Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree, and I still have a darkroom, but I doubt that anything in the world, short of a war, would get me back into to. "Short of a war" ... my darkroom is in a bomb-shelter :-) When it comes to sharpness, I agree. But when it comes to prints with a good range of tones ... I personally can do better with digital prints than I can do with darkroom prints. When I was young and could spend a whole night's session producing 4 or 5 prints ... selenium toning and all, I could print well. Those still hold up. They're over 35 years old now and still look great. But my favorite paper (AGFA Portriga Rapid) is gone ... I just don't have it in me to go in there any more. I've found nothing that can compare with that paper. Inkjet prints can come pretty close, closer than I can do in the darkroom. Others can do it better, I'll grant that, but I can't. Don't have the patience anymore. I'm too social too. Thanks for your input! Daniel On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Robert Meier <robertmeier at usjet.net> wrote: > 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.html >> >> 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