Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Sat Oct 28 08:50:47 2006
References: <000c01c6f9c8$5a3f9690$33031aac@luispersonal> <06CEB101-CB27-46ED-8E37-5459CCB0A39A@ncable.net.au> <4542C4E0.3080304@waltjohnson.com> <520ADF86-E4E0-4955-80D4-49B7248D2D9B@comcast.net> <45436736.9010005@waltjohnson.com> <A4E43932-33A2-4E4A-8859-1DF9C5162136@comcast.net>

The first time I shot Velvia was in the early 90's. It was on the  
bridge between El Paso and Juarez. Some fellow was getting ready to wade 
across the Rio Grande and had taken off his expensive boots. When I saw 
the results the darn things were so sharp and vivid I never shot it 
again. It looked too damned real! If I were going to shoot Mother Nature 
though it would be with Velvia.

Walt

Leonard Taupier wrote:

> Walt,
>
> You're lucky you still have Rodinal. I'm down to my last half bottle.  
> Even J and C never seems to have the older 09 formula in stock.
>
> I agree with you on scanned transparency photos. Since I shoot  
> outdoors in sunlight with high contrast Leica lenses, I find the  
> better films like Velvia are much too contrasty though. Kodak E100 is  
> much more natural and gives me beautiful prints. I don't shoot color  
> negatives any more. Not since developing and printing my own color in  
> the mid 80's. The work (and cost) was in the printing.  I don't mind  
> trying C-41 though. But I do get E-6 turn around in 24 hours. Very  
> handy.
>
> Len
>
> On Oct 28, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Walt Johnson wrote:
>
>> Len
>>
>> Right now I've a bag full of Fomapan 400 and a stockpile of  Rodinal. 
>> I can't really tell any difference between TX and HP5 and  if it were 
>> not so overpriced I'd shoot Bergger. It had been quite a  few years 
>> since shooting any E-6 film but recently I scanned a  transparency 
>> and it blew me away. They make fine monochromes for  those seeking 
>> details. I've tried to give up b&w film in favor of  C-41 and 
>> Photoshop but something keeps tugging at the back of my mind.
>>
>> For one thing, when I process my own b&w it is done right. Dropping  
>> my C-41 off  at a lab  always makes me nervous. Kodak's Ultra Color  
>> C-41 would almost make doing your own color neg processing  
>> worthwhile though since it is amazing film.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> Leonard Taupier wrote:
>>
>>> Have you tried an old style film like the Efke (Adox) KB25? I like  
>>> it  a lot even if you have to be careful how you handle it. I  
>>> always  preferred Panatomic-X and Plus-X to get the tonality in my  
>>> landscapes  and still life photos in the 60's. Currently I use  
>>> APX100 and Fuji  Acros 100 with X-tol. I still like my DR but when  
>>> a certain mood hits  I bring out the Efke and the collapsible  
>>> Summicron. My type of photo  never needed the speed or the grain  of 
>>> Tri-X. As film shooters we are  still very fortunate to have  these 
>>> choices. Film ain't dead yet.
>>>
>>> Len
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Walt Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've always labored under the assumption slower, thin emulsion   
>>>> films have steeper curves and consequently are higher contrast.  I  
>>>> wished it were possible to find some Tri-X circa 1970 because  
>>>> these  newer films really seem to lack depth. They  are certainly  
>>>> sharp as  hell and grainless but also toneless  compared to what  
>>>> once was. I  picked up a collapsible a few years back with the  
>>>> usual haze that  can be hard to see. Leitz redid it for me and  
>>>> image wise it  compares with my late model Summicron.
>>>> I sure can;t help but feel the look we all knew and loved  related  
>>>> to film and developer rather than lens characteristics.
>>>>
>>>> Walt
>>>>
>>>> Alastair Firkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, at last I can offer an opinion ;-) I have the collapsible    
>>>>> Summicron on my M3. It is a lens I choose above others when I  
>>>>> want  a  slightly 1960's feel to the result: using this lens  with 
>>>>> Plus   X like  film makes images I recognise, gives a  feeling 
>>>>> that is  different to  the more modern glass: I suppose  its 
>>>>> "softness" and  would suffer in  lens tests, but it would  have 
>>>>> been perfect for  your "grab" shot the  other day of the  two 
>>>>> people kissing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Others will prefer Tri X, but I never liked Tri X. Being a   
>>>>> contrary  bastard, I really disliked the high contrast grainy   
>>>>> images my peers  were making in the 1970's and therefore always   
>>>>> bought Plus X Pan ---  I use mainly APX 100 for the similar   
>>>>> feeling now.
>>>>>
>>>>> One down side to the lens is that the f stop ring is a bit  stiff  
>>>>> and  rotating it sometimes unlocks the barrel, but I'm  used to  
>>>>> that now.  One plus is that it can be used to pre-focus  with its  
>>>>> "tab" far more  easily (certainly than the DR  summicron which  
>>>>> lacks the tab) because  the focus ring is  "exposed" when the 
>>>>> lens  is "mounted" and easy to  feel without  looking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great lens in "some" ways and good travel companion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> On 27/10/2006, at 23:03, Luis Ripoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would appreciate your experienced opinions about the   
>>>>>> Collapsible  Summicron
>>>>>> 50mm. I had the "Rigid" Summicron, I've sold it because it  had   
>>>>>> fungus and
>>>>>> make a lot of haze, but I regret the nice richness of grey  
>>>>>> tones   that this
>>>>>> lens gave me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I have 3 lenses of 50 mm: Summicron model of the year   
>>>>>> 198/199...,
>>>>>> Summilux (1964), and the new Elmar. I'm looking for the  Collapsible
>>>>>> Summicron to have the "nostalgia" subtle tones of the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could I have some opinions about how it will compare with my   
>>>>>> actual  50mm
>>>>>> lenses (Summilux and Elmar)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance for your opinions and advice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saludos desde Barcelona
>>>>>> Luis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more  
>>>>>> information
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more  information
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
In reply to: Message from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Luis Ripoll) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)