NC(T?)D.....No Gibson; No Guitar Content.

[pippy]

I know it's a bit tangential but I also know there are a few forumites who enjoy their photography so for those of us 'in the mood' here's a quick iPhone snap (apologies for the poor quality!) of my 'new' second-hand tool-of-the-trade;

 

 

M-8.2 with (new) Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 Nokton and accoutrements.

 

For the uninitiated it's like receiving your dream Gibson Re-issue - whatever model it may be.

I'm a Very Happy Bunny.

 

P.

[Ryan H]

...how does she sound?

 

-Ryan

[milod]

a 1.4? Sheesh.

 

Don't see many of those. I've 3 or 4 Nikon 50 1.4 but... haven't even tried 'em on the digital.

 

Q... Any problems with the infrared sensitivity? Do you have the "old" 8,000 shutter or the newer version at 4000 top speed?

 

m

[milod]

Funny thing here, too... tomorrow I'm a guest "teacher" for a photography art class at the local high school.

 

My thought is mostly to talk about where light is coming from and how to make it tell your story.

 

But... we'll see what happens.

 

m

[Marshall Paul]

...how does she sound?

 

-Ryan

(lol).

You seem to be our resident guru techie Ryan. If anyone could convert it and get sounds out of it, it would be you mate!

[Ryan H]

(lol).

You seem to be our resident guru techie Ryan. If anyone could convert it and get sounds out of it, it would be you mate!

 

Oh, there are far more qualified people here than me. I just have way too much time on my hands :P.

 

-Ryan

[Marshall Paul]

Don't we all.

[pippy]

...how does she sound?...

 

I doubt you were being serious, Ryan, but unbelievably (perhaps!) that's actually a bit of a moot point in Leica circles and one where the 8.2 scores a + ...

 

There were rumblings about how the previous digital M's weren't as silent as the film Leicas through the ages (whose quiet 'operation' is legendary even today) so for the M 8.2 they came up with a very neat solution.

The M 8 and earlier digital bodies had the now-common 'click-whirrr' of shutter release and shutter re-set. The M 8.2, however, has the option of either 'Standard' or 'Discreet' mode.

If the latter is selected all you hear when you trip the shutter is a very quiet 'click' and the shutter-advance is only activated once the shutter-button is released.

What this means in practice is that if you are trying to be unobtrusive you can capture the image near-silently and, say, put the camera behind your back to mask the slightly noisier part of the operation. A very elegant and ingenious solution to the problem of remaining 'invisible' to one's subject.

 

a 1.4? Sheesh....Don't see many of those. I've 3 or 4 Nikon 50 1.4 but... haven't even tried 'em on the digital.

Q... Any problems with the infrared sensitivity? Do you have the "old" 8,000 shutter or the newer version at 4000 top speed?...

Funny thing here, too... tomorrow I'm a guest "teacher" for a photography art class at the local high school.

My thought is mostly to talk about where light is coming from and how to make it tell your story...

Hi m.

 

Points in order;

 

The lens (from what I've seen so far) is exceptional.

As the M-8.2 has a 75% chip (factor = 1.33x) the 40mm equates to a standard 50mm (53mm actually) on a 24mm x 36mm film camera.

I've a 28mm f2 coming (35mm equivalent) and I'll get a 21mm (28mm) both also from Voigtlander.

I have a couple of Leitz lenses (50mm and 35mm) which I've been using on my 1963 Leica M-2 since 1980(!) and did a back-to-back just to see what difference(s) - if any - there were between the older and newer items. My word. Considering the Leitz objectives were the bench-mark back then it was astonishing how 'bad' they were in comparison to the newer optics. eBay beckons, methinks, and the resultant income will allow me to get the 50mm f1.1 Nokton which will become a nice short-length (67mm) portrait lens.

Adaptors are available to mount my various old Nikkors on the M-8.2 so I might get one of those just out of curiousity.

I, too, have a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor (mint) and as it was very highly regarded in it's day it might prove interesting....

 

UV / IR? Good question...

 

The UV-IR issue of the M-8 was one of the main reasons the 8.2 was developed (pun). In fact the very first item on the 'Menu' drop-down is 'Lens Detection On + UV / IR'.

In a rather bizarre way the 'purpling' of some black-coloured man-made fabrics under artificial light due to this UV / IR phenomenon answers a question I had been pondering for nigh-on 20 years. The problem made itself manifest when I was shooting a black overnight-bag with my Sinar 5x4 using Velvia stock - so it isn't just an occasional feature encountered in the small-format 'digital' world. The main body of the bag was leather and remained black but the nylon edge-piping turned a muddy purple-maroon colour.

