[LRflex] Re: leicareflex Digest V7 #12
- From: Scott McLeod <scott.s.mcleod@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:14:35 +1100
Hi Walter,
I have a few samples of Tri-X shot outdoors without a filter, and with
a Hoya Orange (dark yellow, really) "G" filter and a B+W 040, which is
a much more intense orange. Just going by the camera's meter, the G
filter cost 1/2 a stop, the 040 a full stop (with ISO 400 film I was
still okay in bright sunlight).
Here is a link to the page:
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/filter_test
M6 TTL, Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon.
These were very high resolution scans (16MP), reduced to 25% for
easier loading. I think you can still get the effect of the filters at
this size. IMO there is practically no difference in tonal separation
between the G and the 040, but my subject material for this test roll
was limited.
As you can (hopefully!) see, Ken is right on with this one, a
yellow-orange filter really makes the sky "pop" without alterting the
rest of the image unduly or making it appear unnatural. The B+W filter
handbook has some good advice on when to use what colors:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook24_29.pdf
Hope this helps,
Scott
From: "walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [LRflex] Filters with Black and White film
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:56:36 +0800
Greetings,
I have been roaming around the net and have come across the idea that one s=
hould always use a yellow filter when shooting B&W film out doors. = ; I
know nothing about filters let alone which ones to use with B&W fil= m. I
think the references were to Y1 or Y2, not sure. Does anyo= ne have any
experience with these and under what conditions should you use = them? See
link for what Rockwell says about this - half way down= the page:
Filters for Black-and-White Film
http://www.kenrockw= ell.com/tech/filters.htm[1]
Walter
On 1/13/10, FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Leica Reflex Forum Digest
> +------------------------+------------------------------------
> leicareflex Digest Tue, 12 Jan 2010 Volume: 07 Issue: 012
>
> In This Issue:
> [LRflex] Re: Using the M6
> [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Filters with Black and White film
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:42:15 +1100
> From: Walter Kramer <walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Using the M6
>
> Jeff,
>
> Why let go of film? I' m late on the scene and started with a digital
> SLR, Nikon D50. Then I bought an old Konica T3 SLR and some lenses and
> loved the results. I suffer from the same dilemma and would love to go
> one way or the other, it would simplify things. Now I accept that I will
> be shooting both, if I'm forced to give up one, it will be digital, but
> I don't have to make that choice. I usually prefer my 35mm photographs,
> but I'm taking more care with digital now and getting better results.
> My advice ... maybe it's a case of paying attention and knowing the
> digital medium and it's limitations/virtues. I enjoy digital more when
> I do this. Nevertheless, I can't emulate 35mm on digital, the reverse
> is also the case yet less so.
>
> When I show family and friends the results they gravitate to the 35mm
> pictures for reasons they cannot immediately articulate. If its B&W I
> reach for film, colour, I will choose on the spot, depends how I feel
> and what I have on hand. I prefer Ektar 100 for colour. When I print
> it's from the scan, Ektar is great for scanning. I prefer well scanned
> film to raw digital files.
>
> It seems to me that film is no longer for snaps and the quick grab but
> retains a new place in image making. I know that doesn't make sense.
> I'm all for shooting film and will continue to do so.
>
> Walter
>
> Jeffrey L. T. Gluck wrote:
>> Walter,
>>
>> I am often conflicted. I simply cannot let go of film, having started
>> with my first camera way back in 1963. My favorite emulsions right now
>> are Kodak Ektar (for prints) and Kodachrome 64 (for transparencies--at
>> least until Dwayne's ceases developing on 31 Dec. 2010!). (An old frozen
>> brick of Agfa Ultracolor 100 also awaits!) I have CDs burned at the time
>> of processing so I get the best of both worlds, but admittedly at a
>> pecuniary cost.
>>
>> My wife has gotten into digital big time (Canon 40D). I find that I must
>> shoot both film and digital to keep peace in the family, though my heart
>> is not really into the new medium, yet. I justify (in my own mind) the
>> use of the DSLR for the long shots. In the warmer weather--I am in the
>> Northeast (NYC)--it is easier to drag out the old SL or R7, but in the
>> winter it is much easier to just pull out a DSLR (my wife's 40D!). If I
>> am in a "film" frame of mind for long shots, I also have a huge
>> compliment of my wife's Canon F-1 gear to fondle.
