Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Love that glow :-) On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > Here's a print over the internet! > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/daysout/050106_234300.jpg.html > or > http://tinyurl.com/83wkbmy > > - - from my iRabs. > Mark Rabiner > > >> From: Robert Meier <robertmeier at usjet.net> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:01:21 -0500 (CDT) >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: Back to film! >> >> Daniel, >> >> You make a good point about negatives being better than the scans made >> from >> them, and I would add, the prints made from negatives are better than the >> scans as well. This makes it impossible to compare things over the >> internet, >> since scans are all that we can show on the internet. You have to have >> the >> actual darkroom prints from negatives in your hands to see how good they >> can >> be. >> >> Robert >> >> On Jul 14, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Ridings wrote: >> >>> Well, we've brought up some of my cherished topics, Elmars and film, >>> the last few days. Mark mentioned the 90/4 (or, as another Marc would >>> protest 9cm f4.0 Elmar). So I pulled out one of mine. I was running a >>> roll of Kentmere 100 through the paces. I couldn't find suggested >>> times for Xtol, so I needed to see how my guesstimate would work out, >>> before I trusted it. >>> >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/12v28-1.jpg.html >>> >>> Somewhere in the settings, Vuescan or my LS-5000 thinks it is Jan 1, >>> 2012. All my scans get dated by that. I'm really going to have to >>> figure out where that is coming from. >>> >>> As long as I was running some film though, I added the 50/2.8 Elmar to >>> the brew (the old one, not the new very, very good one). >>> >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/12v28-2.jpg.html >>> >>> 1/30 @ 2.8 I bought that one from a LUGer, John Collier? Can't really >>> remember. It's been a few years ago now. >>> >>> Then I myself was curious about how the Summitar, also wide open, would >>> compare. >>> >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/12v28-4.jpg.html >>> >>> The Summitar is probably more know for its out of focus character >>> (won't really say "quality") than anything else. But I wanted a faster >>> lens for the LTM and if you can find one in decent shape (pretty >>> difficult task) they work just fine. The lens shade for my 50 >>> Summicron works on it, so I don't have to use the goofy barn-door one >>> designed for the lens. >>> >>> Here's the stuff. >>> >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/20120714-_DSC3839.jpg.ht >>> ml >>> >>> The IIIg 50 and 90 is a nice compact combo. I lost my 35mm viewfinder >>> in Oslo a couple of years back. It fell off the camera while I was >>> walking around on 17th of May celebrations. Kind of pained me. >>> >>> To be totally honest, I took some similar shots with my Nikon D300 and >>> consumer zoom, 24-85 3.5-?? ... and I have to admit, they're better >>> than the film scans. The negative might match the image from the D300, >>> but by the time you scan it, it loses out. :-( >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Chris Saganich <csaganich at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I have an ex pat friend in BK Th. Let me know if you go. >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Daniel Ridings <dlridings at >>>> gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tell me more, Jim. I feel there must be typo (wino?) in there. 32/4? I >>>>> don't mind the Contax/Nikon mount (as long as it fits a Kiev) but >>>>> 32/4? You compare with a 21 for Nikon or Contax. Are we talking about >>>>> a decent wide-angle? I have the 21/4 in Voigtlander (if it's color >>>>> Skopar or just Skopje, I don't remember ... decent lens). >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:28 PM, jshulman at judgecrater.com >>>>> <jshulman at judgecrater.com> wrote: >>>>>> Welcome back to your senses. My only recommendation is to get the 32/4 >>>>> Voigtlander land in Contax/NIKON mount. It's a sensational lens, and >>>>> likely outperforms the rare NIKON 21 or the vintage Contax 21. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>>>> From: "Phil Forrest" <photo.forrest at earthlink.net> >>>>>> Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2012 3:18 pm >>>>>> Subject: [Leica] Back to film! >>>>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> A few folks here are also members on RFF and may have followed a few >>>>>> of >>>>>> my threads there but I finally shuffled off the digital monkey a few >>>>>> days ago. >>>>>> I traded my M9 (which I had been trying to sell for a while) for a >>>>>> Nikon SP with titanium shutter and a good amount of cash. It was a >>>>>> good >>>>>> deal, I think. I got a *reliable* camera that is compatible with most >>>>>> of my lenses (I sold my Leica lenses and replaced them with RF >>>>>> Nikkors) >>>>>> and the new M9 owner got a camera he wanted. I still have my film M4, >>>>>> a >>>>>> beat up DR Summicron and my Super Angulon but I'm considering the sale >>>>>> of the latter to replace it with the 2.1cm Nikkor for the F mount with >>>>>> adapter. An excellent lens itself but much lower cost. >>>>>> I'm happy because I am no longer tethered to a wall socket to recharge >>>>>> batteries. Film doesn't have a slow buffer time. I can forget about my >>>>>> latent images on the roll for a while and not worry about filling up >>>>>> my >>>>>> limited storage media. It's just a good move. I'm not getting any >>>>>> photo >>>>>> business and I can't rationalize sitting on almost $5000 worth of >>>>>> camera that isn't making me money. >>>>>> It was kind of fun while it lasted even though the headaches of M9 >>>>>> unreliability (and the M8 before it) drove me nuts. I should have sold >>>>>> it a year ago. >>>>>> It's good to be back to film. It feels rebellious, actually. >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil Forrest >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> http://philipforrestphoto.wordpress.com/ >>>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Chris Saganich >>>> www.imagebrooklyn.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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