" > > Nathan, those appear to be a confusion of the two books. I have both right > by my desk here. The newer one, which I suggested is helpful for those > interested in exploring and undestanding black and white film development, > is this one: > "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell and Troop, Focal Press, 1998. To > get more specific, its ISBN is: 0-240-80277-2. > > The publisher is a subsidiary of Butterworth-Heinemann, with a website at: > www.bh.com. > > The older book is "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Anchell alone. Publisher is > the same. Pub date 1994. > > Bill > > > > At 08:17 AM 2/18/99 +0100, you wrote: > >Hi y'all > > > >Inspired by the mention of this book I went to the Internet Bookshop > >site and found two books: > > > >Anchell & Troop, "Darkroom Cookbook v.2", Focal Press, Dec. 1998 (UK > >edition), spiralbound > > > >and > > > >Anchell, "The Darkroom Cookbook; Film Developing", Focal Press, Dec. > >1998 (U.S. edition), paperback. > > > >Does anyone know whether this is in fact the same book? > > > >Nathan > > > >-- > >Nathan Wajsman > >Overijse, Belgium > > > >Photography page: http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html > >Motorcycle page: > >http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:54:30 -0500 > From: Bill Welch <welch@pressroom.com> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Film reels (was: B&W film (long)) > > At 11:16 AM 2/18/99 -0500, you wrote: > >How do people put their film through the photoflo once it is off the reels. > >I find it difficult to handle. > > > I don't have any trouble dipping the Hewes reels in the photoflow and then > rinsing them later with hot water. But if I'm using plastic jobo reels, I > pop them open and let the film fall gently into a sheet-film developing > tank filled with distilled water and Edwal wetting agent. Out after a few > seconds. > > Bill > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:19:02 EST > From: RBedw51767@aol.com > Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: those movies > > Jim: > > Just wanted you to know that they are showing reruns of Debbie Does Dallas, > West to East on Delta. It would be my luck to get Debbie Does Nothing. > > Don't forget to take your M3 with a Nocto! > > Smiles > Bob Bedwell > > << unless at 35 thousand feet over the Atlantic. And then, I may sleep > instead. >> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:22:55 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] another oxymoron > > Jim Brick wrote: > > > > At 12:22 PM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >Woody Harrelson can act!! > > > > >Mark Rabiner > > Yes I did and if you see his sceane in Thin Red Line or whatever it's > called you might be impressed. Also the leading role in the stupedous Hi > Low Country that came out two weeks ago, a western. I might be tempted > to avoid people who did not like this particular flick. Not that I feel > strongly about it or anything. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:35:26 -0800 > From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com> > Subject: [Leica] My M purse (quite long) > > I get a catalog called "Back Saver". I have a bad lower back problem > (currently getting cortisone injections between L4 & L5) and a couple of > years ago I bought a back recliner chair, and a "back saver" shoulder bag > from them. The bag is leather, large, black, and looks like a rather large, > very soft, leather purse, with a full length zipper across the top. I put a > stretchy, well padded, non-slip, camera bag strap (Optech I think) on it as > the strap that came with it was somewhat hokey. The purse has large "D" > rings for strap attachment. I carry this bag as my > briefcase/purse/whatever... The inside is divided long ways so you can put > a laptop on one side and papers/folders/notebooks... on the other. > > I bought two Billingham tall inserts. These are"two holers", eg; double, > two pockets, two holes. My wife disconnected one side of the center > dividing cross piece in one of the inserts and sewed it into the corner > giving me, still two pockets, but a large triangle-like shaped pocket and a > small triangle shaped pocket. Draw what I just said and you will see what I > mean. > > She then sewed a piece of cloth on the bottom of both the modified and > unmodified inserts. This keeps things like lens caps and other small things > from moving from one pocket to the other, or out into the bag away from the > insert. Even though this bag has a built-in foam bottom, I put a piece of > close cell foam (1/4" thick) in the bottom of each pocket. > > Since these are Billingham inserts, they have Velcro around the outside. I > put the opposite type (hook or loop) in my bag, on the front side of the > divider, and then placed these Billingham inserts into the bag, secured > from moving around, by this Velcro. > > My M6 with 35/1.4 ASPH and TA Winder attached, fits