Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]David Prakel wrote: > > On 3/8/03 3:25 pm, "Martin Krieger" > <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> wrote: > > > 1.With the 19mm R, after the 5 meter mark I have no idea if I am in better > > focus there or at infinity for most of my "scenics" which begin say 20 feet > > or more in front of me. I use the grid screen (so perhaps I would do better > > with a split image etc screen?). Would I get sharper pix using an M/.58 with > > the 21 mm. Think in terms of very great enlargement, where one is trying to > > discern a particular detail. > > Martin > > The 19mm Elmarit has a massive depth of field even wide open however to > maximise depth of field I have worked out the hyperfocal distance for the > 19mm at various apertures: > > 2.8 4.3m > 4 3.0m > 5.6 2.1m > 8 1.5m > 11 1.1m > 16 0.8m > 22 0.5m > > This is based on a circle of least confusion of 0.03mm and thus based on > acceptable sharpness for a 10x8inch print. > > > > > 2. I am trying to understand the difference between the Kodachromes 64 and > > 200. I find the 200 to be more open and airy, so to speak, not blocking up > > shadowy areas, even more latitude in the highlights. Is this correct. I > > gather that the 200 is more magenta in its balance, and this deals with the > > overly blue (UV caused) images I get with 64. > > Also, and 81A seems not to be enough to deal with the blueness. What do > > you recommend. > > Personally I find that I cannot use K200 when the sun is out - it has a > steely blueness that I find very unattractive. If 81A is not enough go for > 81B or 81C. I hate to admit it but I've always shot through UV filter on all > my Leica lenses with the exception of the 19mm. Unless you are shooting at > altitude I wouldn't blame UV for the blueness in K200 - I've had the same > shooting in Egypt where Elitechrome 100 Extra Colour (I hate to say) produce > acceptable skies and sand whereas Kodachrome was toneless washed out sand > and grey skies (just like it was in reality!). > > -- > Regards > David Prakel > > Centre of Britain PhotoWorkshops Partnership > www.photopartners.co.uk > > -- Hi Dave! 1. Can I go there and eat Mutton and learn how to use my digital camera? 2. 4.3 M's at 2.8 are those meter? So that's like yards right? 3. Pro Photo here where I am is not carrying K200 in it's walk in anymore, it's where i get my film it's a shame i used to love the stuff. The first photographer I worked for Sjef Wildshut who shot the Jantzen swim ware catalogs for decades used to say Kodachrome was the only reason to own a 35mm camera. He used Leicaflex SL's by the way. And Balcar strobes. But mostly Hasselblads. 4. Until Fuji came in and made it nice I used an 81b for Ektachrome and 81a for Kodachrome. But the Fuji finally got Kodak to warm up their film. The old guy with the middle grey lab shirt, gown and tie got fired. Some gal with piercings came in and said "screw the middle grey warm the darn thing up!" And I used an 81 C often as well. I'm glad the films now have those filters built into them! Right next to the antihalation layer no doubt. Some companies have all kinds of names for their UV filter and what seems to be to be a stronger coating of yellow pinky stuff to really do smoothing other than shatter when the camera bumps against something. I have one left over from my Dad's Contarex bulls eye which apparently i can sell for almost a hundred dollars!. KR something I think. I think if i was a hundred miles up this filter might make it look like i was 90. An 81a 75. An 81b 60. That's my guess. 5. I don't wince when i see someone using a UV filter just as long as they are also using a lens shade. A bare naked UV filter or other filter flat out against the world seems like an invitation to ghosting and flare and any number of other things. Bad vibes. The heartbreak of psoriasis. I got neon skies from the jacked up Kodak slide film but strangely excellent skin tones which is what i was told to expect by other photographers. I had to make sure the sky did not get into the picture or it would look like we were in Las vagus. "A blue billboard honey! Or is that CYAN!???) I saw a slide show a few years back at a LHSA meeting and it made it clear what a 19 can do that the 21 can not. Get a lot more of the castle AND the moat plus a bit of the cherry orchard on the far left side. I am preparing to do a large expenditure mainly having to do what the digital thing a 14 and an 18. For my Leica N system. The 14 is massive. It gets your but in the picture unless you squeeze it together real hard. In high altitudes I'd use filters for color. On an SLR a Polaroid for sure. Its always good to get those Polaroids.!?! Edwin Land had over 500 patents - second only to Edison. Land won the Medal of freedom. Remember that when you put on those Polaroid sunglasses with the string coming out the front! K200 is much more grainy than K64 or course I'm not sure if there is or was a grainer color slide film in the last 10 years. And much contrastier making it pretty tricky to work with. Despite its grittyness which does not have to be a negative thing the skin tones are still Kodachrome. In otherwords the insurmountable bees knees best. I'll agree the films of the last 5 years might be better than Kodachrome trees, buildings and toaster ovens if they turned out to last half as long -- but the skin tones? Uh Uh. Are you sure you're film isn't green? It's green when it's too new....or too old i forget which i got spoiled by decades of pro films. We used to buy a brick, shoot a roll and if it was red or green take it back to try another brick. Shelf aged, that's what we get now. Typed out. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html