Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
p.1309 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Marchers to the Arches by unoh7, on Flickr
Hole in the Sky by unoh7, on Flickr
Naughty Boy by unoh7, on Flickr
I flew south for some recreation
Well, actually I drove
My first time in Moab. It's a complete scene, totally gorgeous, totally overrun by every type of homo sapien you can possibly imagine. They are aggressively friendly. I felt like Hilary on campaign, I had to return a thousand nods and hellos per mile
Apr 26, 2016 at 12:54 AM
p.1309 #2Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
SL 601 + ZM 50/2 by edward karaa, on FlickrApr 26, 2016 at 04:52 AM
p.1309 #3Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
uhoh7 wrote:
I flew south for some recreation
Well, actually I drove
My first time in Moab. It's a complete scene, totally gorgeous, totally overrun by every type of homo sapien you can possibly imagine. They are aggressively friendly. I felt like Hilary on campaign, I had to return a thousand nods and hellos per mile
I'm tempted to draw a distinction between the Hilary type fanclub and the Trump / Cruz demographic, but if I did no doubt it could lead to trouble, even on this august thread.
I flew south for some recreation
Well, actually I drove
My first time in Moab. It's a complete scene, totally gorgeous, totally overrun by every type of homo sapien you can possibly imagine. They are aggressively friendly. I felt like Hilary on campaign, I had to return a thousand nods and hellos per mile
I'm tempted to draw a distinction between the Hilary type fanclub and the Trump / Cruz demographic, but if I did no doubt it could lead to trouble, even on this august thread.
Apr 26, 2016 at 06:45 AM
p.1309 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
lenticular11 wrote:
uhoh7 wrote
I flew south for some recreationWell, actually I drove
My first time in Moab. It's a complete scene, totally gorgeous, totally overrun by every type of homo sapien you can possibly imagine. They are aggressively friendly. I felt like Hilary on campaign, I had to return a thousand nods and hellos per mile
Apr 26, 2016 at 06:57 AM
p.1309 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Little Spring Meadow I by Werner Utsch, on Flickr
Nobody cares about this little place.....
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:42 AM
p.1309 #6Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I hope no one minds if I post a Leica CL shot in here! Here's one of the first shots with my new Leica CL and M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 using Kodak Portra 400 film. I really love this combination!
P.
Hot tuba by P. N. Arruda, on Flickr
P.
Hot tuba by P. N. Arruda, on FlickrApr 26, 2016 at 12:30 PM
p.1309 #8Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Continuing the older lens theme... Summicron 50 DR on a 1955 Leica M3 Dual-stroke (now sold due cashflow at that time - silly me).
HP5+ developed very badly (prob by me) and with much grain. I do like this capture though, a very special moment for me, having never before seen so many yellow-tailed black cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus funereus) flocking, and just a kilometre or so from my home.
LR processing from a DNG output from the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV:
M3-HP5-RAW07 by David McI, on Flickr
This uploaded (non Flickr) file (below) is the same image re-processed in Capture One Pro 8. Note that each example had to be individually 'spotted'.
Leica M3 DS, Summicron 50 DR, HP5+ (grain strength is unintended).
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 10:32 PM · View previous versions
HP5+ developed very badly (prob by me) and with much grain. I do like this capture though, a very special moment for me, having never before seen so many yellow-tailed black cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus funereus) flocking, and just a kilometre or so from my home.
LR processing from a DNG output from the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV:
M3-HP5-RAW07 by David McI, on FlickrThis uploaded (non Flickr) file (below) is the same image re-processed in Capture One Pro 8. Note that each example had to be individually 'spotted'.
Leica M3 DS, Summicron 50 DR, HP5+ (grain strength is unintended).
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 10:32 PM · View previous versions
Apr 26, 2016 at 05:42 PM
p.1309 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I've spent the greater part of two days trying to make good "scans" with a Leitz BEOON copying stand that I bought from a member of this forum in Oz. It looks good: spotless with no scratches. The BEOON is a simple and effective solution for camera digitalization — and can be inexpensive if you get a good deal. It's small, solid and easily solves the problem of having the sensor plane parallel to the plane of the negative or transparency being digitalized.
However, using an M-Monochrom, and trying two 50mm lenses (Summilux-50 pre-ASPH and the DR Summicron) and, following the Leitz instructions in setting the lens at f/11 and the focus at infinity, I've found it extremely difficult to hit focus as well as negatives that were scanned for me on an Epson V800 at a small lab in Chiang Mai. My feeling is that the BEOON would work much better for someone using a camera with live view.
