35 mm photography [OT?]

"Harry Lockwood" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In article ,
"Max Perl" wrote:

Do you develop you B/W films youself and also make the prints
in the darkroom?

It is possible to make good looking B/W prints from digital color.
Special converting tools from color to B/W is available in Photoshop
and some home printers today can print using only the black and
gray inks. It can look very good. Then you wont get wet fingers
either :-) .....so maybe the M8 or D200 or maybe 400D?

Max


"Harry Lockwood" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I've been away from this newsgroup for more than 2 years helping a
startup company get off the ground. That's behind me now, and I'm
firing up my quadtone printer anew and starting over with PS 9.02. So
much to relearn!

A change I've observed is that this NG seems to be very much about
personal attacks and little about 35 mm photography. Back in the day,
there was indeed some ad hominem stuff, but the emphasis was on
"rec.photo.equipment.35mm." The language in many of the current posts
is not simply "colorful"; it's absolutely juvenile, indicating, to me
at
least, a very limited vocabulary. Even some familiar names, clearly
adults, seem to have fallen into this mode. Must be the new zeitgeist.

So, at the risk of being off topic I'd like to discuss things 35 mm
(film). Again, back in the day, I got tired of waiting for the
long-rumored Leica M7 and bought a Konica RF which (you may have
forgotten) is a Leica look-alike and has proven to be a fine camera. I
don't regret the purchase. But I'm now thinking about the M7 again.
In
particular, the VF magnification of the Konica is rather low (0.6)
making accurate focussing with a longer lens (~ 75 mm or 90 mm)
somewhat risky. (My standard lens on the Konica has been the 35-mm
Summicron.)

So I have a question or two for any Leica users who may still frequent
this group. The M7 is available in standard VF mag of 0.72 but is also
available in 0.85, clearly better for longer focal lengths ( and these
old eyes.) An alternative would be the 0.72 mag model fitted, as
needed, with the 1.25 eyepiece magnifier. This would give a VF mag of
0.9 (and unity for the 0.85 VF). But how is the optical quality? (Or
is that a dumb question for Leica optics?) Is there any down side to
adding the magnifier? What about the frame lines in the VF? Also, how
does wearing eyeglasses, full time, influence the choice, if at all?

BTW, I'm not open to suggestions to buy an M8. At this time I'm not
interested in digital or color. B&W film is where I am. And it's not
because I'm a neanderthal or "arsty-fartsy" (to paraphrase a recent
thread); I just don't know how effectively to add color to the kind of
photography I like to do. Maybe I'll eventually get over this "hurdle"
but not for the present.

Appreciate your comments.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

Max,

Yes, I develop my own B&W films, but I no longer do wet printing. Gave
away the enlarger, trays, etc. to a young guy who was just starting out
in photography and was doing B&W in school.

My workflow is to develop (D 76) the film (after loading the tank in a
changing bag) then scan with a Nikon 4000ED as a plugin to Photoshop
(now 9.02).
I print, using quadtone inks from MIS, on rag, "carbon on cotton" in an
oldie-but-goodie Epson 1160. Eventually, I'll probably go to a hextone
printer for more shades of gray.
Indeed, I have converted color images to B&W in Photoshop and gotten
some pretty good results, but I prefer B&W film. I usually use TMax 400
or 100, but I've used others as well.
If I buy a digital camera it will probably be a pocketable compact for
snap shots.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

OK
So it is a mix of analog and digital. I do the same when I from time to time
use
film. Most color slides but also some Kodak 400CN as I have no equipment
anymore to develop film. A shame if Kodak stops production of the 400CN.
I is quite fine grained and scans nicely.

Max

On Feb 17, 5:25 pm, That_Rich wrote:
Modernize, schmodernize! That '64 Volvo was a dream car ..

I'm sure it was .... in 1964.

This coming from a person that *claims* to drive a 1995 Altima...

Actually, it's a 1993 model. 181,000 miles ... so far.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/56858916