Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
p.1504 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
edwardkaraa wrote:
Luang Prabang
Same temple, different angles
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4340/36877358106_31e7c9a53d_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4365/36230890824_483a24eddd_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/36230888194_2372f43756_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
That's the palace garage where they stored the parade floats.
Interesting, i don't remember that big ugly white molding at the bottom when i was there. Still the detail in all those scenes on the walls is amazing. I think the history is that the Thai took the jade buddah from that palace and put in the Grand Palace in Bangkok.
Luang Prabang
Same temple, different angles
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4340/36877358106_31e7c9a53d_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4365/36230890824_483a24eddd_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/36230888194_2372f43756_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
That's the palace garage where they stored the parade floats.
Interesting, i don't remember that big ugly white molding at the bottom when i was there. Still the detail in all those scenes on the walls is amazing. I think the history is that the Thai took the jade buddah from that palace and put in the Grand Palace in Bangkok.
Sep 06, 2017 at 09:24 PM
p.1504 #2Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
wayne seltzer wrote:
Same temple, different angles
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4340/36877358106_31e7c9a53d_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4365/36230890824_483a24eddd_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/36230888194_2372f43756_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrThat's the palace garage where they stored the parade floats.
Interesting, i don't remember that big ugly white molding at the bottom when i was there. Still the detail in all those scenes on the walls is amazing. I think the history is that the Thai took the jade buddah from that palace and put in the Grand Palace in Bangkok.
You're right again, Wayne. I saw the parade floats inside. To be honest, I didn't do much research about the places I visited. Just lazily walked around
Interesting story about the emerald Buddha. I guess it depends on which side do you choose to believe
edwardkaraa wrote
Luang PrabangSame temple, different angles
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4340/36877358106_31e7c9a53d_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4365/36230890824_483a24eddd_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/36230888194_2372f43756_o.jpgM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Interesting, i don't remember that big ugly white molding at the bottom when i was there. Still the detail in all those scenes on the walls is amazing. I think the history is that the Thai took the jade buddah from that palace and put in the Grand Palace in Bangkok.
You're right again, Wayne. I saw the parade floats inside. To be honest, I didn't do much research about the places I visited. Just lazily walked around
Interesting story about the emerald Buddha. I guess it depends on which side do you choose to believe
Sep 06, 2017 at 10:10 PM
p.1504 #3Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Same location:
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrSep 07, 2017 at 02:09 AM
p.1504 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrSep 07, 2017 at 06:41 AM
p.1504 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Edward - how are you liking the Ektar? I tried about three rolls back in the day when it was re-launched. It seemed to be unpredictable with the color in different light. In regular daylight landscape type shots it was very good though. I need to break my addiction to Tri-X and try some of these color films. Perhaps some Cinestill....
Perhaps some Cinestill....Sep 07, 2017 at 08:12 AM
p.1504 #6Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Gary Clennan wrote:
Edward - how are you liking the Ektar? I tried about three rolls back in the day when it was re-launched. It seemed to be unpredictable with the color in different light. In regular daylight landscape type shots it was very good though. I need to break my addiction to Tri-X and try some of these color films.
Perhaps some Cinestill....I think Ektar is very sensitive to processing variations and scanner profiles. I'm getting different colors with each roll, but in general I like the rendering and will be my main film for shooting outdoors. Otherwise I have been getting nice results from the Portra trio and also Fuji pro 400H and 1600. I didn't like cinestill 800T so much as it gave me mixed results. Probably due to processing variations as well.
Sep 07, 2017 at 08:45 AM
p.1504 #7Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Some more Ektar for Gary
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrM7-Distagon 1.4/35 ZM-Ektar 100 by edward karaa, on FlickrSep 07, 2017 at 09:42 AM
p.1504 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
One from the archive, MM-246 and 75 f/2.4 Summarit
Sep 08, 2017 at 02:18 PM
|
p.1504 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Joakim, how do you like the 75 2.4? I was considering a 75Cron but the 75 2.4 seems very nice and am thinking of getting one.
----------
Some moonlit shots, this lens and sensor combo sucks in a lot of light
M10, 50 0.95
Pushed 2/3 stops in LR:
Next two, pushed 2 stops in LR:
----------
Some moonlit shots, this lens and sensor combo sucks in a lot of light
M10, 50 0.95
Pushed 2/3 stops in LR:
Next two, pushed 2 stops in LR:
Sep 08, 2017 at 07:14 PM
p.1504 #12Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Those pushed files look pretty darn good Joe!