EDIT:
I figured out the problem: I was stupidly setting the lens for f/11, which is the aperture the BEOON manual states should be used for copying; but, of course, the lens should be set to it's maximum aperture (f/2 for the DR Summicron) for focusing, and then stopped down — that gives perfect focus every time.
END OF EDIT
Incidentally, I find that the BEOON/MM/DR-Summicron gives substantially more dynamic range than the scan I have that was done with the Epson V800.
M6 | DR-Summicron | Tri-X @ 1600 | Digitalized with BEOON/MM/DR-Summicron
Chiang Mai
I particularly love film for its treatment of highlights in bright and harsh tropical light, but a choice between digital and film today is not easy because the advantages are not one-sided, as I showed in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155090
Going back to film is a personal decision and must have a strong emotional element because it simply is a lot more work, whether one prints in the darkroom or scans; unfortunately there is no really good solution for scanning right now. It’s interesting, although not necessarily instructive, to look at some well-known photographers when thinking about going back to film:
David Alan Harvey, having tried the M9 and MM is clearly happy with the Fuji X100T and X-Pro 2, although I believe that he has recently made some darkroom prints and last year shot some medium format.
Ralph Gibson, after saying for years that digital was not real photography, happily switched to the M-Monochrom. He has continued to use the M-Monochrom. From a recent interview, it seems that he has continued with the MM, and also has been shooting color with the M240. If you're interested in his work you may want to read this interview: http://museemagazine.com/art-2/features/ralph-gibson-political-abstraction-at-mary-boone-gallery/
...in which he says that, with film, couldn't have done his latest book, Political Abstraction in a year. Here is an excerpt:
...The point being that I immediately achieved my visual signature through the digital space. It obeyed my visual intention. Now, that all of the sudden rang a lot of bells in my head because it meant that I could work a lot faster...I did this book in a year. I could have never processed the imagery fast enough to achieve that book in that time I did.
Jacob Aue Sobol showed that he could use the M-Monochrom to maintain the look he had with film, but after his trip on the Trans-Siberian railway for Leica with the MM, went back to film, presumably using small point-and-shoot cameras in the manner of Moriyama Daido and Anders Peterson.
Moriyama Daido has been shooting with digital point-and-shoot cameras for a few years, and likes the fact that he can decide whether a particular photo should be color or B&W. He currently has an important exhibition of digital color photographs at the Cartier Foundation in Paris.
Paulo Nozolino, in whom I've become interested recently, shoots with an M6 and maintains that "digital is not photography." I like the idea that Nozolino is gutsy enough not even to have a website.
Edited on Aug 08, 2025 at 07:24 PM · View previous versions
However, using an M-Monochrom, and trying two 50mm lenses (Summilux-50 pre-ASPH and the DR Summicron) and, following the Leitz instructions in setting the lens at f/11 and the focus at infinity, I've found it extremely difficult to hit focus as well as negatives that were scanned for me on an Epson V800 at a small lab in Chiang Mai. My feeling is that the BEOON would work much better for someone using a camera with live view.
EDIT:
I figured out the problem: I was stupidly setting the lens for f/11, which is the aperture the BEOON manual states should be used for copying; but, of course, the lens should be set to it's maximum aperture (f/2 for the DR Summicron) for focusing, and then stopped down — that gives perfect focus every time.
END OF EDIT
Incidentally, I find that the BEOON/MM/DR-Summicron gives substantially more dynamic range than the scan I have that was done with the Epson V800.
M6 | DR-Summicron | Tri-X @ 1600 | Digitalized with BEOON/MM/DR-Summicron
Chiang Mai
I particularly love film for its treatment of highlights in bright and harsh tropical light, but a choice between digital and film today is not easy because the advantages are not one-sided, as I showed in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155090
Going back to film is a personal decision and must have a strong emotional element because it simply is a lot more work, whether one prints in the darkroom or scans; unfortunately there is no really good solution for scanning right now. It’s interesting, although not necessarily instructive, to look at some well-known photographers when thinking about going back to film:
David Alan Harvey, having tried the M9 and MM is clearly happy with the Fuji X100T and X-Pro 2, although I believe that he has recently made some darkroom prints and last year shot some medium format.
Ralph Gibson, after saying for years that digital was not real photography, happily switched to the M-Monochrom. He has continued to use the M-Monochrom. From a recent interview, it seems that he has continued with the MM, and also has been shooting color with the M240. If you're interested in his work you may want to read this interview: http://museemagazine.com/art-2/features/ralph-gibson-political-abstraction-at-mary-boone-gallery/
...in which he says that, with film, couldn't have done his latest book, Political Abstraction in a year. Here is an excerpt:
...The point being that I immediately achieved my visual signature through the digital space. It obeyed my visual intention. Now, that all of the sudden rang a lot of bells in my head because it meant that I could work a lot faster...I did this book in a year. I could have never processed the imagery fast enough to achieve that book in that time I did.
