M8 - macro with Tele Elmar 135

[luigi bertolotti]

I had already seen in this forum that someone is well satisfied with the Tele Elmar 135 used as a macro lens; today, to celebrate my first month with M8, I made my firs macro session in the home garden: the favorite rose of my wife (Braitwhaite... I'm not even sure the spelling is correct...). I used Visoflex II with vertical finder: forced to this for the prism cannot be mounted... but on the tripod is maybe better.
I tested two other lenses besides the TE: an old Summicron 90 head with proper focusing ring and extender, and the Elmar 65 (1st version chrome); it's unuseful to post the results to make comparisions : the TE wins by far. This is the M8/Viso/TE combo (pic taken with a phone...)
M8_Viso_TE.jpg

and three shots :
this is the famous (in my wife's mind) Braithwhaite: take with TE and no extension tube

Braitwhaitjpg.jpg

Both of these have been taken with the extension tube depicted in the M8 pic.

flower2jpg.jpg

flower3jpg.jpg

I still am not so smart in digital processing (not to speak of optimizing for posting...my jpgs are always too small...) : shots were RAW, ISO 160, no profile, auto WB, then Lightroom (3rd session of use) with a little sharpening and light temperature adjustment; I would be grateful to anyone who likes to give me impressions & advice... Lightroom seems to me very good, but is not yet clear in my mind which are the real useful functions for this kind of shots.
Thanks to all in advance.

[grober]

Well done. I especially like the last two shots! Photo #1 shows me again how difficult it is to capture a strong red in direct light with on either sensor or film.

Your shot make me regret selling my 135/4.0 only because I thought I'd have little use for it on the M8. Oh well ...

-g

[luigi bertolotti]

You said it : the deep red of the rose in #1 is not well rendered... I even tried some adjustment in Lightroom... but non really satisfying... with my wife that mingled "nah, the braithwaith is not THAT red...". So I don't dare to try a print... but am definitely satisfied for I can continue in trusting my old TE

[Artichoke]

I agree with you about the virtues of the 135 TE for macros
I use mine with bellows and the Viso mainly
it does do better than my 65 chrome, which I tend to use more with the "Universal" focusing ring, but I don't find the difference so great as to not use the 65
btw, I find getting the balance of red saturation and detail optimal in post processing always a trade off
for florals I always use an ir/cut filter with the M8, which I believe helps with color and to a lesser extent with details

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

I had already seen in this forum that someone is well satisfied with the Tele Elmar 135 used as a macro lens;{......}
I still am not so smart in digital processing (not to speak of optimizing for posting...my jpgs are always too small...) : shots were RAW, ISO 160, no profile, auto WB, then Lightroom (3rd session of use) with a little sharpening and light temperature adjustment; I would be grateful to anyone who likes to give me impressions & advice... Lightroom seems to me very good, but is not yet clear in my mind which are the real useful functions for this kind of shots.
Thanks to all in advance.

Hi!
That was me
I am indeed happy. As for post-processing, I personally find it a lot easier to use C1 and export to Photoshop Elements 5 as a TIFF file (CS3 is overkill imo) I have been trying to befriend Lightroom since its first beta, but I have to come to the conclusion that it is not for me. I simply don't "get"it I know 50% of the forum will disagree and 50% agree, but I think a properly profiled file from C1 is "better" than a Lightroom file.

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by Artichoke

I agree with you about the virtues of the 135 TE for macros
I use mine with bellows and the Viso mainly
it does do better than my 65 chrome, which I tend to use more with the "Universal" focusing ring, but I don't find the difference so great as to not use the 65
btw, I find getting the balance of red saturation and detail optimal in post processing always a trade off
for florals I always use an ir/cut filter with the M8, which I believe helps with color and to a lesser extent with details

Maybe this has been one of my errors in this session... I DID NOT mounted on the IR/UV... stupid, I have it brand new from Leica (the M8 "gift"... arrived 2 weeks only after registration !), I could at least try 2 identical shot filter on/filter off... was too busy to manage the Viso, I think (made 3 or 4 black shots... lower the mirror, open the iris to 4, adjust position on tripod, focus fine, close to 8 or 16, set the time, shot...DAMN, THE MIRROR ! but is nice not to waste film and make a simple "delete"....)

As for the 65 ... was a bad surprise, for me ... old, but glass is clear : I had the impression of a certain "backfocus"... but it's absurd with the Viso ! I did'nt used it for 3 or 4 years (also on film, preferred the TE) but I have very good film prints taken with it... maybe is true that with CCD the lens differences become more evident...

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Maybe this has been one of my errors in this session... I DID NOT mounted on the IR/UV... stupid, I have it brand new from Leica (the M8 "gift"... arrived 2 weeks only after registration !), I could at least try 2 identical shot filter on/filter off... was too busy to manage the Viso, I think (made 3 or 4 black shots... lower the mirror, open the iris to 4, adjust position on tripod, focus fine, close to 8 or 16, set the time, shot...DAMN, THE MIRROR ! but is nice not to waste film and make a simple "delete"....)

