Photon-hunter
Established
Hi Everyone!!
Well. it finally happened....My new Leica M-7 arrived a few days ago. Ahhh!
First impression: COLD (even through the plastic in which it ws wrapped!).
Nice and sturdy, I love the feel of this beauty.
I am a guy with a digital background: learnt my basics with digital cameras and have been shooting DSLR´s for a couple of years now. Had never shot film in my life.Until a year ago that was.I felt the fatal atraction of BW and rangefinders (wonder why because they are such in a world of their own own...not easy to master and not helpfull at all with a comfortable pionty-shooty-histogrammic kind of guy like me). The lust for medium format toghether with all the said above lead me finally to the purchase of a Bronica RF 645. LOve the thing.
Shooting film for nearly a year (not on a very regular basis), start to feel the call of a smaller system, faster lenses....etc,etc(I guess you know the rest of the story..).Long story made short: Leica M7, 35 Summicron ASPH, 50 CRON and 90 Elmarit.(purchased from Robert white, as with the Bronica, whose proffesional and friendly service I can recomend wothout hessitation..)
I needed to get quick results to see some "Leica pictures"of my own, so I bought a couple of Kodak C-41 Rolls and quickly runned them through my new love and rushed into the local store to have them processed.
Well the results I have got back have shocked me...but probably not in the way you are thinking.
In this threadhttp://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=181097#post181097 It has benn mentioned the convenience of overexposing BCN by a stop to get propper results. I didnt. I was shooting with a medium yellow filter attached to the lense and didnt compensate for it l(I expected the camera´s meter to do so).Exposed at 400 ISO, metered with hand held meter.
I have attached some examples of the images. You will see that they look a bit strange. They look more like sketches or quick carbon drawings than like pictures. I am fairly new to scanning and might be doing something wrong, but I´ve managed to get some decent results scanning APX100 from my RF 645. The images took quite a lot of PS to come into life. I include a couple of examples as scanned and after procesing. I also include a couple of the images that look more "surrealistic" to me. They really dont look as photographs to me. I will also include some scans from a recent trip to a botanichall garden with my Bronica RF 645,(APX developed in Rodinal) as matter of dramatic comparisson. Maybe someone will throw some light over this because I am perplex. If the negs are underexposed, then the highlights are nearly burnt(actually burnt in some areas), so exposing the film at ISO 200 as suggested would only make things worse...
First four are two images before and after PS.
Hope to hear some comments on this one...
Well. it finally happened....My new Leica M-7 arrived a few days ago. Ahhh!
First impression: COLD (even through the plastic in which it ws wrapped!).
Nice and sturdy, I love the feel of this beauty.
I am a guy with a digital background: learnt my basics with digital cameras and have been shooting DSLR´s for a couple of years now. Had never shot film in my life.Until a year ago that was.I felt the fatal atraction of BW and rangefinders (wonder why because they are such in a world of their own own...not easy to master and not helpfull at all with a comfortable pionty-shooty-histogrammic kind of guy like me). The lust for medium format toghether with all the said above lead me finally to the purchase of a Bronica RF 645. LOve the thing.
Shooting film for nearly a year (not on a very regular basis), start to feel the call of a smaller system, faster lenses....etc,etc(I guess you know the rest of the story..).Long story made short: Leica M7, 35 Summicron ASPH, 50 CRON and 90 Elmarit.(purchased from Robert white, as with the Bronica, whose proffesional and friendly service I can recomend wothout hessitation..)
I needed to get quick results to see some "Leica pictures"of my own, so I bought a couple of Kodak C-41 Rolls and quickly runned them through my new love and rushed into the local store to have them processed.
Well the results I have got back have shocked me...but probably not in the way you are thinking.
In this threadhttp://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=181097#post181097 It has benn mentioned the convenience of overexposing BCN by a stop to get propper results. I didnt. I was shooting with a medium yellow filter attached to the lense and didnt compensate for it l(I expected the camera´s meter to do so).Exposed at 400 ISO, metered with hand held meter.