>>
>> But having used Leicas since the early 70s, it's very hard to get away
>> from them. If I ever get enough money together, I will buy a digital M9
>> to use my large stable of M glass. However, in today's economy, I simply
>> cannot justify the expense.
>>
>> Jeff Gluck
>>
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Walter Krämer
> walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bus: 03 9854 2463
> Mob: 0414 884 965
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Axel Collier" <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:55:00 +0100
>
> Ok Doug
> that 's a deal ;-)
> BTW i found this : better option than the others ?
> greetings Axel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Herr" <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:06 AM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
>
>> Axel Collier wrote:
>>
>>>Is this the one ?
>>>http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120516299155&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
>>
>> An excellent and complete T-Noflexar at a reasonable price. Keep in mind
>> the equipment doesn't guarantee success, you'll still have to learn how to
>>
>> get close to the animals... but once you do this lens will be very handy.
>> And if it doesn't work out for you let me know how much you want for the
>> lens :)
>>
>> Doug Herr
>> Birdman of Sacramento
>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:18:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Chris L <speleo_karst@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
> Hi David,
>
> Here are the pictures of the Leica/Novoflex "Frankenstein" Telyt 400..
> (Pictures aren't so good: Very dark day, so had to photograph with normal
> indoor lighting).
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Telyt1.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Telyt2.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Telyt3.jpg
>
> I assume the lens end has a normal Telyt mount / is a normal Telyt 400
> (Doug?).
>
> While the bellows is great for close focusing, I'm looking for a tube to
> replace it (or an entire rear tube) in order to save weight & space for most
> uses.
> The interchangeable camera mount is the classic Novoflex one.
>
> A previous owner had applied tape to joins, screw heads and parts vulnerable
> to bumps. I liked the idea and added some gaffer's tape to the focusing lock
> to help keep dust & water out.
>
> If anyone has seen something similar, please let me know.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 11:03:32 PM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
> Chris L wrote:
>
>>My own Telyt is a strange combination of classical Telyt front with
>>a Novoflex (interchangeable mount - complete with bellows) rear
>>tube. Hey, maybe a "prototype"... Maybe I can sell it a' la Arsenal
>>and finance an S2! ;-)
>
>
> Don't know about selling it, Chris. But I'd love to see a photo of this
> rig!
>
> Cheers!
>
> ---
> David Young
> Logan Lake, Canada.
>
> Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net
> Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net
> A micro-finance lender though http://www.kiva.org
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Axel Collier" <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:35:51 +0100
>
> i mean this :
> http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160393187959&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Axel Collier" <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:55 PM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
>
>> Ok Doug
>> that 's a deal ;-)
>> BTW i found this : better option than the others ?
>> greetings Axel
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Doug Herr" <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:06 AM
>> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>
>>
>>> Axel Collier wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is this the one ?
>>>>http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120516299155&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
>>>
>>> An excellent and complete T-Noflexar at a reasonable price. Keep in mind
>>> the equipment doesn't guarantee success, you'll still have to learn how
>>> to
>>> get close to the animals... but once you do this lens will be very handy.
>>> And if it doesn't work out for you let me know how much you want for the
>>> lens :)
>>>
>>> Doug Herr
>>> Birdman of Sacramento
>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ------
>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>> Archives are at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:44:21 -0500 (EST)
> From: Doug Herr <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
> Chris L wrote:
>
>>Here are the pictures of the Leica/Novoflex "Frankenstein" Telyt 400..
>>(Pictures aren't so good: Very dark day, so had to photograph with normal
>> indoor lighting).
>>
>>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Telyt1.jpg
>>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Telyt2.jpg
>>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Zotty/Telyt3.jpg
>>
>>I assume the lens end has a normal Telyt mount / is a normal Telyt 400
>> (Doug?).
>>
>>While the bellows is great for close focusing, I'm looking for a tube to
>> replace it (or an entire rear tube) in order to save weight & space for
>> most uses.
>>The interchangeable camera mount is the classic Novoflex one.
>>
>>A previous owner had applied tape to joins, screw heads and parts
>> vulnerable to bumps. I liked the idea and added some gaffer's tape to the
>> focusing lock to help keep dust & water out.