Sep 08, 2017 at 07:43 PM
p.1504 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
It seems to me that often transparency film has a type of beauty in its rendering rendering that we might not bring out when processing digital files. Below are two pictures that have colors that I would probably attenuate if they were produced by my M10: the color in the highlights of the hair in the first picture and blues in the water of the Hong Komg picture. My feeling is that I might want to shoot slide film occasionally to keep this type of color rendering more in my mind wen post-processing my M10 shots. Any thoughts on this?
These pictures were taken around 1982 on Kodachrome 25 with an M3 and the Summicron 50.
_________________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Edited on Sep 08, 2017 at 09:26 PM · View previous versions
These pictures were taken around 1982 on Kodachrome 25 with an M3 and the Summicron 50.
_________________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Edited on Sep 08, 2017 at 09:26 PM · View previous versions
Sep 08, 2017 at 09:13 PM
p.1504 #16Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Mitch Alland wrote:
It seems to me that often transparency film has a type of beauty in its rendering rendering that we might not bring out when processing digital files. Below are two pictures that have colors that I would probably attenuate if they were produced by my M10: the color in the highlights of the hair in the first picture and blues in the water of the Hong Komg picture. My feeling is that I might want to shoot slide film occasionally to keep this type of color rendering more in my mind wen post-processing my M10 shots. Any thoughts on...Show more →
Back in the film days we tried to eliminate color crossovers as much as possible, tame non-conforming film/light temperature combinations with sets of Kodak Wratten correction filters, etc. Then once we've achieved seemingly near perfect color cleanliness/purity with digital, we want to go back to the 'mess' of film.
But I know what you're getting at. Digital is often stark, too clean... Not just in color but also the difference between say Tri-X scans and Leica MM output. The latter is so technically good, while the film feels warm, imperfectly comfortable.
I was just browsing some reviews of the Kodak DCS early digital SLRs and looking at sample images from those, thinking, wow, that looks so early digital. Lol. Not that I'm nostalgic for it, but wonder how we will look back at digital imaging characteristics of the 2010s in ~20 years...?
It seems to me that often transparency film has a type of beauty in its rendering rendering that we might not bring out when processing digital files. Below are two pictures that have colors that I would probably attenuate if they were produced by my M10: the color in the highlights of the hair in the first picture and blues in the water of the Hong Komg picture. My feeling is that I might want to shoot slide film occasionally to keep this type of color rendering more in my mind wen post-processing my M10 shots. Any thoughts on...Show more →
Back in the film days we tried to eliminate color crossovers as much as possible, tame non-conforming film/light temperature combinations with sets of Kodak Wratten correction filters, etc. Then once we've achieved seemingly near perfect color cleanliness/purity with digital, we want to go back to the 'mess' of film.
But I know what you're getting at. Digital is often stark, too clean... Not just in color but also the difference between say Tri-X scans and Leica MM output. The latter is so technically good, while the film feels warm, imperfectly comfortable.
I was just browsing some reviews of the Kodak DCS early digital SLRs and looking at sample images from those, thinking, wow, that looks so early digital. Lol. Not that I'm nostalgic for it, but wonder how we will look back at digital imaging characteristics of the 2010s in ~20 years...?
Sep 08, 2017 at 09:35 PM
p.1504 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
OK, seeing as I haven't posted photos in a long time, here are a bunch from our 'supercrawl' arts festival last year this weekend... that I just got around to processing.
Have a couple weddings this weekend so can't make a repeat visit, unfortunately...
M240 & 28 Lux for 1 & 4, 21 SEM for 2 & 3, CV35/1.7M for last four.
Edited on Oct 04, 2018 at 11:10 PM · View previous versions
Have a couple weddings this weekend so can't make a repeat visit, unfortunately...
M240 & 28 Lux for 1 & 4, 21 SEM for 2 & 3, CV35/1.7M for last four.
Edited on Oct 04, 2018 at 11:10 PM · View previous versions
Sep 08, 2017 at 09:58 PM
p.1504 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
rscheffler wrote:
Mitch Alland wrote
It seems to me that often transparency film has a type of beauty in its rendering rendering that we might not bring out when processing digital files. Below are two pictures that have colors that I would probably attenuate if they were produced by my M10: the color in the highlights of the hair in the first picture and blues in the water of the Hong Komg picture. My feeling is that I might want to shoot slide film occasionally to keep this type of color rendering more in my mind wen post-processing my M10 shots. Any thoughts on this?But I know what you're getting at. Digital is often stark, too clean... Not just in color but also the difference between say Tri-X scans and Leica MM output. The latter is so technically good, while the film feels warm, imperfectly comfortable.