I have attached some examples of the images. You will see that they look a bit strange. They look more like sketches or quick carbon drawings than like pictures. I am fairly new to scanning and might be doing something wrong, but I´ve managed to get some decent results scanning APX100 from my RF 645. The images took quite a lot of PS to come into life. I include a couple of examples as scanned and after procesing. I also include a couple of the images that look more "surrealistic" to me. They really dont look as photographs to me. I will also include some scans from a recent trip to a botanichall garden with my Bronica RF 645,(APX developed in Rodinal) as matter of dramatic comparisson. Maybe someone will throw some light over this because I am perplex. If the negs are underexposed, then the highlights are nearly burnt(actually burnt in some areas), so exposing the film at ISO 200 as suggested would only make things worse...
First four are two images before and after PS.
Hope to hear some comments on this one...
Last edited:
Photon-hunter
Established
Here are some images from the Bronica. Note that this are the very first negs. I develop myself (completely self-taught) so I am still trying to get there. See in any case the huge difference in sharpness and clarity.The images from the Leica and BCN in the previous post look somhoh "weak" and dreamy, like fairy tale illustrations....That last image was "screaming" to get toned...
Last edited:
Photon-hunter
Established
and here are a couple more examples of the bizarre things i´ve been getting..This images have not been procesed at all, nothin, nada,zip...warm out of the scanner.
Hope to get some response because I am curious about this one..
Thanks.
Hope to get some response because I am curious about this one..
Thanks.
richard_l
Well-known
I've read this over and over and don't understand what you were doing with the hand held meter.
Chaser
Well-known
Are you scanning the negs on a flatbed? For 35mm flatbed scanners tend to be a little soft. if this is so you might try looking at the negatives themselves with a loup or failing that a magnifying glass or camera lens. you should be able to tell if the negatives are sharp by looking at them directly that way you can narrow down where you are loseing sharpness.
FrankS
Registered User
I was shooting with a medium yellow filter attached to the lense and didnt compensate for it l(I expected the camera´s meter to do so).Exposed at 400 ISO, metered with hand held meter.
How do you expect the camera's meter to compensate for the yellow filter if you are using a handheld meter? I don't see anything bizzare. I see pretty sharp photos from under exposed negatives.
How do you expect the camera's meter to compensate for the yellow filter if you are using a handheld meter? I don't see anything bizzare. I see pretty sharp photos from under exposed negatives.
leafy
Established
Another thing is that if you use film profiles for BCN, you should be using Color Neg instead of B&W. The Dmax and base color are drastically different.
sf
Veteran
honestly, those look more like your chemical process was bad, not the camera. I've come up with stuff like that before, when i was shooting with my 645E, and it was the processing that did it.
Of course, using both a hand beter AND the M7 meter is a good idea. I am not sure why you used the yellow filter, but if the M7 has true TTL metering, it should not have been a problem. Using the hand meter to meter when the filter is on the camera will not produce anything but problems, though, since you aren't metering through the filter with the hand meter.
Bottom line, if the M7 does actually meter TTL, then your problem may have been either that you shot at hte hand metered speed and had the negatives processed accordingly, or that you simply made mistakes in your processing chemical balances and times.
Of course, using both a hand beter AND the M7 meter is a good idea. I am not sure why you used the yellow filter, but if the M7 has true TTL metering, it should not have been a problem. Using the hand meter to meter when the filter is on the camera will not produce anything but problems, though, since you aren't metering through the filter with the hand meter.
Bottom line, if the M7 does actually meter TTL, then your problem may have been either that you shot at hte hand metered speed and had the negatives processed accordingly, or that you simply made mistakes in your processing chemical balances and times.
richard_l
Well-known
If the camera is on manual exposure mode, and you are setting the exposure according to a handheld meter at ISO 400, then you are underexposing the film by about one stop (depending on the density of your yellow filter). C-41 film loses contrast when underexposed.
richard_l
Well-known
However, the pictures in his first post were commercially processed.
Photon-hunter
Established
sorry guys got things mixed up!!!!
I was using the hand held meter with the Bronica...was a bit late when I wrote this and was trying to type to fast plus english only being a second language for me...
Ghee, I feel embarassed now :bang:
I was using the hand held meter with the Bronica...was a bit late when I wrote this and was trying to type to fast plus english only being a second language for me...
Ghee, I feel embarassed now
:bang:sf
Veteran
Just one question, when you say overexposing. . . you did overexpose and NOT underexpose, right? I have made that mistake where you figure overexposure, and shooting at 1 stop too fast rather than too slow.
Ghee is butter fat? yes? Or something very close to butter fat.
And if you DIDN'T underexpose the shots, then it is looking more like an issue with your souping.