>
> Fascinating! The 400mm f/6.8 lens head is unmodified, so the normal 560mm
> f/6.8 lens head will fit perfectly. If the tripod mount were slightly
> modified with grooves along the sides it could serve as a Arca-type QR mount
> as well. Thanks for showing us, Chris.
>
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:54:32 -0500 (EST)
> From: Doug Herr <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
> Optically this is the same T-Noflexar as the other lens. This lens has the
> older PIGRIFF-B focussing grip. This particular item does not have the
> second hand grip, which I find almost essential if you want to use the lens
> hand-held. You might be able to add a Nikon pistol grip to this lens but
> I'd have to see it personally to be certain. Does your camera body accept a
> mechanical cable release? I don't know of an accessory pistol grip with an
> electronic release.
>
> One accessory that I am certain will accept the Nikon pistol grip is the
> Novoflex tripod collar:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Novoflex-Original-Staivschelle-fuer-400-600mm_W0QQitemZ350303422096QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPhotographica_Film?hash=item518fb60690#ht_1941wt_983
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y8dhepo
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Axel Collier <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Jan 12, 2010 8:35 AM
>>To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>
>>i mean this :
>>http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160393187959&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Axel Collier" <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:55 PM
>>Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>
>>
>>> Ok Doug
>>> that 's a deal ;-)
>>> BTW i found this : better option than the others ?
>>> greetings Axel
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Doug Herr" <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:06 AM
>>> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>>
>>>
>>>> Axel Collier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the one ?
>>>>>http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120516299155&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
>>>>
>>>> An excellent and complete T-Noflexar at a reasonable price. Keep in
>>>> mind
>>>> the equipment doesn't guarantee success, you'll still have to learn how
>>>> to
>>>> get close to the animals... but once you do this lens will be very
>>>> handy.
>>>> And if it doesn't work out for you let me know how much you want for the
>>>> lens :)
>>>>
>>>> Doug Herr
>>>> Birdman of Sacramento
>>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------
>>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>>> Archives are at:
>>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------
>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>> Archives are at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>
>>
>>------
>>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Axel Collier" <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:18:12 +0100
>
> Hi Doug
> "Does your camera body accept a mechanical cable release?"
> My F80, FE and ... R3 have it. NOT my D40 .... Maybee I could use a ML-L3
> infrared remote but i dont have any experience with the use of infrared.
> Dont know about the D700 !
> greetings, axel
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Herr" <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:54 PM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>
>
>> Optically this is the same T-Noflexar as the other lens. This lens has
>> the older PIGRIFF-B focussing grip. This particular item does not have
>> the second hand grip, which I find almost essential if you want to use the
>> lens hand-held. You might be able to add a Nikon pistol grip to this lens
>> but I'd have to see it personally to be certain. Does your camera body
>> accept a mechanical cable release? I don't know of an accessory pistol
>> grip with an electronic release.
>>
>> One accessory that I am certain will accept the Nikon pistol grip is the
>> Novoflex tripod collar:
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/Novoflex-Original-Staivschelle-fuer-400-600mm_W0QQitemZ350303422096QQcmdZViewItemQQptZPhotographica_Film?hash=item518fb60690#ht_1941wt_983
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y8dhepo
>>
>> Doug Herr
>> Birdman of Sacramento
>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Axel Collier <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Jan 12, 2010 8:35 AM
>>>To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>>
>>>i mean this :
>>>http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item
>>> 0393187959&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Axel Collier" <axel.collier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:55 PM
>>>Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ok Doug
>>>> that 's a deal ;-)
>>>> BTW i found this : better option than the others ?
>>>> greetings Axel
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Doug Herr" <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:06 AM
>>>> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Try a Novoflex Kit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Axel Collier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is this the one ?
>>>>>>http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item
>>>>>> 0516299155&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
>>>>>
>>>>> An excellent and complete T-Noflexar at a reasonable price. Keep in
>>>>> mind
>>>>> the equipment doesn't guarantee success, you'll still have to learn how
>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>> get close to the animals... but once you do this lens will be very
>>>>> handy.