vertically into the > large triangular shaped pocket. Rolls of film fit exactly into the very > small triangular pocket. My 75/1.4 fits into the first (next to the camera) > unmodified insert pocket. My 50 DR Summicron fits lens cap down into the > last pocket. My 24/2.8 ASPH sits base down (plastic rear cap to plastic > rear cap) on top of the 50 DR. The 35/1.4 ASPH lens hood resides on top of > the 75/1.4 in its pocket (plenty of room). The 24 and 50 have their shades > attached. > > On the other side of the divider, I carry papers, magazines, notebook (not > computer), etc. A zipper pocket inside holds miscellaneous small stuff. An > outside end pocket holds my phone. An outside side pocket on one side > (front - camera side) holds my Palm III, and an identical side pocket along > the back holds receipts, coupons, various notes and papers (flat stuff.) > You know... the stuff that seems to accumulate and multiply on its own. > > This bag is completely anonymous looking. And I carry it everywhere, like a > purse. It is a purse. With reading material, notebook, needed papers, etc, > and a complete M6 kit enclosed. > > It's not like carrying a "camera bag". It's like carrying a purse. I love it! > > Jim > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:39:30 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica]now:B&W photography > > Michael Garmisa wrote: > > > > At 02:35 PM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > > >I have not seen Pi, any good? > > I would say its a love it or hate it movie... I think its out on video now. > > -- > > Michael Garmisa <elmar@nyct.net> > > NO ARCHIVE > > I walked out in the middle with my wife. Not quite as annoying as "The > Countess from Hong Kong" but close. An insult to anyones intelligence. > They should have used at least one consultant. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:24:13 -0500 > From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: RE: Photoflo and plastic reels > > At 11:55 PM 1999-02-18 +0100, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > >I have been using my plastic reels for about 12-13 years, and I have > always used > >Photoflo, pouring it into the tank with the film on the reel inside. > Afterwards, > >I just rinse the reels thoroughly, no detergents or soaps of any kind. I have > >never noticed any problems whatsoever with Photoflo contamination. > > Right on, brother! I currently use NOTHING but Hewes reels and Kindermann > tanks but I have an old Yankee tank which was souped with Photo-Flo from > '61 to '88 with regularity. I have used it within the past year (127 film, > and I DO have a metal 127 reel, but I had two to do at the same time!), > and, lo!, nary a worry. > > I suspect this is Jobo sales-stuff. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:31:29 -0500 > From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> > Subject: [Leica] SPR: OFF-TOPIC > > At 02:27 PM 1999-02-18 -0800, Peter Kotsanedelis wrote: > >It sucked! Spielberg needs to go back to lighter movies. Something with a > >storyline. SPR was fabrication in the biggest sense except for the first 30 > >minutes which I assume close to accurate considering the expert consultants > >he had for the movie. Its just that I find it entirely unecessary to > >subject an audience to 30 mins of it when 5 would do. But that would make > >for a shorted movie and Spielberg likes them long winded.... > > Peter > > I am stunned by this. If you guys would change the subj: line, I'd key > into these threads earlier. DAMN IT: CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN THE > THREAD DRIFTS. This isn't rocket science, and you guys are all MENSA > candidates, or you'd not be shooting Leica, now, would you? > > I am on the WWII-L. The veterans were horrifically impressed by SAVING > PRIVATE RYAN and hate THE THIN RED LINE. Me? I'm a retired light colonel, > but no one ever fired at my sacred body, so what do I know? But I feel > that SPR is worthy of great respect, the exact opposite to the feeling I > have for that fallacious LIST flick he made. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:48:10 -0800 > From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Abuse! > > Henning wrote: > > >>From the edge of the RAIN forest (moss covered). Vancouver, BC.