Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About hepcat

  • Rank
    Erfahrener Benutzer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Country


  • City
    Eastern Iowa, USA
  • Hobbies
    Photography, travel, bicycling, camping
  • Job
  • Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte
    M4-P, M9P, 135mm Elmarit, 90mm Summicron, 75mm Heliar, 50mm Nokton f/1.1, 50mm Collapsible Heliar f/2, 35mm Nokton f/1.2 v.1, 28mm Ultron, 21mm Ultron)
  • Website

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would concur on Adam's image that something is going on with the film itself; the deep blues in Doc Henry's however are UV over-saturation which is what my comment was addressing.
  2. Yes, it's normal. It's an excess of ultraviolet light recording on the film. I don't remember it being quite such an issue 30 years ago... whether it's the ozone layer depletion or a change in the emulsions is probably up for grabs; but a UV/Haze filter will deal with most of it.
  3. Naaah... just frame narrower subjects... Very nice tonal range, btw.
  4. My guess is different backs, Neil. Do you have more than one?
  5. Or finding out at frame 43 that you had a buffer overflow in a 24 frame buffer...
  6. There seems to be good detail in the shadows, which means they're properly exposed... but the buildings and sky will be over exposed. I'm guessing that the negative has detail in the buildings and sky, but the scan didn't capture it as it was set to capture details in the shadows. Neil, I just wouldn't even mess with those scans... use them as proofs, and wait to see what your negatives actually look like before you get frustrated. Working with film is NOT the "NOW" process that working with digital files is. Patience is a virtue... and I know you've expressed that you're not a pati
  7. Take a deep breath, Neil. Life is good. One of those things about shooting film is that sometimes, even though you think you've done everything in your power to do everything right, sh*t happens that's out of your control. And because you don't have that instant feedback on your LCD ('cause there ain't one...) you don't know it until its much to late to do anything about it. That is why I have a clause in EVERY contract I do that "should the photographer not present any images for display for any reason, the remedy is limited to a refund of fees paid." My guess is that they're just c
  8. Yes. It IS, after all, just a camera. Keep it in perspective.
  9. Because people use desaturation thinking that they're making the image b&w without understanding the tonality differences that true b&w records in. Merely desaturating a color image doesn't render colors in the correct shades of gray. Just like in the wet print days, it took a special paper to print color dye negatives into b&w silver halide prints.
  10. At f/5.6 to f/11 you won't be able to tell any difference even if you were using a '60s collapsible Summicron. The "differences" in most lenses generally show up in lens chart tests, and usually wide-open; not so much in real-world use, and especially not unless you're doing direct comparisons of the exact same image side-by-side. The things that they measure in lens chart testing aren't as important in image-making as connoisseurs on forums such as this would have you believe. Other issues about lens, filter, and hood selection are a lot more significant than which flavor of lens you use.
  11. No, you're talking eggs and apples with color and b&w film. Color film uses dye layers, and black and white uses silver halide crystals. You'll see "grain" in color film, but it's really not "grain" in the same way as "grain" in b&w. This is where those pesky physics and chemistry issues come into play. Lower ISO film in b&w is less grainy. Lower ISO film in color is less 'clumpy" but it's for different reasons.
  12. Usually, my $180 Collapsible 250th Anniversary Heliar... although right now, it has the $650 Nokton 35mm f/1.2 ver. 1. My $700 Nokton 50 f/1.1 usually lives on my M9P, and they're the most expensive lenses I own, but I've got from 21mm to 200mm covered. My Viso III was $160, and I have a $150 Viso-Elmar 65mm for it. With the exception of my M9P body, I don't have the cost of a current Sumilux 50 tied up in my entire kit. If I'd bought new, and bought Leica, I don't even know how much I'd have tied up in that... Probably way north of $30k? And you're right... I used those others you m
  13. Those look pretty good to me given that you've never shot film and have had to allow someone else to dictate how they're processed. You can tailor the look of the negatives, eventually... you have yet to master the parts of shooting film that elevate your work from the realm of snapshots. Learning how each emulsion reacts to light, how developers react with the emulsion and all of those things previously described here. Now, perhaps, all that advice from earlier in the thread might begin to make sense. There's more to shooting film than composing, metering, focusing, and releasing
  14. Wow... This Leica M is for sale on eBay right now WITH a "Summaron copy lens" for just $139 direct from Moscow! http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-M-Russian-Copy-Replica-Camera-M39-and-LEITZ-Summaron-copy-Lens-/371095335519?hash=item566701725f At least they're advertising it as a Leica copy... On edit... this thing would be worth the $139 just for the walk-around comments value!
  15. It is when you're a poor man.
  • Create New...