I tried different film types; same result. Bum. Most annoying. My client thought so too. Ah well; who needs clients anyway?

 

The 8.2 has the 4000 shutter. I suspect it will be high enough to cope with my requirements...

I have only had the camera since Mon PM so haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces. It's been non-stop drizzle here in London since she arrived. Having said that; this morning has dawned bright and dry.

I'm off on an 'interiors / still-life' shoot today so I'll put it in the bag and test it out alongside the DSLRs but as it's really designed as a street-shooting tool I'll be doing it purely as an academic experiment.

 

Have fun with the talk! You are absolutely correct to focus (ha-ha) on the Nature of Light.

The discipline (as you are well aware) is derived from two Greek words - photos and graphe - which mean respectively 'light' and 'to write / draw'. Photography is, therefore, literally 'telling a story with - ' and/or 'drawing with - light'.

 

I'm off to have a bit of fun. I'm sure you will have fun too!

 

P.

[btoth76]

Hello Pippy!

 

Nice satin finish too! ;)

 

Enjoy it with good health!

 

Best wishes... Bence

[rct]

Couple weeks ago was our 34th anniversary.

 

Dinner at Granite Hill, really good restaurant at Philadelphia Art Museum, we like to go there. And on Fridays it's Art after 5, cocktails and jazz and such at dinner time, so we get to enjoy the place a little later and have some music and stuff. It's a nice way to spend any Friday, and a really good way to spend your 34th since we weren't going anywhere far away or anything.

 

Philly Art Museum has some of the greatest art in this country, rivals the National Galleries down in DC.

 

So for the photographers among us, I'd like you to know that I suffered soldiered through an entire guided exhibit of Paul Strand. I tried to drink myself to death afterwards, but lived to tell the story.

 

Good luck with your new camera Pippy. Where do you buy flashbulbs these days?

 

rct

[Cougar]

For the uninitiated it's like receiving your dream Gibson Re-issue - whatever model it may be.

 

Well, you're apparently a pro, and I'm an amateur, so I've got no argument. But I really don't get it, or why it would be so expensive. For a little over 300 bucks I just picked up off ebay a Canon Rebel T3i, which seems like a heck of a camera and includes an HD video mode. I guess lenses are a lot like guitars -- inexpensive ones work OK, but enormously more expensive ones work better. I guess whether the increased performance is properly proportional to the increased price will always be a controversial subject (especially by those with the less expensive models ).

[milod]

I think there are two factors on cameras.

 

First is whether a given camera rig will do a specific job. That can range from magazine covers to mug shots.

 

Second is durability for one who takes lots of pix, whether a pro or an enthusiastic amateur.

 

Third is comfort level with a certain "type" of camera. For me, for example, I've used Nikons for work purposes for over 40 years. Somehow the "logic" of the controls simply works.

 

Finally there's "cost."

 

... In my case, I have much different types of equipment today than in 1965 when I started doing photos for money, but it still is a matter of having a rig that will do the job, is durable and that I can justify the cost.

 

And... funny thing... that's also pretty much how I look at my guitar stuff compared to 1963.

 

m

[pippy]

Well, you're apparently a pro, and I'm an amateur, so I've got no argument. But I really don't get it, or why it would be so expensive. For a little over 300 bucks I just picked up off ebay a Canon Rebel T3i, which seems like a heck of a camera and includes an HD video mode. I guess lenses are a lot like guitars -- inexpensive ones work OK, but enormously more expensive ones work better. I guess whether the increased performance is properly proportional to the increased price will always be a controversial subject (especially by those with the less expensive models ).

What can I say? You are correct in everything you say, Cougar. Seriously. All of it. I agree with every word you typed and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Apart from the 'apparently'. But hey; none taken.

 

Any decent guitarist can make an entry-level Epi sound fantastic. Why would anyone want to spend $6,000 on an Historic Re-Issue?

Because they are better, of course. But the exercise is only worthwhile if the player knows how to make a meaningful sense of that improvement in quality.

Partly, also, it's an appreciation of the quality of the item for itself.

Absolutely no offense intended Cougar, I assure you, but I've been using my 1963 Leica M-2 for 34 years. How long do you hope your T3i will last?

 

Just to make it absolutely clear;

I completely agree with you; I'm not being sarcastic and some of your music clips posted here are amongst my favourites.

I really like your stuff.