>>>>> > > Henning old buddy, :) > > If you guys are at the edge of the rain forest, we gotta be right in the > miuddle! :) > > I've got moss growing everywhere and the R8 and R7's now have a "Safari > Look!" Only they appear more "jungle green growth look!" :) > > Now you being an architectural photographer and knowing all that building > stuff,how good are you at building boats, like an Ark? :) Of course we'd > have to have a "red dot" Ark or it'll never float! :) > ted > > Ted Grant > This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. > http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:47:26 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica & tri-X > > Ted Grant wrote: > > > > Hi gang, > > > > Leica, Tri-X and D23 or D76 developer. > > > snip > > > > Tri-x 37 years later! ...... heck older than many LUG folks!:) I'm > > surprised at how good the images look, how well the negatives have kept and > > most surprised "Why did I ever switch to T-max 400?" > > > > The early Tri-x has a smoother fine grained look to it over what I see from > > the past 12-15 years of using t-max 400 processed with T-max developer. Not > snip > > At the time the film was developed in D23 (which were measured powders and > > mixed ourselves as it was required) or D76 1:1 Also in powder form to make > > one gallon amounts. > > snip > > I used D23 1:1 for several years but didn't shoot much trix than because > it didn't work very well with trix for me. I felt Trix kept asking me > for some Hydroquione please. When I gave it some using a slightly > different and more D76 like formula it was much happier! I called that > formula "Rabinol" and used it for years. It worked well with Pan x as > well as Tri x. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:59:00 -0500 > From: Harry Haige <haige@compuserve.com> > Subject: [Leica] WTB 21mm f2.8 M Aspheric lens > > Would like to buy recent version in nice condition. > > Can pay cash or offer 28mm Minolta M with Leitz black metal 28mm finder, > 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit, or just-serviced-by-Sherry M3 in part trade. > > Harry > haige@compuserve.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:59:06 -0500 > From: Harry Haige <haige@compuserve.com> > Subject: [Leica] FS Leica Leather > > I have several old brown leather cases for the M cameras in varying > condition up to mint. Some will accomodate a meter and bugeyes. Also, > several brown leather lens cases, #s 1, 3, and 13, all mint. Also, a > couple of the wonderful old Benser cases with various inserts for Leica M + > lenses, etc., up to mint. These cases are hard brown leather with red > felt lining and make 100% use of their interior space, affording immediate > access to their contents. > > Harry > haige@compuserve.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:01:05 +0000 > From: Joe Berenbaum <joe-b@dircon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [Leica] R 19mm Old v. New > > At 06:57 PM 2/18/99 +0000, you wrote: > >One characteristic of the earlier 19mm is that a filter cannot be > >attached. In fact, the factory literature of the day noted that > >filter use with this lens was not recommended - despite the > >incorporation of filter threading. My own limited experimentation > >resulted in the filter glass touching the font element of the lens. > > > >However, Lee now has a 4"x4" resin filter holder that I'm going to > >try out as soon as I get a chance to cart the lens over to the supply > >shop. I would use filters for color correction under fluorescent > >lighting. > > > >Roy > > There is a B+W filter that fits without touching the front element or > vignetting, made by B+W and it is the wideangle version of whatever screw > thread it is at the front of the lens (I can't remember and don't have > anything nearby to remind me). It is in the back of the B+W catalogue (at > least it is in my old one). Osterloh mentions this filter in his book on > the Leica reflex system. Then you have two choices; you either get the > separate filter/s you need, or you get the holder that is efffectively the > same thing but with a screw-in ring that holds the glass in place and a few > different glass filters to put in it. This does actually work. I tried a > Lee holder and it fouled up on the studs for the lens hood, but I don't > know if this was the same thing as described above. I haven't used this > lens enough to be able to comment on its performance. > > Joe Berenbaum > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:24:24 -0500 > From: Harry Haige <haige@compuserve.com> > Subject: [Leica] Identity of Leitz Easel? > > Hello darkroom enthusiasts, > > I have an old Leitz 8x10" wood easel and wonder if anybody can tell me the > application for this particular variant. The wood base is the usual > 12x14x1" size. The underside is flat, without the pairs of raised ribs and > dovetail grooves of the clamping version. Along the left and front edges > metal strips are inlaid into the underside of the wood, protruding outward > by about 0.1" then turning up for about 0.1". I.e., looking like an _| > extending out from the bottom edge. Was this part of some apparatus? Just > curious. > > Harry > haige@compuserve.