>>>>> And if it doesn't work out for you let me know how much you want for
>>>>> the
>>>>> lens :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug Herr
>>>>> Birdman of Sacramento
>>>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>>>> Archives are at:
>>>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------
>>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>>> Archives are at:
>>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>>
>>>
>>>------
>>>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>>Archives are at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:08:31 -0800 (PST)
> From: Richard Ward <ilovaussiesheps@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> Hello Steve,
> you raise excellent questions about the context and circumstances of
> my observations on some of Doug's Posted jpegs. I definitely don't find
> 'all internet jpegs' to be problematic, not at all. My sentence might
> be more artfully written as seeing the noted issues in previous posts
> from the same author. When i view the images posted on the list, I
> frequently encounter gorgeous images which aren't showing the ill
> effects I see in my own personal images from extreme sharpening filtration,
> powerful curves/levels/contrast
> manipulations, image resizings by 'ham fisted' algorithims I've
> encountered in some websites, and the ill effects I've encountered
> frequently in the images from Point & Shoot cameras with tiny
> sensors.
> As for the questions about whether there are exceptions, only fron
> LUG gallery, etc - I believe Doug posts his images from a specific site
> and it's related to a website of his (if I recall correctly!) so I
> guess my comments are quite site specific. I've seen quite gorgeous
> images all over the net posted to the list.
> As for hardware, I believe my comments are quite independent of my
> specific hardware. Not because the equipment is perfect! :-) It isn't!
> But because on the HP laptop I semi-regularly email view on, the
> Windows setup of my girlfriend with it's big honking LCDs and my
> (Beloved) "MacPro" With a quality CRT & LCD, I have encountered the same
> internal image quality issues in some of Doug's posts that leads me to
> suspect the issues are integral to the jpegs themselves and independent of
> my viewing hardware. I would add that I work very hard to achieve as much
> image consistency and quality on my Mac setup as is reasonable absent owning
> a Color Calibrator. ie:using a PC Gamma, setting the manufaturer profiles
> for the monitors AND at least once a week using the OS integrated
> Calibration Abilities. I wouldn't hesitate to throw the Desktop & Laptop I
> sometimes use 'under the bus' for image quality issues! I wouldn't trust em
> on that point as far as I could throw em! and I'm Disabled! Still, I must
> admit that my own flickr posts appear acceptably near how the images appear
> on my mac, to personally not be fretting much over the issue when it comes
> to web jpegs.
>
> I do have a terrific question of my own for Doug or the group in general.
> Are any of the images shot with a 'Mirror' lens? The weird out of focus
> donuts and unique bokeh of such Telephoto's might easily go bonkers when an
> otherwise gorgeous image is scaled down.
>
> I guess all I can add is that I'm viewing the images with firefox (in winxp
> and OSX10.8 respectively) so maybe it's an issue with this specific browser
> program itself, but the issues with image quality I originally posted about
> are ones I rarely encounter with other links from the group independent of
> platform/monitor.
>
> To re-iterate my original query/observation. With a number of the very cool
> images Doug posts, I bump into a harshness in them that jumps out to me as
> unusual - especially with images shot with Leica Glass on a dSLR or on Film.
> Things such as uninviting bokeh qualities, hard transitions between light
> and dark areas, and 'artifacts' I associate with Sharpening Filters run
> amok. These make me wonder as to whether a program somewhere stabbed the
> images in the back, a website or hosting site mangled them with aggressive
> compression tools or a ham fisted automatic scale to fit algorithym worked
> it's dark magic somewhere along the way.
>
> Heck, maybe it's an issue with the 's.o.b.' internet service provider I'm
> accessing through?
>
> Sincerely
>
> Richard in Michigan
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Steve Barbour <steve.barbour@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 12:08:50 PM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Richard Ward wrote:
>
>> Hello Doug,
>>
> I have an observation/query about the very cool images you regularly
> post on the list. I'll comment specifically on the ones in the 'more
> goldeneye ducks' post, but it's a line of thought I've had on a number
> of other images and posts as well.
>
> true of images in general, from other sources.... ie all internet jpegs?
>
> exceptions?
>
> only from the LUG gallery?
>
> only on one screen, one computer? all screens?
>
> please tell us about your hardware/screen...
>
>
> not true here, there must be an explanation, we have to find it...
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Steve Barbour <steve.barbour@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 12:08:50 PM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Richard Ward wrote:
>
>> Hello Doug,
>> I have an observation/query about the very cool images you regularly
>> post on the list. I'll comment specifically on the ones in the 'more
>> goldeneye ducks' post, but it's a line of thought I've had on a number of
>> other images and posts as well.
