I like film...(open thread)

[MT0227]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 30 days, no questions asked...provided it's in like new condition with all the packaging.

 

well, provided it is returnable for a full refund as per B&H's normal policy, I'd buy it! 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ansteyp]

Chennai, quiet conversation

Nikon FM2, 35mm lens, TriX

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Doc Henry]

 

Here's a slightly artistic bent from the Dead Sea with Tri-X (orange filter)

SWC

trix.jpg

 

 

 

Another seemingly stupid monochrome view of an otherwise beautifully colorful and vibrant scene...

SWC, Tri-X (orange + PL)

trix dead sea.jpg

 

 

The composition of a second photo is nice Adam with the palm alley in background

For the first picture the salt is well highlighted by the orange filter , if no you'll have no contrast

isn't Adam ?

I think you must also print to see these pictures.

Salt is known to attack anything tripod, shoes and even your camera   

I always said that a photographer is a particularly hazardous occupation 

Thanks for posting.

Best

Henry

Edited September 23, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Chennai, quiet conversation

Nikon FM2, 35mm lens, TriX

 

ChennaiChat.jpg

 

Ans glad see you here and welcome

Funny picture with Kodak TX

Thanks for posting

Best

Henry

[gbealnz]

 

Another seemingly stupid monochrome view of an otherwise beautifully colorful and vibrant scene...

SWC, Tri-X (orange + PL)

 

 

I'm normally the biggest fan out there of mono shots, but the Dead Sea shots in colour have been profoundly beautiful, the mono while nice, not so. To me. The skies in colour, well, awesome, and the rest of the image, beautiful as well.

 

Mono to me doesn't do them justice, as nice as they are. The first mono could well have been sea ice and slurry in a polar region. The second was recognizable simply because we have been there in your splendid and vibrant colour images.

 

Love them all though, even the mono, just not as much as the colour.

Gary

[A miller]

The composition of a second photo is nice Adam with the palm alley in background

For the first picture the salt is well highlighted by the orange filter , if no you'll have no contrast

isn't Adam ?

I think you must also print to see these pictures.

Salt is known to attack anything tripod, shoes and even your camera 

I always said that a photographer is a particularly hazardous occupation 

Thanks for posting.

Best

Henry

thanks a lot, Henry.  Very funny!

 

I'm normally the biggest fan out there of mono shots, but the Dead Sea shots in colour have been profoundly beautiful, the mono while nice, not so. To me. The skies in colour, well, awesome, and the rest of the image, beautiful as well.

 

Mono to me doesn't do them justice, as nice as they are. The first mono could well have been sea ice and slurry in a polar region. The second was recognizable simply because we have been there in your splendid and vibrant colour images.

 

Love them all though, even the mono, just not as much as the colour.

Gary

 

Thanks a lot, Gary.  I agree with you 100%.  Thank God for VELVIA!!  

Edited September 23, 2016 by A miller

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Taken this afternoon and just developed in Kodak pure D76

 

Test Summicron 35 in b&w

 

Kodak TMax100

Leica MP

Summicron 35 Asph

(designer Peter Karbe)

f:8 sp.expos 1/250

and no correction 

 

Street photos

Hazing engineering school
 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Crop 100%

 

 

Your opinion ?  and mine after you

about definition, contrast etc....

 

Best

Henry

Edited September 23, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

second picture

 

 

Wide angle effect with light and shadow

... perspective of the street and vanishing line

 

Kodak TMax100-Leica MP

Summicron 35 Asph

f:8 - vit expos :1/250

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Crop 100%

 

 

Your advice of expert ?

What do you think of the definition of the ground cobbles , the buildings ?
contrast ?

Thanks

 

Best

Henry

Edited September 23, 2016 by Doc Henry

[gbealnz]

Not sure what you're asking Henry, both are nice pictures, we all know that.

If it is a digital vs film question, I'll stay clear, I like and use both. The film shots look like film, the digital are sometimes stark but crisp and clean, essentially the attributes we stove for when shooting film.