 

O.K. Enough Brown-Nosing.

 

I think there are two factors on cameras.

First is whether a given camera rig will do a specific job. That can range from magazine covers to mug shots.

Second is durability for one who takes lots of pix, whether a pro or an enthusiastic amateur.

Third is comfort level with a certain "type" of camera. For me, for example, I've used Nikons for work purposes for over 40 years. Somehow the "logic" of the controls simply works.

Finally there's "cost."

... In my case, I have much different types of equipment today than in 1965 when I started doing photos for money, but it still is a matter of having a rig that will do the job, is durable and that I can justify the cost.

And... funny thing... that's also pretty much how I look at my guitar stuff compared to 1963.

m

Likewise. Everything m says is absolutely spot-on. As usual, of course.

 

P.

[milod]

BTW, I'll add that I honestly think today's shutters are far more durable than even in the '70s and '80s.

 

Why? Because you drop in a big memory chip and shoot probably 3-5 times more shots than you did in the film era.

 

Oh - Pippy...

 

The camera classes were great fun and the high school kids actually knew more than I'd have guessed - I quizzed them a little before getting into my schtick.

 

But one big question was whether it was worthwhile to drop wet darkroom training. I hate to say I had to give them pros and cons of each but no solid "Yes" or "no."

 

m

[L8_4thesh0w]

Pippy, I'm consistently amused at how your "poor quality" looks fine to the average eye. I can just imagine you wishing for any number of variables with which to tweak those phone pics.

 

I did some limited non-formal study of the craft and often wonder if it shouldn't have been more of an objective as a professional career. My best friend and I at 10 or 12 used to make pinhole

cameras and develop our own B&W prints in a makeshift darkroom in the closet under his stairs. We didn't do much to improve our talents but had loads of fun and wasted an awful lot of film.

 

I've always been lazy and relied on TTL metering in my SLRs. The first was a Minolta SRT inherited from my dad and when that was stolen it was replaced with a Pentax ME Super. A Promaster

28-210 f3.5 is my go to lens as I hate having to change them constantly and had not much money to spend when it was purchased. My digital is an 8.1Mp Kodak with a Schneider Kreuznach fixed

lens picked up at a bargain price. It's major drawback is using Quick-Time for vids but it serves well for documenting school and family functions and of course the occasional obligatory forum pic.

I'm still learning how best to use the large number of modes it offers. The ISO limit is 1600 which is also the fastest film I've used in my SLR. I can't imagine having 4,000 or 8,000 at my disposal!

It would be nice as they have seriously neglected the lighting in the school auditorium to the point of using halogen work lights. 98% of the last bunch taken were horribly washed out. :angry:

 

I'll bet that between yourself and milod there is not much left to know. Maybe you could rename this thread and teach a Master Class every so often! The first could be on how high quality lenses

make the most of available light while minimizing flare and distortion. Milo's reluctance to recommend darkroom training is easily understood. For every adjustment one can make while developing,

there are probably ten more available in shop programs. It is hard to beat a beautifully composed glossy on high quality paper for longevity though, unless you'd rather see it on the TV screen, that is.

 

Does a UV filter have any effect on the "purple-ing"? Anyway, congrats on your find Pippy and I hope you have lots of fun with your new instrument and you know we are expecting some pics.

[Jimi Mac]

Ahhh...

 

A tasteful burst!

 

 

Good on ya...

[pippy]

It's honestly not my wish to keep bumping this to the top of the board but...

 

On m's points;

The shutters of today certainly lead a hard life. My newest DSLR is less than two years old and even although I'm mainly a relatively low-frame-count "still-lifer" I've tripped nearly 60,000 actuations. Fashion snappers will shoot probably ten times this figure or more.

Canon are conservative in their estimate of how long a shutter will last saying 'somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 shots' but outside sources who have gathered info from actual users cites a figure of a 50.7% chance of it surviving a half-million frames. One of my colleagues' 1Ds made it to over 650,000 before it was pensioned-off.

Incidentally; my M 8.2 is six years old and had registered 10,000 actuations when I received it. As a comparison; on average with my main Canon I get through that number of frames every four months.

 

Having read your previous post I was thinking about the wet-room thing just this morning and wondering if there is any reason - historical and academical aspects apart - why this side of things might have the slightest relevance to the snappers of today and I couldn't think of any. We were even lectured about (and examined on) the make-up of "integral tri-pack colour film base" for crying out loud! Why? Because it taught us why certain things are done in certain ways when using colour film stock. Any relevance today? Nope.