Do you have the mirror release adjusted correctly, Luigi? It must flip up automatically, not manually...

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Hi!
That was me
I am indeed happy. As for post-processing, I personally find it a lot easier to use C1 and export to Photoshop Elements 5 as a TIFF file (CS3 is overkill imo) I have been trying to befriend Lightroom since its first beta, but I have to come to the conclusion that it is not for me. I simply don't "get"it I know 50% of the forum will disagree and 50% agree, but I think a properly profiled file from C1 is "better" than a Lightroom file.

Woah, fantastic the ladybird: regarding C1, I installed it, had strange problems with the licensing process (caused by my home mail) and so.. started with Lightroom: the "develop" section is fine, for me; on the contrary, the import process is complicated, maybe made for people (pros) that have lot of files, want to be quick, and are not so fond of IT and have to be "overprotected" from the risk of losing files... is it C1 more simple in this phase, and, jaapv, do You make use of profiles ? I have not yet entered the concept... is it really worth to make use of them ? Or are they important mainly for printing ? I have not yet afforded seriously the print issue, color calibration etc... at the moment have a simple HP A4 Printer/Scanner that accepts photo cartridges.. I am going to buy a real good photo printer when I understand better the process... I'll like a lot to make B&W prints with the right tools...

[jaapv]

The profiles ( the supplied one does not appeal; many good ones available on this site) are for developing the DNG. I find the interface very intuitive, maybe you should try and persist for a while. Importing is easy and fairly fast, the thumbnails are developed one by one and exported as a batch. It will do colour balance, exposure, black and white point, sharpening and noise reduction.Basically I export TIFF to PSE for levels and curves( using a plugin), some finetuning of WB, maybe some local sharpening and cropping, convert to JPG and print. Very,very fast and with results that please me.

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Do you have the mirror release adjusted correctly, Luigi? It must flip up automatically, not manually...

I used a cable release screwed into the release button... so flip up manually the mirror..unless I forget to do... And I forgot that the Viso has its own receptacle for a cable release.. that flips up the mirror. Oh that splendid mechanics of old Leitz devices...

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by jaapv

The profiles ( the supplied one does not appeal; many good ones available on this site) are for developing the DNG. I find the interface very intuitive, maybe you should try and persist for a while. Importing is easy and fairly fast, the thumbnails are developed one by one and exported as a batch. It will do colour balance, exposure, black and white point, sharpening and noise reduction.Basically I export TIFF to PSE for levels and curves( using a plugin), some finetuning of WB, maybe some local sharpening and cropping, convert to JPG and print. Very,very fast and with results that please me.

THANKS, LOT OF THANKS ! These are the sinthetic advices I'm looking for... But.. You do export TIFF ? Am I wrong or it's a format that anyway destroys some information ?

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

THANKS, LOT OF THANKS ! These are the sinthetic advices I'm looking for... But.. You do export TIFF ? Am I wrong or it's a format that anyway destroys some information ?

Tiff is lossless. If you use it in 16-bits it will prevent posterisation if you work the file heavily in photoshop. I usually take 8 bits as M8 files need very little manipulation and PSE5 does not support 16 bits fully. Then, when I am done I export in Jpeg (which IS lossy) to an online printing service for smaller prints, or for web use, or I write a TIFF CD to give to my professional printing lab, who will do printing profiling for large prints and print to my taste..

[luigi bertolotti]

Uh, Jaap, so You DO NOT make prints by yourself ? I had imaniged that for print it would have been better NOT to make jpegs, but manage the print DIRECTLY from C1 or LR (i never print above 30x40 cm, keep in mind): With my modest A4 printer, at the moment I tested LR to PS in prop PSD format, then print... nah the colors are not exactly the same... definition on the contrary is VERY good... I'm going to try some calibration work... printer is modest but allowes profiling...and , based on your kind answers, I'm going to try TIFF... I really have to come back to some basics of imaging... I thought TIFF was compress/destroying...

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Uh, Jaap, so You DO NOT make prints by yourself ? I had imaniged that for print it would have been better NOT to make jpegs, but manage the print DIRECTLY from C1 or LE (i never print above 30x40 cm, keep in mind): With my modest A4 printer, at the moment I tested LR to PS in prop PSD format, then print... nah the colors are not exactly the same... definition on the contrary is VERY good... I'm going to try some calibration work... printer is modest but allowes profiling...

Nope. If youfind the right service they are better than you are...

[luigi bertolotti]

Thinking well to the issue, You're probably right... when you finally have a RIGHT file pheraps is better to go to someone who knows well how to do a RIGHT print... is no more a matter of "personal" processing.... unless, maybe, you stick for some special-paper-effect... And, after all, 20 years ago I thrown away my simple B&W enlarger after two years or three of use... never bought another...labs DID IT BETTER, simply said.
I'll stop a moment to investigate on Epsons and HPs... the shop were I acquired my M8 has a very good printing lab...