>
> true of images in general, from other sources.... ie all internet jpegs?
>
> exceptions?
>
> only from the LUG gallery?
>
> only on one screen, one computer? all screens?
>
> please tell us about your hardware/screen...
>
>
> not true here, there must be an explanation, we have to find it...
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:16:56 -0800 (PST)
> From: Richard Ward <ilovaussiesheps@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> Hi Doug,
> I just went to your Site, not for the first time, and opened some random
> images under some random headings and definitely didn't encounter the
> 'harsh' image factors I commented upon finding in the goldeneye post ones
> specifically and others in general.
> I am at a loss to point to something specific causing issues I've seen
> following post links. Since the 'post' links I'm commenting on aren't ones I
> saw at the site visit, maybe the determining factor lays with specific
> images - how the 'net is treating them, how isp's are manipulating them, or
> maybe it's 'Solar Flares!' :-).
> Richard
>
>
>
> Without seeing what's on your computer screen, a number of factors can be
> in play here. Some ISPs compress images before sending them to
> subscribers, for faster dowload times, also much is lost when downsizing
> from the original dimensions to 600 pixels wide (what I typically use).
> I'm also using enough jpg compression to keep the web version of the file
> to about 100k or smaller, as an attempt at finding a good balance between
> image quality and download time. Since I'm not exactly an unbiased
> observer, perhaps those who have seen some of my prints can compare the
> screen image with the prints.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on
> Microsoft®
> Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail
>
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> From: Steve Barbour <steve.barbour@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:00:36 -0800
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Richard Ward wrote:
>
>> Hello Steve,
>> you raise excellent questions about the context and circumstances of
>> my observations on some of Doug's Posted jpegs. I definitely don't find
>> 'all internet jpegs' to be problematic, not at all. My sentence might
>> be more artfully written as seeing the noted issues in previous posts
>> from the same author. When i view the images posted on the list, I
>> frequently encounter gorgeous images which aren't showing the ill
>> effects I see in my own personal images from extreme sharpening
>> filtration, powerful curves/levels/contrast
>> manipulations, image resizings by 'ham fisted' algorithims I've
>> encountered in some websites, and the ill effects I've encountered
>> frequently in the images from Point & Shoot cameras with tiny
>> sensors.
>> As for the questions about whether there are exceptions, only fron
>> LUG gallery, etc - I believe Doug posts his images from a specific site
>> and it's related to a website of his (if I recall correctly!) so I
>> guess my comments are quite site specific.
>
> thanks Richard, that's very interesting....Personally I have not see the
> problem, though do I wonder if Doug would be willing to post identical files
> for several images (perhaps you could name them) to his own site and to the
> LUG site to see if they appear differently in some way to you or to anyone
> else...
>
>
> Steve
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "philippe.amard" <philippe.amard@xxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:15:26 +0100
>
> No problem here both on the Imac and the Samsung PC (safari/netscape)
> On the contrary, I find Doug's birds have a 'transparency' quality
> difficult to match ... The Baccarat of bird photos ...
> And the prints in the book are excellent too.
> Best from Metz
> Ph
>
> Le 12 janv. 10 à 22:00, Steve Barbour a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Richard Ward wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Steve,
>>> you raise excellent questions about the context and circumstances of
>>> my observations on some of Doug's Posted jpegs. I definitely don't
>>> find
>>> 'all internet jpegs' to be problematic, not at all. My sentence might
>>> be more artfully written as seeing the noted issues in previous posts
>>> from the same author. When i view the images posted on the list, I
>>> frequently encounter gorgeous images which aren't showing the ill
>>> effects I see in my own personal images from extreme sharpening
>>> filtration, powerful curves/levels/contrast
>>> manipulations, image resizings by 'ham fisted' algorithims I've
>>> encountered in some websites, and the ill effects I've encountered
>>> frequently in the images from Point & Shoot cameras with tiny
>>> sensors.
>>> As for the questions about whether there are exceptions, only fron
>>> LUG gallery, etc - I believe Doug posts his images from a specific
>>> site
>>> and it's related to a website of his (if I recall correctly!) so I
>>> guess my comments are quite site specific.