Jacob Aue Sobol showed that he could use the M-Monochrom to maintain the look he had with film, but after his trip on the Trans-Siberian railway for Leica with the MM, went back to film, presumably using small point-and-shoot cameras in the manner of Moriyama Daido and Anders Peterson.
Moriyama Daido has been shooting with digital point-and-shoot cameras for a few years, and likes the fact that he can decide whether a particular photo should be color or B&W. He currently has an important exhibition of digital color photographs at the Cartier Foundation in Paris.
Paulo Nozolino, in whom I've become interested recently, shoots with an M6 and maintains that "digital is not photography." I like the idea that Nozolino is gutsy enough not even to have a website.
Edited on Aug 08, 2025 at 07:24 PM · View previous versions
Apr 27, 2016 at 07:14 AM
|
p.1309 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
So are you processing your negatives and what developer are you using? Processing your on B&W is a great way to control contrast? Developer/film combos are just as important as the film choice for a look and then temp and agitation are also tools you can use to control contrast. If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity,
As you are pointing out I think that we all need to find what works best for us and the way we see and work, whatever that might be.
I strongly disagree that digital is not photography. It's just not film and I personal love both. I have no desire to make digital images that look like film. If I want or if I need the film look, I would shoot film.
As you are pointing out I think that we all need to find what works best for us and the way we see and work, whatever that might be.
I strongly disagree that digital is not photography. It's just not film and I personal love both. I have no desire to make digital images that look like film. If I want or if I need the film look, I would shoot film.
Apr 27, 2016 at 07:32 AM
p.1309 #12Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
airfrogusmc wrote:
... I think that we all need to find what works best for us and the way we see and work, whatever that might be.
I love my rangefinders
... I think that we all need to find what works best for us and the way we see and work, whatever that might be.
I love my rangefinders Apr 27, 2016 at 07:42 AM
p.1309 #13Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
airfrogusmc wrote:
So are you processing your negatives and what developer are you using? Processing your on B&W is a great way to control contrast? Developer/film combos are just as important as the film choice for a look and then temp and agitation are also tools you can use to control contrast. If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity,
As you are pointing out I think that we all need to find what works best for us and the way we see and work, whatever that might be.
I strongly disagree that digital is...Show more →
Alan - I also strongly disagree that "digital is not photography," but like Nozolino's work and his ethic of "cutting to the bone" that he expresses in some of his interviews.
After ten years of digital, I shot three rolls of Tri-X developed by a small custom lab in Chiang Mai owned by two women who came to love film at university. Two of the rolls were developed in D76 (one at ISO 400, an other at 1600); the third roll was "stand" developed in Rodinal 1:100 for one hour. This is a custom lab in the old tradition: they'll make custom prints with burning and dodging under the photographer's supervision. If I were living in Chiang Mai, my search for a film processing-printing-scanning solution would be over. As it is, I still have to find a solution for scanning.
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 08:56 AM · View previous versions
So are you processing your negatives and what developer are you using? Processing your on B&W is a great way to control contrast? Developer/film combos are just as important as the film choice for a look and then temp and agitation are also tools you can use to control contrast. If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity,
As you are pointing out I think that we all need to find what works best for us and the way we see and work, whatever that might be.
I strongly disagree that digital is...Show more →
Alan - I also strongly disagree that "digital is not photography," but like Nozolino's work and his ethic of "cutting to the bone" that he expresses in some of his interviews.
After ten years of digital, I shot three rolls of Tri-X developed by a small custom lab in Chiang Mai owned by two women who came to love film at university. Two of the rolls were developed in D76 (one at ISO 400, an other at 1600); the third roll was "stand" developed in Rodinal 1:100 for one hour. This is a custom lab in the old tradition: they'll make custom prints with burning and dodging under the photographer's supervision. If I were living in Chiang Mai, my search for a film processing-printing-scanning solution would be over. As it is, I still have to find a solution for scanning.
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 08:56 AM · View previous versions
Apr 27, 2016 at 07:52 AM
p.1309 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
airfrogusmc wrote:
I strongly disagree that digital is not photography. It's just not film and I personal love both. I have no desire to make digital images that look like film. If I want or if I need the film look, I would shoot film.