I was just browsing some reviews of the Kodak DCS...Show more →
I view it in a slightly different way. Digital has demystified and banalized photography to the extent that we are bombarded each and every day with zillions of meaningless photographs, from someone's lunch to selfies ...etc. So now that everyone can take a photograph and post it immediately on Facebook, in my opinion, the interest in taking photos with advanced digital gear has diminished, at least to some like myself. I do not wish to contribute to this global madness. Hence going back to film allows me to go back to the roots somehow. Rediscovering the analog feel, the limited frames per roll, the wait for processing and scanning, the dust and scratches that may ruin a nice shot, the mistakes that cannot be immediately fixed and reshot. It's kind of looking for the photography I grew up with and took up as a hobby when I was 8. Today's photography is not the same and it is not what I fell in love with 40 years ago. Just explaining my point of view, and I am in no way advocating or encouraging anyone to shoot film. Taking great photos, as this thread is proof of, is independent of the medium.
Sep 08, 2017 at 10:16 PM
p.1504 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Edward - I understand your feeling about this in emotional terms, but not in terms of logic. Of course, a photographer can take great photos regardless of medium. Before digital, people took "millions" of "meaningless photographs" with point-and-shoot cameras that were meaningful to them or their families and some of which went into their photo albums. Today, with smart phones, those "millions" have become "zillions." But this democratization of photography is merely a continuation of the trend of increasing mass picture-making since George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, coined in 1888 the advertising slogan, "You Press the Button, We Do the Rest". Today, among the zillions of smart phone images posted on Facebook and Instagram there is a lot of junk; but the amount of great photography produced in this way is also huge.
Now, the logical disconnect, for me, is saying that, So now that everyone can take a photograph and post it immediately on Facebook, in my opinion, the interest in taking photos with advanced digital gear has diminished, at least to some like myself. I do not wish to contribute to this global madness. As I see it, you neither have to contribute to the "madness" by posting on Facebook or, looking at it in reverse, you could use a smartphone and take great pictures.
Looking at your photography dispassionately, I can see why you've gone back to film at this point of time: you're generally producing better color shots with film than you're were doing with the M9 or the M240 for two reasons, I think: first, one often tends to get a bounce from the inspiration of changing to a different type of camera and, second, more importantly, your film work renders the high tones of harsh, bright tropical light much more gently and gracefully than digital does (unless one is extremely careful to underexpose and then bring up the shadows in post-processing. My prediction, though, is that, eventually, you'll go back to digital, having absorbed the lessons of how film renders bright highlights to your future digital work.
In this context, it's interesting to look at Ron Scheffler's M240 images in post p.1505 #1 and see how much they look like transparency film — I wish I had this level of digital post-processing skills, for, then, I wouldn't need to shoot slide films occasionally in order to reinforce the lesson on the colors rendition that I want to get out the M10.
_________________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Now, the logical disconnect, for me, is saying that, So now that everyone can take a photograph and post it immediately on Facebook, in my opinion, the interest in taking photos with advanced digital gear has diminished, at least to some like myself. I do not wish to contribute to this global madness. As I see it, you neither have to contribute to the "madness" by posting on Facebook or, looking at it in reverse, you could use a smartphone and take great pictures.
Looking at your photography dispassionately, I can see why you've gone back to film at this point of time: you're generally producing better color shots with film than you're were doing with the M9 or the M240 for two reasons, I think: first, one often tends to get a bounce from the inspiration of changing to a different type of camera and, second, more importantly, your film work renders the high tones of harsh, bright tropical light much more gently and gracefully than digital does (unless one is extremely careful to underexpose and then bring up the shadows in post-processing. My prediction, though, is that, eventually, you'll go back to digital, having absorbed the lessons of how film renders bright highlights to your future digital work.
In this context, it's interesting to look at Ron Scheffler's M240 images in post p.1505 #1 and see how much they look like transparency film — I wish I had this level of digital post-processing skills, for, then, I wouldn't need to shoot slide films occasionally in order to reinforce the lesson on the colors rendition that I want to get out the M10.
_________________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Sep 09, 2017 at 07:38 AM
p.1504 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Kodachrome 64 120 Hasselblad 500 C/M and 50mm CF FLE
Kodachrome 25 professional Canon F-1
M9
M10
For comparison.....
Kodachrome 25 professional Canon F-1
M9
M10
For comparison.....
Sep 09, 2017 at 08:06 AM