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:12:34 -0500 > From: "Paul T. Collura" <pcollura@epix.net> > Subject: [Leica] Items for Sale > > I still have the following for sale which are being reduced in price to > encourage offers: > > 1) 50mm Summicron-R #28655XX, Mint , in original box, $300.00 > 2) 28mm Elmarit- R #29205XX, Mint, in original box, lens shade > missing $625.00 > 3) Leica Extender-R 2X #31754XX Mint with warranty card intact, in > original box, $350.00 > 4) Tanron 80-200mmf2.8 ZOOM lens in Leica R mount, Mint, with case, > $375.00 > > If interested please contact me directly. > > Paul T. Collura > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:47:27 -0600 > From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Delta 3200 > > At 11:36 AM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > > >I partically liked the light in the Rob Calloway boxing shot. Noctilux? > > 35 Summilux R. Like I say, this lens is no slouch! :-) > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:48:25 -0600 > From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: "An Anthropologist on Mars" > > At 11:40 AM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > >The Man Who Mistook His Wifes Hat for a Lenscap. > > How about "The man who mistook his lenscap for a Krugerrand?" > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 99 23:40:19 -0500 > From: Mary & Stan Kephart <kephartol@att.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica]now:B&W photographynot Titalic > > Thanks, Guys, > > I didn't like "Titanic" either, but was afraid to admit it until tonight! > > M > > > > > >Mark: > > > >It is really scarry.. I find myself agreeing with you much too often! Has > >nothing to do with you as I don't really enjoy agreeing with anyone > >frequently. My wife will agree, I'm sure! As for Titanic I have not > >seen it > >because I knew I would end up puking. Not really interested in puking! > > > >Bob Bedwell > > > ><< Mark Rabiner wrote: > > <snip>Titanic made me puke. I think Linda Hamilton knows something. > > Terminators' were great though. Titanic made me more than puke, I am > > ready to join discussion groups to sit around and creatively badmouth it > > in my spare time.<snip> > > > > Kind of like we do here? Still the cinematography of Titianic IMO was > > better. > > > > Peter K > > >> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:55:08 -0600 > From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> > Subject: RE: [Leica]now:B&W photography > > At 01:16 PM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > >lets say the guys on Omaha Beach didn't have much time for a build-up. > > Ted, > > You're spot right on! It's time war movies stopped romanticizing it. > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:57:36 -0600 > From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> > Subject: RE: [Leica]now:B&W photography > > At 02:27 PM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > > Its just that I find it entirely unecessary to > >subject an audience to 30 mins of it when 5 would do. > > Better yet if they could be shorter for the soldiers! :-) > > The end of the story wasn't nearly as good. > > Hey, speaking of movies, what Supermodel is seen using an M6 to take > pictures of Anthony Hopkins? :-) > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:05:19 -0600 > From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica & tri-X > > At 09:09 PM 2/18/99 -0500, you wrote: > >I have been going through exactly the same feelings as I scan some of my > >old negatives. I'm very tempted to go back to Tri-x; however, I do end up > >pushing a lot of the 400 to 800 and TMax does push better than Tri-x. > > Ted and Tina. While you're waxing nostalgic, try TMax 400 with Press Maxx > developer. You get Tri-X tonality and TMax grain. Best of both worlds! > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:42:07 -0600 > From: "Gary and Dawn Klein" <gdklein@bytehead.com> > Subject: [Leica] photoflo suggestions > > On the topic of photoflo. > > I have always diluted this by using one half the amount that Kodak > specifies, as I have found my negs dry cleaner without those darned > deposits. I uses regular tap water for everthing except the photoflo. > > gck > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:46:27 -0600 > From: "Gary and Dawn Klein" <gdklein@bytehead.com> > Subject: [Leica] long lens tests > > Has anyone seen any test reports where they have tested the Canon, Nikon and > Leica 400mm f2.8 lenses side by side. I would think that would be an > interesting read. I sure would like to see how the new Leica lens stacks up > against the competition. > > gck > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:47:55 EST > From: Photovilla@aol.com > Subject: [Leica] fs: friday > > Leica "Ein Stuck" New, complete $4750 > Leica M6 HM TTL, new in box, $2145 (vs. retail $2295) > Leica M6 HM .85, Mint in box, complete $2395 > Leica M6 HM .85, Exc++ with strap. $2195 > Leica Minilux kit with watch, new, $595 > Leica Titanium Binoculars, 8x20BC, new $350 > 35f3.5 M Summaron, Exc+++ perf. glass #1272xxx, case $295 > 50f2.0 M Summicron, Mint-, with case/detach hood. $655 > 100f2.8 APO, R Elmarit, Macro, ROM, Mint in box, complete, $2150 > Leica R3 body, near Mint, beautiful, $300 > Leica IIIg body, Exc++ $1200 > G2 black kit, New/complete w/3 black lenses, case, etc. $2600 > > > Please email or call (212) 475-5660. All prices + shipping. thanks, > Rich > > ------------------------------ > > Date: 18 Feb 99 21:04:09 PST > From: Sieu Hoa <sieuhoa@netscape.