Yeah, this guy has lost a lot of credibility for making such a stupid statement....
I strongly disagree that digital is not photography. It's just not film and I personal love both. I have no desire to make digital images that look like film. If I want or if I need the film look, I would shoot film.
Yeah, this guy has lost a lot of credibility for making such a stupid statement....
Apr 27, 2016 at 08:04 AM
p.1309 #15Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Mitch Alland wrote:
I'm not about to buy a variety of the Sony A7 just to use with the BEOON.
If you are serious about scanning, it may actually be a good option for you.... Why not use a V800 and Betterscan film holders/inserts? I have used this combo for scanning negs and it really works quite well.
I'm not about to buy a variety of the Sony A7 just to use with the BEOON.
If you are serious about scanning, it may actually be a good option for you.... Why not use a V800 and Betterscan film holders/inserts? I have used this combo for scanning negs and it really works quite well.
Apr 27, 2016 at 08:09 AM
p.1309 #16Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Mitch I would never let anyone touch my personal negatives. If I shoot in flat light I know to increase my dev time. In really contrasty light I meter the shadow and control highlights through compress dev time. I am the only one that knows exactly what my final should look like. It's in my head so I would never let anyone else process or print my personal work.
BTW I shot film for decades. Two semesters of zone system in college and workshops, one with Michael Johnson. Did custom color and B&W printing for years. I find anyone that states digital is not photography are just as ignorant as painters that claimed just after the turn of the last century that photography can't be art.
I am all digital now but if I were to return to film, which may happen some day, it would probably be an 8X10 or 4X5 Deardorff and I will have retired in Northern New Mexico and I would start shooting landscapes and return to the zone system. But now, at this point in time, I love the spontaneity of the streets. And digital is the tool I am now using because it fits for where I am now. They are just tools. I am not defined by the process. It's just a means to the end.
BTW I shot film for decades. Two semesters of zone system in college and workshops, one with Michael Johnson. Did custom color and B&W printing for years. I find anyone that states digital is not photography are just as ignorant as painters that claimed just after the turn of the last century that photography can't be art.
I am all digital now but if I were to return to film, which may happen some day, it would probably be an 8X10 or 4X5 Deardorff and I will have retired in Northern New Mexico and I would start shooting landscapes and return to the zone system. But now, at this point in time, I love the spontaneity of the streets. And digital is the tool I am now using because it fits for where I am now. They are just tools. I am not defined by the process. It's just a means to the end.
Apr 27, 2016 at 08:19 AM
p.1309 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Gary Clennan wrote:
...Why not use a V800 and Betterscan film holders/inserts? I have used this combo for scanning negs and it really works quite well.
I just looked up Betterscan, and it seems they only make MF holders, none for 35mm. And, yes, I'm still trying to find a scanning solution, including consideration of a Plustek 120 because of it's automatic feed — but that is expensive for only 35mm. The new Pluskek 135, quite cheap, which is has automatic feed, does not seem to have a good reputation for reliability, and has a reduced dynamic range, compared to the Plustek 120
...Why not use a V800 and Betterscan film holders/inserts? I have used this combo for scanning negs and it really works quite well.
I just looked up Betterscan, and it seems they only make MF holders, none for 35mm. And, yes, I'm still trying to find a scanning solution, including consideration of a Plustek 120 because of it's automatic feed — but that is expensive for only 35mm. The new Pluskek 135, quite cheap, which is has automatic feed, does not seem to have a good reputation for reliability, and has a reduced dynamic range, compared to the Plustek 120
Apr 27, 2016 at 09:17 AM
p.1309 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Come on guys, if you shoot Leica, you need a real scanner - Imacon Hassy Flextight 
Just kidding .. but they are some of the best scanners out . Used Flextight scanners have come down in price recently, I think.
Just kidding .. but they are some of the best scanners out . Used Flextight scanners have come down in price recently, I think.
Apr 27, 2016 at 09:24 AM
p.1309 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Joe - can't you ever settle for second best? Flextight is definitely top tier for scanning.... PS - just noticed B&H has them on sale right now for only $13,400. I may pick up two at that price.
Flextight is definitely top tier for scanning.... PS - just noticed B&H has them on sale right now for only $13,400. I may pick up two at that price. Apr 27, 2016 at 09:56 AM
p.1309 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
As far as scanners are concerned, I think the best option would be a Pakon f135. It only runs on Windows 98 or older I guess, but it's the second best option after a proper drum scanner. The Imacon scanners are too expensive and according to some tests I've seen offer only marginal improvements over the last generation of Nikon and Minolta scanners.
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:51 AM