The late afternoon sun angle makes for nice definition, but also makes for areas of light and shade, sometimes troubling the latitude of the "sensor".

I'd be happy with either, and I'd also save my money, forget the FLE, LOL.

Gary

[A miller]

second picture

 

 

Wide angle effect with light and shade

and perspective of the street

 

Kodak TMax100-Leica MP

Summicron 35 Asph

f:8 - vit expos :1/250

 

 

Image15testcronkodtmaxmpfeslfht+++1000.jpg

 

Crop 100%

 

Image15testcronkodtmaxmp-crop100-1000.jpg

 

Your advice of expert ?

What do you think of the definition of the ground cobbles , the buildings ?

contrast ?

Thanks

 

Best

Henry

 

Henry - I agree with Gary on this one.  Very hard to pixel peep digital grain.  It is also somewhat pointless.  And, although I proudly own a 35mm lux fle, I bought it in my digital phase and if I were to buy one now I would probably go for one of the earlier pre-ash versions of the 35 lux, as they were designed with film in mind.  The lux fle was designed with digital in mind, and all of its chromatic aberration blah blah.    Digital sensors do funny things and lenses react to them in ways that are very different than they react to film  Take my Arca Swiss large format friend (don't ask why I am befriending him at the moment!).  He sells large format view cameras that are designed to be used to super duper digital backs - like 80MP and up, which are like $30K and up!  He says that the higher the MP level, the less the lens (which is typically a premium Rodenstock or Schneider, also optimized for digital) can be stopped down.  He says that with a 80MP sensor you can only stop the lens down to f11 and no more in order to avoid massive diffraction.  That's no fun, right (Esp on a lens that can be stopped down to f45+)?  Who wants to deal with that BS? That means that, in order to get good sharp focus where you want it, you have to rely more on lens tilts and other movements, and think more about plane of focus.  That's a lot of hoops to jump through in order to marry the sensor and lens.  And modern lenses are designed to minimize these hoops.

 

Why do you need to jump into that mess?  You are the king of film and enemy of all things digital?  You have to be consistent with yourself!!!! 

[MT0227]

 

 forget the FLE, LOL.

[A miller]

 

on this, he is right.

[MT0227]

Adam,

 

I've yet to shoot film with my 35FLE, but plan to throw a roll of Tri-X at it soon.  Have you shot film with yours and do you see any differences  given it was designed with digital use in mind?   Everything I've read suggests the FLE is sharper than all its predecessors, would this not translate to film as well?

 

 

 

Henry - I agree with Gary on this one.  Very hard to pixel peep digital grain.  It is also somewhat pointless.  And, although I proudly own a 35mm lux fle, I bought it in my digital phase and if I were to buy one now I would probably go for one of the earlier pre-ash versions of the 35 lux, as they were designed with film in mind.  The lux fle was designed with digital in mind, and all of its chromatic aberration blah blah.    Digital sensors do funny things and lenses react to them in ways that are very different than they react to film  Take my Arca Swiss large format friend (don't ask why I am befriending him at the moment!).  He sells large format view cameras that are designed to be used to super duper digital backs - like 80MP and up, which are like $30K and up!  He says that the higher the MP level, the less the lens (which is typically a premium Rodenstock or Schneider, also optimized for digital) can be stopped down.  He says that with a 80MP sensor you can only stop the lens down to f11 and no more in order to avoid massive diffraction.  That's no fun, right (Esp on a lens that can be stopped down to f45+)?  Who wants to deal with that BS? That means that, in order to get good sharp focus where you want it, you have to rely more on lens tilts and other movements, and think more about plane of focus.  That's a lot of hoops to jump through in order to marry the sensor and lens.  And modern lenses are designed to minimize these hoops.

 

Why do you need to jump into that mess?  You are the king of film and enemy of all things digital?  You have to be consistent with yourself!!!! 