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Film, Cameras, Customs & France & Arrogance > > Walt, > > According to what you said, I can deduce that you are living in Texas. > > Following the way you are reasoning, I can deduce that everybody living in > Texas is rude and arrogant. > > So ... as you are living in Texas, should I deduce that you are rude and > arrogant? Hopefully no. > > Regards, > > Sieu Hoa > > At 01:38 PM 2/18/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Why go to France? Just come to Texas, I'll introduce you to > >all the rudeness and arrogance you need, and the rooms are cheaper. > >Walt > > ____________________________________________________________________ > More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:20:46 -0700 > From: "John Poirier" <MJ.Patterson@nt.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Film reels (was: B&W film (long)) > > Well, Bob, I guess we both must be freaks because my experience (since > mid-seventies) has been the same as yours. As far as TMax is concerned, you > might consider the possibility that it is just plain ugly- especially the > 100. I've used truckloads of of 4x5 TMax 100 as a copy film, but wouldn't > be caught dead using it for landscapes. > (Of course, there are so many variables in processing and printing that > other freaks may well be getting beautiful results with the stuff.) > > John Poirier > > > >Damn, I learn something new everyday. I have been developing film since a > kid > >in the 50's and have used Photo-Flo on every roll. This is the first time > >that I have ever heard this. I must be doing a good job cleaning cleaning > my > >reels between use as I have never detected a problem of any kind. However, > >could this be the reason that I can't get Tmax to work for me? > > > >Bob Bedwell > > > ><< Photo Flo and other brands infiltrate in to the welds of the stainless > >steel > > reels and then pay out the next time you develop film and the chemical > >attacks > > the developer. Be sure to run the reels through the wife's dishwasher to > > remove the Photo Flo if you do dip the reels into PhotoFlo. > > > > DonjR43198@aol.com >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:22:47 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica]now:B&W photography > > Eric Welch wrote: > snip > > Hey, speaking of movies, what Supermodel is seen using an M6 to take > > pictures of Anthony Hopkins? :-) > > > > Eric Welch > snip > > Elle McPhershon(sic) in that flick with the bear and Alex Baldwin. The > bear would have killed those guys in 3 seconds. I liked the flick. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:24:42 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica]now:B&W photographynot Titalic > > Mary & Stan Kephart wrote: > snip > > >Bob Bedwell > snip > > > > > > Kind of like we do here? Still the cinematography of Titianic IMO was > > > better. > > > > > > Peter K > > > >> > They have a I hate the Titanic flick group. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:27:21 +1000 > From: Gareth Jolly <gareth.jolly@minters.com.au> > Subject: [Leica] Elmar C 90mm > > I'm thinking about buying an Elmar C 90mm for my M6. Besides the > obvious (i.e f4 vs f2.8) can any one tell me how an Elmar C compares to > an Elmarit? > > My natural inclination is to keep searching until I find an Elmarit because > f4 seems rather slow, but I'd appreciate any views. > > Thanks > Gareth Jolly > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:33:30 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] SPR: OFF-TOPIC > > I can't tell how annoyed people are getting on the off topic discussion > of movies but its my impression that most photographers wand to be > filmmakers and most filmmakers want to be photographers. Up the street > we have Gus Van Sant who has cameras to die for and a photobook out of > portraits which I think is great from Poloroid Negs. (of unrecognizable > celebs.) The list goes on. We are shooting with the camera innovative > for its use of movie film to shoot stills. There is a consistent cross > over. > I think of a film as a slide show played quickly with added soundtrack > and storyline. > Mark Rabiner > Portland > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:31:35 +0100 > From: Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be> > Subject: Re: [Leica] "Darkroom Cookbook" > > Bill, > > Thanks. I ordered the Anchell and Troop book from the Internet Bookshop (cannot see > ISBNs on the web site), hoping it is the right one. > > Nathan > > Bill Welch wrote: > > > Nathan, those appear to be a confusion of the two books. I have both right > > by my desk here. The newer one, which I suggested is helpful for those > > interested