Similarly the dark-room side of things. We did deep-tank dip-and-dunk processing of our 5x4 B'n'W sheet film. Relevance today? Nope.

Pos-neg printing. Relevance today? Nope.

The dark-room was a wonderful place. Literally 'full of wonder'. Seeing the image start to appear on what was, just a few seconds earlier, a pure white sheet of paper immersed in a clear liquid was always a magical experience. I never tired of it. Sometimes I could spend a whole day printing up just a handful of images; refining as I went along. Ansel Adams has a lot to answer for!...

Relevance today? well, Yes, actually. This refining of the image IS a very worthwhile process. It's also a lot easier (and a lot less smelly!) nowadays with Photoshop and similar packages.

 

L8...

Well, the iPhone pic might look OK at screen res but I doubt it would make a decent-quality print at anything larger than a mid-sized postage stamp...

Being young and sharing with mates brings back memories! A few of us pooled funds to buy a bulk-film loader and we'd meet up each week to distribute our share of the bulk-film.

At those meets we'd each be expected to submit one print and we'd talk about each others shots. I vividly remember once when one of the group said "I can take pictures like Philip but those ones always end up in the bin". Oh, how we laughed.

 

Before I bought my first 'proper' camera (an Olympus OM-1) I always liked the look of the SRT-101 in black finish. Lovely camera and great lenses.

The Schneider-Kreutznach should be fantastic. I've bought several of theirs for my 5x4 and they've all been great.

1600 is usually fine as a top speed. Occasionally I've gone up to 6400 but normally I stick to 100. But I always use a tripod, my subjects don't move and I use studio flash...

Back in the day I was usually going the other way. Film of choice was either Kodak Panatomic-X (used at 25 ASA) or Ilford's Pan-F (at 50 ASA). I even used to shoot on Kodak 2415 Technical Pan which, if used as a 'regular' film (it was created as a lithographic film - no grey-scale - for purely scientific applications) had an effective ASA of 6. Tripods at the ready!

 

Actually that's one of the main reasons I bought the Leica. I really REALLY want to get back out on the streets doing reportage-style stuff. I haven't done it in a serious manner for many, many years and I do miss it.

 

The high-quality lens bit? We could discuss this aspect for hours......so I won't even start.

 

As it happens I was having a chin-wag over a few beers with a fellow forumite - himself a fine photographer - on Tuesday evening and the subject of prints from digital files cropped (ho-ho) up. He's found a great service on-line and I look forward to trying them out for myself. There are a number of very fine, very high-quality papers made for home printers and the only concern I have is, as you yourself mentioned, in relation to the longevity/stability of the printer inks. The results when fresh, though, can actually look just as good as a regular bromide print.

 

The UV / purpling? I don't yet know. I'll have to experiment when I have the time. I'm still learning what it can and can't do.

Incidentally when the phenomenon raised it's head Leica responded by offering two UV-IR filters (size to choice) to everyone who bought an M 8. This offer included those who had already bought the camera as well as those who were buying them currently.

 

Ah well. That's enough of a lecture for today. In closing I'd just like to ask members here whether they would like to see a return to the days of film or do they prefer the digital age?...

 

P.

[pippy]

Ahhh...

 

A tasteful burst!

 

 

And here was me thinking I had bought a Black Beauty...

 

P.

[Jimi Mac]

 

And here was me thinking I had bought a Black Beauty...

 

P.

 

Just trying to find circumstances that warrant the pun...

 

Sometimes it ain't easy.

 

I figured the color of the Christmas ornaments would let me get away with it...

 

A Black Beauty was my 2nd choice for a witty remark, but I chose to go with the burst thing...

[Cougar]

Thanks, Pippy. Sorry about that "apparently."

 

In closing I'd just like to ask members here whether they would like to see a return to the days of film or do they prefer the digital age?...

 

Oh, digital, for so many reasons. You don't have to take the film in for developing. No waiting for the film to be developed. You can take 20 shots of the same scene, pick one, throw 19 away, no wasted film! You can switch ISO settings from one pic to the next. And cropping! With the number of megapixels these days, you can crop a small portion of a photo and still have decent resolution. The switch to digital really changed everything (except how to take a good photo).

[milod]

Just a coupla comments from where I sit.

 

I'm all digital and have been since it appeared affordable for what I do.

 

It's the only way to go for "journalism" in 99.999 percent of the instances, one way or another.