>>
>> thanks Richard, that's very interesting....Personally I have not see
>> the problem, though do I wonder if Doug would be willing to post
>> identical files for several images (perhaps you could name them) to
>> his own site and to the LUG site to see if they appear differently
>> in some way to you or to anyone else...
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wildlightphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:58:13 -0500
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> Richard Ward wrote:
>
>>>>
> I do have a terrific question of my own for Doug or the group in general.
> Are any of the images shot with a 'Mirror' lens? The weird out of focus
> donuts and unique bokeh of such Telephoto's might easily go bonkers when an
> otherwise gorgeous image is scaled down.
> <<<
>
> I can think of only three photos on my website that were made with a mirror
> lens:
>
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo00.html
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo01.html
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/gifl00.html
>
> The bokeh has little to do with scaling the image down, it's like this in
> the original slides too. In the last photo I evaded the typical mirror
> lens bokeh with a plain blue sky but you can see the light fall-off toward
> the edges, even when cropped from horizontal (as this photo was). I found
> it very hard to use this lens to get the 'look' I wanted in my photos.
>
>>>>
> I guess all I can add is that I'm viewing the images with firefox (in winxp
> and OSX10.8 respectively) so maybe it's an issue with this specific browser
> program itself, but the issues with image quality I originally posted
> about are ones I rarely encounter with other links from the group
> independent of platform/monitor.
> <<<
>
> Perhaps this is an issue with the Goldeneye photos in particular? Several
> of these were cropped significantly in order to tell the story, something I
> ordinarily try hard not to do. I also don't have any current image
> processing software like NeatImage or Bibble or whatever is the latest
> thing... nor do I have the computer to run much of this software... so my
> processing for these cropped images is crude by most standards and not as
> good as I'd like to do. I'm much happier with the photos that I don't have
> to crop much if at all.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> From: Steve Barbour <steve.barbour@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:06:16 -0800
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 1:15 PM, philippe.amard wrote:
>
>> No problem here both on the Imac and the Samsung PC (safari/netscape)
>> On the contrary, I find Doug's birds have a 'transparency' quality
>> difficult to match ... The Baccarat of bird photos ...
>
>
> my feeling too, technically setting the bar...and as I said, I've not ever
> seen problems...
>
> so it's a fascinating problem indicating, to me at least, that the origin
> of the problem is elsewhere,
>
> Steve
>
>
>> And the prints in the book are excellent too.
>> Best from Metz
>> Ph
>>
>> Le 12 janv. 10 à 22:00, Steve Barbour a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Richard Ward wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Steve,
>>>> you raise excellent questions about the context and circumstances of
>>>> my observations on some of Doug's Posted jpegs. I definitely don't
>>>> find
>>>> 'all internet jpegs' to be problematic, not at all. My sentence might
>>>> be more artfully written as seeing the noted issues in previous posts
>>>> from the same author. When i view the images posted on the list, I
>>>> frequently encounter gorgeous images which aren't showing the ill
>>>> effects I see in my own personal images from extreme sharpening
>>>> filtration, powerful curves/levels/contrast
>>>> manipulations, image resizings by 'ham fisted' algorithims I've
>>>> encountered in some websites, and the ill effects I've encountered
>>>> frequently in the images from Point & Shoot cameras with tiny
>>>> sensors.
>>>> As for the questions about whether there are exceptions, only fron
>>>> LUG gallery, etc - I believe Doug posts his images from a specific
>>>> site
>>>> and it's related to a website of his (if I recall correctly!) so I
>>>> guess my comments are quite site specific.
>>>
>>> thanks Richard, that's very interesting....Personally I have not see
>>> the problem, though do I wonder if Doug would be willing to post
>>> identical files for several images (perhaps you could name them) to
>>> his own site and to the LUG site to see if they appear differently
>>> in some way to you or to anyone else...
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ------
>>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>>> Archives are at:
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:25:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Andy Wagner <yxandy2001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> Doug
> I can see why you got rid of the lens and others negative comments on this
> lens and mirrors in general. I actually had an old mirror, used it twice
> before turning it into a paperweight. But the Bokeh on this image is
> downright distracting from the subject.
>
>
> ------ >--
> Regards
> YXAndy
>
>
>
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo01.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
>
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Edward Kelly <edwardjkelly@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:54:20 -0500
>
> Caroline,
>
> The recorded levels from last weeks recording are a bit lower than usual. I
> have already made the broadcast CDs of the concert last week and I would
> like to send a revised version to both Doug and Steve. Can you forward
> their addresses to me.
