[Leica] 24 x 36mm ?

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (TED GRANT)]

Hopy said:
Subject: RE: [Leica] 24 x 36mm ?

> Lew, in fact you are not going crazy. I see no problem with 
> spending a couple of minutes to satisfy curiosity either. Sorry 
> Ted, all
> knowledge is golden!<<<<<<<<<<

Hi Hoppy,
No argument! perfectly true.

However, if it were such that it was so large a difference it was affecting 
the results of the photograph, fine do a test. But this action, curiosity or 
not, is really not worth the time of day.

Certainly as we see Lew's later comments, enjoying peanuts and good scotch! 
:-)And a wonderful new Leica image size that surely will amaze the folks in 
Wetzlar! :-)

Not to mention the photographic folks of the world. :-) 

Hey Lew good on you lad as you've handled this hasseling from the old guy 
and others with a great attitude!:-)Besides you are not alone if we all 
confessed to similar things over the years. ;-)

ted





> But then I've been told more than once by LUG folk that I am VERY 
> detail oriented ;-)
> 
> >From neg samples here, widths of:
> 111c Width 36.84 mm     distinctly much tighter spacing
> M3 36.78mm      gaps visibly not quite as narrow as 111c
> M6 & M7 35.6mm
> The difference between the three is easily visible at arm's 
> length. I might speculate that the standard has altered over the long
> period to allow for ease of handling, for example. Certainly the 
> oldest camera is extremely precise.
> 
> So, on these examples the range is actually more than 3.5%
> Naturally, commercial printing or scanning will crop some of the 
> image anyway. Slide mounting of course does so too.
> Traditional paper sizes vary in proportions as well. 
> Imperial paper proportions vary from metric. (for example Letter 
> vs A4) 
> Standard machine prints from digital P&S cameras crop off quite a 
> bit, film based machines always cropped some anyway.
> 
> Printing recently from scanned slides, I've arrived at 11" x 16" 
> on 13" x 19" paper as being very efficient use of the scanned file
> proportions. Scanners have their own constraints too, dependant on 
> film holder.
> 
> Cheers
> Hoppy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org 
> [mailto:lug- Subject: RE: [Leica] 24 x 36mm ?
> 
> You're right; I'm getting the peanuts and Scotch as I write this. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+lew1716=optonline.net@leica-users.org
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 24 x 36mm ?
> 
> Lew said:<lew1716@optonline.net>
> > I'm just off to my darkroom to confirm something that's been 
> bothering 
> > me for a while. The standard 35mm full frame format is supposed 
> to be 
> > 24 x 36mm or 1:1.5. This should mean that I can print full frame 
> at 
> > 6x9", but (this is the part that's bugging me...) the images 
> from my 
> > Leica negatives never quite fit an opening of this size on my 
> easel. 
> > The only thing I can think of to explain this is that the Leica 
> negs 
> > just aren't exactly 24x36mm.
> > OCD acknowledged, other comments ...?<<<<<<<
> 
> Hi Lew,
> My instant reaction is....... You've got way too much time on your 
> hands if you have to waste time doing this
> kind of stuff instead of out shooting or other fun things.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you the easal may not be correct? 
> 
> I've printed hundreds of thousands of leica frames and full frame 
> always seems to be 9X6 or so damn close who
> cares!
> 
> relax, have a drink and get of the house and shoot some very cool 
> stuff!
> ted
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>