[A miller]

Adam,

 

I've yet to shoot film with my 35FLE, but plan to throw a roll of Tri-X at it soon.  Have you shot film with yours and do you see any differences  given it was designed with digital use in mind?   Everything I've read suggests the FLE is sharper than all its predecessors, would this not translate to film as well?

 

Sure, I shoot with my 35 fle on film all the time.  It is great for family vacations.  I find it wonderfully sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner.  But the shots are still film and no matter what the clinical crispness and sharpness just won't appear on the print or scan as it will on digital.   I don't think it is going to give you more sharpness on film than a summicron.  Just one stop more of light and perhaps a little better edge to edge sharpness when shot wide open.  But negligible, unlike the price difference!!

 

People use the 50mm cron APO on film.  To me, that's the extreme of this discussion.  I think it is crazy to purchase this lens for just film.  But people nevertheless do it and more power to them!

[Doc Henry]

Not sure what you're asking Henry, both are nice pictures, we all know that.

If it is a digital vs film question, I'll stay clear, I like and use both. The film shots look like film, the digital are sometimes stark but crisp and clean, essentially the attributes we stove for when shooting film.

The late afternoon sun angle makes for nice definition, but also makes for areas of light and shade, sometimes troubling the latitude of the "sensor".

I'd be happy with either, and I'd also save my money, forget the FLE, LOL.

Gary

 

Thanks Gary for your advice.

As you know , I have already a 50 and a 35 Summilux Asph bought for my 2 digital M cameras.

Both are good and both give me entire satisfaction. I have also a 28 Summicron Asph a good lens too as another

Wide Angle.

May be you're right about this Summicron . It seems nice for me to have this lens in waiting (may be) to purchase

the FLE which costs nevertheless more than 4200 Euros .... a good lens but very expensive and a little heavy IMO.

 

Henry - I agree with Gary on this one.  Very hard to pixel peep digital grain.  It is also somewhat pointless.  And, although I proudly own a 35mm lux fle, I bought it in my digital phase and if I were to buy one now I would probably go for one of the earlier pre-ash versions of the 35 lux, as they were designed with film in mind.  The lux fle was designed with digital in mind, and all of its chromatic aberration blah blah.    Digital sensors do funny things and lenses react to them in ways that are very different than they react to film  Take my Arca Swiss large format friend (don't ask why I am befriending him at the moment!).  He sells large format view cameras that are designed to be used to super duper digital backs - like 80MP and up, which are like $30K and up!  He says that the higher the MP level, the less the lens (which is typically a premium Rodenstock or Schneider, also optimized for digital) can be stopped down.  He says that with a 80MP sensor you can only stop the lens down to f11 and no more in order to avoid massive diffraction.  That's no fun, right (Esp on a lens that can be stopped down to f45+)?  Who wants to deal with that BS? That means that, in order to get good sharp focus where you want it, you have to rely more on lens tilts and other movements, and think more about plane of focus.  That's a lot of hoops to jump through in order to marry the sensor and lens.  And modern lenses are designed to minimize these hoops.

 

Why do you need to jump into that mess?  You are the king of film and enemy of all things digital?  You have to be consistent with yourself!!!! 

 

Adam , interesting information. Sure I am now full in film and not at all  or less in digital . Summicron 35 Asph is also made for film and I think it's a good compromise .

About Summicron , we have also a version IV (1979) called "King of bokeh"  that some photographers like much and prefer instead the Asph. 

 

Anyway it's interesting to talk with you and see before going to spend money... and as said Gary , keep your money

 

Thanks again to both of you , thanks also to Marc .

Best

Henry

[MT0227]

Gotcha....and understand where you are coming from: "...better edge to edge sharpness when shot wide open.  But negligible (on film), unlike the price difference!! ".  

