Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/07

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

Subject: [Leica] Don't push that film ...
From: daniel.ridings at edd.uio.no (Daniel Ridings)
Date: Sat May 7 23:44:29 2005
References: <BEA2F2DE.14BB4%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Mark Rabiner wrote:

>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/album08/05v18_0015
>>
>>And 35 years from now, she'll probably look like this:
>>
>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/album08/05v18_0014


> So you are underexposing these shots a stop?

Not consciously, Mark. That was the point of using a 1.4 lens ... to get 
an extra shutter speed _without_ under-exposing.

Do they look a stop under? I'm not an expert at this, so if they look a 
stop under, I'll start rating the film a little lower. This was 400Tmax 
rated at 400 and developed in Xtol. Xtol usually gives me full speed, 
that's why I went with a reading of 400. Mind you ... this is the 
morning breakfast table and the light changes a bit when it's cloudy 
outside with the wind blowing.

> I'm real fond of both of them especially the first one.
> An interesting example of subject matter just about all the zone VI range.
> The range of zone VI to zone VI! :)

Yeah, I looked at the negative and thought "How is _this_ going to 
look?" ... After a long dark winter, people in Sweden are as pale as the 
cabinets in the background (unless they've cooked themselves in UV-boxes 
... then they look grilled.)


> Sometimes a dirty blond can look like a brunette in under exposure.
> especially if its a strawberry dirty blond.
> But these are zone VII blonds perhaps.

Can't remember if it was before or after I followed they ammonia smell 
down they steps (happens when they do things to their hair). The 
youngest one does things to her hair about every two weeks.


> Was the lens the 1.2 Nikkor? Or 1.4?

It was the 1.4 Nikkor. Makes me want to start looking for a Summilux of 
the same vintage. Not that I'm a collector, but I feel we lose our 
perspective here at times. The New Summilux outshining the old Summilux 
(it probably most certainly does). BUT, in its day the old Summilux was 
a good match, if not better, than the old Nikkor. This old Nikkor is 
great, so the old Summilux must be too. I can afford one of those. I 
can't afford a new one. Even so, I'd be getting a great lens. ... 
Probably won't find one the price of a carton if cigarettes like the 
Nikkor, but still ...

Daniel

PS: Thanks for the encouraging comments about these and the square shot. 
It feels nice to hear them.

Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Don't push that film ...)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Don't push that film ...)