in exploring and undestanding black and white film development, > > is this one: > > "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell and Troop, Focal Press, 1998. To > > get more specific, its ISBN is: 0-240-80277-2. > > > > The publisher is a subsidiary of Butterworth-Heinemann, with a website at: > > www.bh.com. > > > > The older book is "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Anchell alone. Publisher is > > the same. Pub date 1994. > > > > Bill > > > > - -- > Nathan Wajsman > Overijse, Belgium > > Photography page: http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html > Motorcycle page: http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:36:55 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Tri-X and Kodak vs Ilford? > > Robert Hudyma wrote: > snip > > The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even > > if a stubborn one. - Albert Einstein > > No wonder his socks didn't match. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:56:12 -0800 > From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Elmar C 90mm > > Gareth Jolly wrote: > > > > I'm thinking about buying an Elmar C 90mm for my M6. Besides the > > obvious (i.e. f4 vs f2.8) can any one tell me how an Elmar C compares to > > an Elmarit? > > > > My natural inclination is to keep searching until I find an Elmarit because > > f4 seems rather slow, but I'd appreciate any views. > > > > Thanks > > Gareth Jolly > > You should check with Erwin Puts because I recall him saying they were > similar. The speed would not be an issue for me personally but I do > think the newer 2.8 lens is worth it. Some French magazine a year or two > back practically saying it's THE great lens in the history of optics. > Mr. Puts saying however the brand new Summicaron Apo ASPH leaving the > 2.8 in the dust and that is by far not a direct quote. Check out his > stuff it is first on the list on the Leica official site of Links of interest. > Mark Rabiner > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:11:46 -0800 > From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com> > Subject: [Leica] was Tri-X vs Ilford?now:Tmax fixing. > > Mark Rabiner wrote: > > >Getting the pink out of TMax is no picnic. In my experience, contrary to > >yours if you didn't fix it out it wouldn't wash out and it did show up > >in the printing. You had to fix it in rapid fix no hardener till the > >cows come home.>>>>>>> > > Hi Mark, > > I have used T-Max since it arrived on the market and without a doubt it > takes longer to "fix to clear film" than any other. Even Kodak make > mention of it in their information sheets and also Tmax exhausts the fix > life faster than tri-x or Ilford. > > I use Rapid fix all the time and fined it requires good agitation and a 3 > to 5 minutes to completely clear. > > If you find a slight pinky look still in the film after drying, Kodak have > suggested to leave your film on a light table whle turned on and this will, > "supposed to," clear the pink out. > > Can't say I've tried it. > ted > > > Ted Grant > This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. > http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:12:07 -0800 > From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica & tri-X > > Eric wrote: > > >Ted and Tina. While you're waxing nostalgic, try TMax 400 with Press Maxx > >developer. You get Tri-X tonality and TMax grain. Best of both worlds! > > > Hi Eric, > > Thank you, I'll try it. > > What you gave me in your post was the word that describes the look of the > prints from the 37 year old Tri-X negs, "tonality!" Thats it in a nutshell. > The prints have the nicest tonal look to them compared to how the T-Max > prints look. > > Strange that it only took me 37 years to discover I had made some nice > negatives at one time.:) But then.... oh well never mind...:) > ted > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ted Grant > This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. > http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:12:14 -0800 > From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] long lens tests > > Gary wrote: > > >Has anyone seen any test reports where they have tested the Canon, Nikon and > >Leica 400mm f2.8 lenses side by side. I would think that would be an > >interesting read. I sure would like to see how the new Leica lens stacks up > >against the competition.>>>>>> > > Hi Gary, > > Sorry there isn't any competition! :) Leica 400 glass can't be touched by > either. :) OK so I'm bias, but I sure know what the Apo 400 2.8 produces > in transparency form, you have to handle them very carefully or you'll cut > your fingers they're so sharp, crisp etc etc etc. :) > ted > > Ted Grant > This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. > http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant > > ------------------------------ > > End of Leica Users digest V7 #12 > ******************************** >