>
> I would bring a revised CD to you tomorrow but I have a plummer here
> tomorrow. The acid soil here, which affects the copper pipes in my house
> via the well water is causing issues. We have a water nuteralizer, but I
> unknowingly engaged a bi passed valve last year. Anyway, some copper pipes
> and valves will be repalaced tomorrow.
>
> Let me know if you would like a new version sooner rather than at the end of
> the month.
>
> Ed
>
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Andy Wagner wrote:
>
>> Doug
>> I can see why you got rid of the lens and others negative comments on this
>> lens and mirrors in general. I actually had an old mirror, used it twice
>> before turning it into a paperweight. But the Bokeh on this image is
>> downright distracting from the subject.
>>
>>
>> ------ >--
>> Regards
>> YXAndy
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo01.html
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
>> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
>>
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>>
>> ------
>> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
>> Archives are at:
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
> Edward J. Kelly
>
> MobileMaster
> 4627 Dustin Road
> Burtonsville, MD 20866
>
> (301) 802-2576
> (301) 476-7640
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Filters with Black and White film
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:56:36 +0800
>
> Greetings,
> I have been roaming around the net and have come across the idea that one s=
> hould always use a yellow filter when shooting B&W film out doors. = ; I
> know nothing about filters let alone which ones to use with B&W fil= m. I
> think the references were to Y1 or Y2, not sure. Does anyo= ne have any
> experience with these and under what conditions should you use = them? See
> link for what Rockwell says about this - half way down= the page:
>
> Filters for Black-and-White Film
>
> http://www.kenrockw= ell.com/tech/filters.htm[1]
>
> Walter
>
> =
>
> --- Links ---
> 1 3D"http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm";
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:30:19 -0800
> From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> At 1/12/2010, you wrote:
>>Doug
>>I can see why you got rid of the lens and others negative comments
>>on this lens and mirrors in general. I actually had an old mirror,
>>used it twice before turning it into a paperweight. But the Bokeh on
>>this image is downright distracting from the subject.
>
>
>
> HI Andy!
>
> I had a Russian MTO, some years back... used it for shooting an
> Eclipse of the Sun, from aboard ship. No problems with bokeh ...
> things were either brilliant or black!
>
> See the 1998 entries under
> http://www.main.furnfeather.net/eclipse/eclipse_index.htm
>
> However, in any other use, the lens exhibited OK sharpness, but
> noticeable curvature of field, serious vignetting and low contrast.
> Other aspects were so poor, I never bothered about the bokeh! I
> quickly sold it.
>
>
>
> ---
> David Young
> Logan Lake, Canada.
>
> Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net
> Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net
> A micro-finance lender though http://www.kiva.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:45:43 -0800 (PST)
> From: Andy Wagner <yxandy2001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
>
> David
> Something just dawned on me. Using photoshop and the gaussin blur on a layer
> one might come out with a reasonable shot. Of course the subject would have
> to kept in the sweet spot of the lens. Not much for composition options.
>
> ------ >--
> Regards
> YXAndy
>
> --- On Tue, 1/12/10, David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: more Goldeneye ducks
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 7:30 PM
>
>
> At 1/12/2010, you wrote:
>>Doug
>>I can see why you got rid of the lens and others negative comments
>>on this lens and mirrors in general. I actually had an old mirror,
>>used it twice before turning it into a paperweight. But the Bokeh on
>>this image is downright distracting from the subject.
>
>
>
> HI Andy!
>
> I had a Russian MTO, some years back... used it for shooting an
> Eclipse of the Sun, from aboard ship. No problems with bokeh ...
> things were either brilliant or black!
>
> See the 1998 entries under
> http://www.main.furnfeather.net/eclipse/eclipse_index.htm
>
> However, in any other use, the lens exhibited OK sharpness, but
> noticeable curvature of field, serious vignetting and low contrast.
> Other aspects were so poor, I never bothered about the bokeh! I
> quickly sold it.
>
>
>
> ---
> David Young
> Logan Lake, Canada.
>
> Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net
> Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net
> A micro-finance lender though http://www.kiva.org
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of leicareflex Digest V7 #12
> ********************************
> *********************
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
