Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!

["Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com>]

As my 11 year old would say, "Duh, Arthur," almost anything can be
photographed with an f1.4 at EI 3200.  The point is that with a Noctilux you
don't have to use 3200.  You can get the same picture with a slower film
with much greater sharpness and improved tonality.  I was an enthusiastic
supporter of TMAX 3200 before my Noctilux days.  Beats the heck out of the
2475 Recording Film I used taking night football when I was on Yearbook in
High School in 1976.  (Now considered by Kodak to be a fine art product for
grain effects!)  Since joining the brotherhood of the NoctiLUX, I have only
once had to use B&W film faster than 400, and that was to push to 800 for
candlelight.  Interiors in museums and cathedrals in Europe were handled
nicely with E200 or Provia F pushed 1 stop.

You see, the unique thing about Noctilux photography is available light
photography with the clarity and tonality of 100 and 400 speed films.  And,
yes, I have tried Delta 3200, but was never impressed with it compared to
the TMAX P3200 emulsion, and definitely not compared to 400.  Same goes for
the 180 Summicron -- using 400 at f2.0 instead of 3200 at 3.4 or 4.0.

As to your second point, is the SummiLUX not also a LUXury?  When I was
Noctilux shopping, I found that used Noctiluxes (Noctili?) were only a few
hundred USD (~20%) more than used Summiluxes (Summili?) of similar age and
condition.

Tom Schofield

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <ARTHURWG@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!


> Like my nine-year-old says, "Duh." Henning, all that is SO obvious. The
point
> is that you'll have to show me a picture-- one that worth taking--  that
> couldn't be made with a 1.4 lens instread of a Noctilux, , both using
Delta
> 3200.  The second point is that the NoctiLUX  is a  LUXury now that film
is
> so much faster than it was in 1929. Arthur
>