Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter, Glad you enjoyed, but I would not want you to think that I could just crank out shots like that one at will. I had an idea what I wanted and shot three frames. Only one had the light source arranged to illuminate that tiny (2 - 3 cm.) bloom from the core. It was a question of the right film and light and the SL & 60/2.8 combo. Ultimately, the SL/60 and film saw much more than I did! :-) These were September light in Virginia. Often I get lucky with this rig, but fine grain film is a must. Tried the same experiment with Portra 400 VC last month in horrible light and the results were very disappointing. Thanks for your comment. William At 10:47 PM 2/2/2006 -0800, you wrote: >William: Oooh! Aaah! All three are good, but the middle one is a >*really* nice one! >--Peter > >At 07:24 AM 2/2/2006 -0800, "William G. Lamb, III" ><lambroving@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >http://gallery.leica-users.org/SL-Macro/LUG154?full=1 > >>Agree with Tina except that I prefer the 60/2.8 to the 100/2.8 for a less >>"clinical" rendition. The 60/2.8 also goes to 1:2 without the supplied >>extension for 1:1 and balances beautifully for hand-held shots on the SL. >>The 60/2.8 does a great job with textures. If you get hooked, fit a ground >>glass screen to your SL or other R camera.