 

Sure, I shoot with my 35 fle on film all the time.  It is great for family vacations.  I find it wonderfully sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner.  But the shots are still film and no matter what the clinical crispness and sharpness just won't appear on the print or scan as it will on digital.   I don't think it is going to give you more sharpness on film than a summicron.  Just one stop more of light and perhaps a little better edge to edge sharpness when shot wide open.  But negligible, unlike the price difference!!

 

People use the 50mm cron APO on film.  To me, that's the extreme of this discussion.  I think it is crazy to purchase this lens for just film.  But people nevertheless do it and more power to them!

[Doc Henry]

Another picture with no interest but the crop 100% is interesting

 

Kodak TMax100-MP-Summicron 35 Asph

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Crop 100%

 

 

The definition of this lens is good IMO.

 

Best

Henry

 

 

[MT0227]

I would agree

 

Another picture with no interest but the crop 100% is interesting

 

Kodak TMax100-MP-Summicron 35 Asph

 

 

Image5testsummicronkodtmaxmp-2-lf+++1000.jpg

 

Crop 100%

 

Image5testsummicronkodtmaxmp-3-1000Crop100.jpg

 

The definition of this lens is good IMO.

 

Best

Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

My apologies, I hate to be a pedant but the focus shift of the FLE predecessor could be seen also on film, just not as much as on digital, supposedly due to the three-dimensional character of film. And actually some digital shooters, have I read, also did not notice focus shift with the predecessor, so it appears to be hit or miss to a certain extent. The main reason for the redesign, therefore, was simply to eliminate focus shift at closer distances through the floating lens element.

 

I've only used mine on film (since I have never owned or used a digital M) and like so many of you I also think it is fantastic, even though 35mm isn't "my focal length (but that's another discussion).

 

Clearly, a sharper and better corrected lens will improve image sharpness and other characteristics regarless of the medium used to capture the image. The technical feat of the FLE, apart from that floating element, is that it is so good already from f1.4 and across the field. Personally, I don't buy the argument that such a good lens is not useful for film.

 

With respect to the 50 APO, I have shot that lens on flim and have also seen some very nice film photos in this forum and elsewhere, and to my eyes it is unquestionably clear that it makes a difference. The question is whether a film photographer would find that improvement important. Some definitly might (for whatever reason, grain peeping, bragging rights or, even, professional needs). I've said it before that, what Leica did by releasing the 50 APO was to make the 50 Summilux Asph the best 50mm lens in the world. I still think this is true because it is faster and optically almost as good for considerably less money. But if money was no object I would be tempted by the 50 APO. 

 

When I bought my 35 Summilux I considered the predecessor because it tended to sell for a bit less and I wasn't sure about how real the focus shift problem. But I know how much I hate not being able to rely on my equipment so when I found a suitably priced copy of the FLE I bought it. It has never disappointed. The difficulty with choosing a 35 Summiluxes is that if one discounts the predecessor to the FLE for the reasons given earlier, the only real options are v1 and v2 and they are very old designs that perform really quite poorly at the widest stops and on colour film. So that makes the FLE, pretty much, the only choice unless one wants to chance it with its predecessor. 

[A miller]

Personally, I don't buy the argument that such a good lens is not useful for film.

 

 

 

Wow, who said that??!  For the avoidance of doubt, it wa'n't me, as I was making a "cost benefit" point, not a "useful" point, which are two completely different concepts.  

The fle is a $5K lens.  A good pre-asph 35 lux with no focus shift is about 1/3 of that price.  To me, if I want sharpness, I'd go with the cron, even a modern cron at a fraction of the price.  If I want more film qualities and dreamy bokeh, I might also consider the pre-ash lux and try to deal with the focus shift (which I agree I probably would obsessively worry over.).  As much I as love my 35mm fle, the one thing that I don't get much of is dreamy bokeh.  Often, when I try to shoot something wide open, more stays in approximate focus than I want.  The old lenses don't do this and I think that on film especially this dreamy quality really hits home.

 

Full disclosure, I don't plan on parting with my 35 lux fle in my lifetime...