 

On the other hand, I'm about the only photojournalist I know around here who has done such as an "unsharp mask" in a wet darkroom compared to using PhotoShop.

 

I think that the wet darkroom gives a better understanding of what one is doing overall in photography because you have time to think about what you've done on the camera and what you're to do in order to get a quality "consumer product," whether for yourself, for others or for publication.

 

On the other hand, it's that very "time to think" that is the weakness of getting into film and its production into "consumer images."

 

Pippy and I have different needs in terms of cameras. My day might start with a 7:30 a.m. "shoot" of a special event in an elementary school classroom, a fire or car wreck, an informal portrait - and end with a basketball game that closes at 10 p.m. That means either several cameras or lenses or one versatile camera and a decent backup. It also means snapping 3-400 images, and sometimes more. Then there's prep for production, etc., all of which adds to my time overhead and a lack of time to say, "I'll do it tomorrow or on the weekend."

 

I would, however, suggest that if the lighting is decent and one has a decent phone cam such as on my Samsung Galaxy 4, one can get a working and publishable photo at an 85-line "newspaper quality" shot - and even something publishable for a 150-line magazine screen. The weakness too often, however, is a lack of understanding what you're using for a shot and whether you're doing it in a manner that will offer sufficient quality.

 

That's why, in my film days, I had a larger camera film size for magazine covers than what I used for sports action shots in the same magazine. Even what I used wasn't "up to it" for certain types of magazine covers where a different sort of quality (mostly unrecognized as such by readers, but perceived nonetheless) would have been required. In theory my Nikon today could get a better quality image for magazine-type color reproduction, but in practice I think it falls short in several ways for "fashion photography" and such stuff. For a lotta other stuff it's probably okay if you've action as the "focus" of readers as opposed to detail.

 

Both back in the film days and with today's increasing digital quality, there have been discussions of lens quality vs. film/sensor quality. That's likely to continue until we have some other way of producing images to pass on to others.

 

I guess in ways you might compare it to guitar playing in that as noted above, a good photographer or a good guitar player can get pro-quality results with all sorts of equipment. It's a matter that isn't all that obvious to folks who achieve little beyond a journeyman level in either regardless they may have far greater artistic talent.

 

I'll wager that both Pippy and I are more than aware of our limitations at both arts, as well as that of our equipment. That doesn't mean we're not both working always to improve our skills to the limits of time and disposable income as well as personal inclinations of style.

 

m

[L8_4thesh0w]

Oh, digital, for so many reasons. You don't have to take the film in for developing. No waiting for the film to be developed. You can take 20 shots of the same scene, pick one, throw 19 away, no wasted film! You can switch ISO settings from one pic to the next. And cropping! With the number of megapixels these days, you can crop a small portion of a photo and still have decent resolution. The switch to digital really changed everything (except how to take a good photo).

What he said... plus, you can send it around the world with the click of a finger!

 

I'd say that photography is the only artistic medium where mistakes are expected and even encouraged, as they are often most useful for learning, with some even worthy of artistic status.

And, if one ever does reach the end of such a rewarding career, he could have quite the body of work to show for it. Not many trades allow you to keep both the tools and the product.

 

ϵβ

[milod]

Actually the bit of "decent resolution" depends on how the pix will be used.

 

For example, what's good enough for this forum may well not be 15 percent good enough for newsprint and not 5 percent good enough for a magazine pix.

 

Right now I'm awaiting verbal responses from kids I was "guest clinician" for at the local high school's photo class. I got several shots emailed to me that demonstrate what I was talking about in terms of light and lighting and its effects. We'll see.

 

m

[milod]

The comeback from the high school kids' photo class. Students mostly age 17.

 

The main thing I think they got out of it is how our eyes will adjust colors to what we "know" are there rather than what the light actually is doing in a given view - and how our eyes also will "see" what's not really there at times, and the photo shows it ain't.

 

That means adjusting how and where the light comes from, among other things - one way or another.

 

Given that the above is a big percentage of photography...

 

... I figure if they got that much out of less than an hour that included a 10-minute "history" bit, I didn't do all that poorly. They also sent some examples students "shot" to demonstrate the above.

 

m

[retrosurfer1959]

Beautiful Gear - I went a different way but I have a few older Leica's (film) hard to beat I just like medium format too much so I have

 

of course the digital Backs are ridiculous I bought a second hand version although it looks and works like new

 

But unless I'm taking pictures of jewelry for sale I usually still use film. Im old and I just can't convince myself to like digital just something about Analog film thats hard to beat I guess it's like a tube amp???