Re: [Leica] It's not the "Leica" glow

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to try and educate me, but, I have to tell you
that I am a hopeless case when it comes to technical, complicated stuff
(fortunately for me, photography is not complicated). For many years I use
to race formula cars with the SCCA, and was pretty good, but change the
spark plugs, over my head. So I just accept my weaknesses and let others do
the things I can't (or don't want to) even if I have to pay to get it done.

Steve
Annapolis

http://www.streetphoto.net




 Steve-
> I have found that what is done in the darkroom is extremely important. To
> illustrate I have to recount a talk our local camera group made to a group
> in neighboring Winston-Salem.
> First, let me say that our group is an informal bunch that has only one
> 'formal' rule- we meet for breakfast every Wednesday morning at a local
> 'greasy spoon' pancake house, that has great coffee, and our regular
> waitress is a treasure. We have hand colorists, 4x5 enthusiasts, nature
> photographers, Leica nuts, and people who even use <<GACK>> Canons and
> Nikons!
> Our common love is B&W, so when we were asked by the group from Winston to
> give a presentation, we jumped at the chance! They are a wonderful bunch of
> people- about thirty of them, and all are enthusiasts, but primarily into
> color!
> We impressed them,needless to say, and enjoyed quite a lot of interest in
> our work.
> Now, to the meat of the matter. Since I am a person who uses a densitometer
> and an enlarging meter, I am really big into 'probes'!! (Despite the
> protestations of MArk 'The Rabid' Rabiner, I say it works for me!) and I
> explained that a piece of film can register an amazing range of scene
> brightness. I used the 21 step tablet that has 21 discrete steps of density,
> each one incresing by .15 density, and if you consider it as a 'negative'
> develope to a contrast index of 0.5, the it represents a range of 21 stops
> of brightness!!! The Log value of the brightness range is therefore 21X.3 or
> 7! That means that the range would be from a brightness of say 10 to the
> first to ten to the seventh or more simply- the brightest recordable object
> can be 10,000,000 brighter than the darkest!!
> No paper can record all these possible tones! It take quite a bit of talent
> to go into the darkroom, and either compress or expand the toines to fit the
> paper! Now, taking a densitometer to the paper, the reflection density of
> Ilford MC fiber pbased paper, the glossy, ranges from a white with a
> reflection density of about .15 to a black of about 2.8- no way a film
> recording a rang that is three time that can be easily printed on that
> paper!!
> Now, most scenes don't have 21 stops of brightness range, unless you are
> filming an A-bomb blast, and using SPF 1000 sunblock- so it isn't all that
> bad! The fact is, however, that film can be oversexposed drastically and
> still provide a usable printable negative.
> So exposing Plus -X at 64 instead of 125 is not a stretch- it moves the
> shadow density more into the linear portion of the response curve- even
> exposing it at ISO 32 would not be too drastic, especially if the
> development is 'pulled' a bit! Film, B&W film in particular, is capable of
> recording a very extreme range of scene brightness, but where the real magic
> is to be done, is to take that negative into the darkroom, or even into a
> scanner, and getting it translated into a print that gives the maximum
> amount of information possible considering the tonal limitations of paper!
> If you really want to see some rich tomes, look at some old 'lantern'
> slides- B&W transparencies... NOw there are some TONES!
>
> Dan
>> Mike,
>>
>> I have to agree with you 100%, ITPS (It's The Print Stupid). I am in the
>> unique position of being a fairly good photographer but do not have a clue
>> when it comes to doing lab work. And because for the past 20 years I have
>> been the Owner/Publisher/Editor of two monthly magazines I have had the
> same
>> Master Printer under contract to do all my work. (I would be in big
> trouble
>> without Dermott Hickey).
>>
>> I do think there is something to this Leica "Glow" thing, in part based on
>> Dermott seeing immediately on the light box something was different (the
>> "Glow") when a few years ago I started to shoot with Leicas in addition to
>> my Nikons. I have talked with Dermott about this and about all he would
> tell
>> me is that it is in his technique (it would be over my head anyway, so I
>> don't need to know). From conversations with me he had picked up on what I
>> liked, so he started making my prints with glow.
>>
>> Dermott has also said that with Leica lenses there really is a difference
>> apart from every other brand he has ever printed.
>>
>> Dermott has started a major project of printing archival photos for the US
>> Naval Academy. I can't wait to see some of those.
>>
>> Steve
>> Annapolis
>>
>