Many of my first shots with my first real camera (a Mamiya) were super low contrast like that too, which is why I mention the chemicals.
But, maybe those M7s don't meter through the lens? I didn't think any of the Leica's did, but that is why we are all here isn't it? To learn! At least 50% learning and 50% pleasure.
Ghee is butter fat? yes? Or something very close to butter fat.
And if you DIDN'T underexpose the shots, then it is looking more like an issue with your souping.
Many of my first shots with my first real camera (a Mamiya) were super low contrast like that too, which is why I mention the chemicals.
But, maybe those M7s don't meter through the lens? I didn't think any of the Leica's did, but that is why we are all here isn't it? To learn! At least 50% learning and 50% pleasure.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
shutterflower said:
My first thoughts, too. I'd just go grab a roll of color C41, shoot it using auto exposure, and have it processed at a decent one-hour photo store.
p.s.
Congrats on the camera. Funny that was my first impression when I got mine: cold. But it warmed up quick, a wonderful camera.
Well, the B&W chromogenics do tend toward low contrast, and some are dismayed at the dull machine prints from the lab. This may be your scanner settings, but just some simple fiddling with the histogram here perks things up...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It looks like a ex[osure technique problem to me. The M exposure is strongly centre-weighed and you will have to take the pattern into account. I would advise you to start bracketing your shots, at least until you have gotten the "feel" of the camera. I have learned over many years that that improves the resukts dramatically. That and maybe some more photoshop-craft. I notice in your Bronica shots that they do not seem 100% photoshopped either. Having said that, B&W is b****y difficult in the digital world. I am thinking of setting up my darkroom again
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I hope that I have this right from reading your post. You used the M7's meter with the ISO set at 400 to meter the scenes with the yellow filter on. I would think that the meter did compensate for the filter. If I had a meter in my M, I would set the meter at ISO 200 and let the cameras meter compensate for the filter. To do this manually I set my handheld meter at ISO 100 not 400. I want to maintain the 1 stop over exposure so I have to go to 100 instead of 200 when using a yellow filter. As Jaap pointed out the M7 meter is heavily centre weighted and if you meter of a part of the scene that is much lighter than 18% grey the meter will be fooled and you will get under exposure. There is no such problem with a handheld incident meter as it reads the light actually falling on the subject not reflected from it as the M7's meter does. There have been very few mini labs that have givrn me good B&W prints from Kodak C41 B&W film. They usually have terrible colour casts. I use a dedicated 35mm film scanner to scan C42 B&W negs as colour negs and then process them in PSE 2 and as a last set in PSE 2 convert them to greyscale. Some of the results of this overexposure,scanning and PSE 2 work are in my gallery. I think if you get your metering and processing flow modified you will like the results.
Bob
Bob
Photon-hunter
Established
Tahks to all for you kind responses...
Few things.
Except two examples I posted all the images without tweaking in photoshop, wanted to show only the results of the negatives. Yes, I use a flatbed scanner, Epson Perfection 4990. But then, I´ve managed to get reasonable results out of 35 mm negatives, XP-2 and Tri-x. I believe sharpness is not the issue here. Please correct me if I´m wrong, but I believe its better to scann directly out of the negative without any fiddling with scanner software. I prefer to do my post in PS, so I scan with sharpnening off and curves/tone/histogram in default. Resolution would be 300dpi for printing and 72 for web. Size:Whatever needed (I normally scan 35 mm with an output size of about 60x48cm for printing). 16 Bit.greyscale Tiff., and select black & White negative as the original. Even when I understand that ALL my scans will need post in PS for looking propperly, I believe scanning is not the problem here (the Bronica scans where done with the same settings.)
I did rate the film @ 400 ISO, and left the camera´s meter to compensate for the filter, so I understand that I didnt over or either under-expose...I believe the mettering pattern of the Leica should be very similar to that on the RF 645, center weighted or "Chunky-spot meter" if your prefer, and I seem to be getting decent metering with my Bronica. Please feel free to correct me along the way if I am making any mistakes. I take it from what I´ve read in this thread and others that C-41 BW should be rated between 200 and 320 ISO for best results.I plan on doing some experimenting on the following days.
The film was comercially processed, so if any mistake was done it was obviously on their side. I thought the C41 process was pretty straightfoward and standard, so expected no trouble there (again correct me of wrong). The only reason for shootin C41 was the lack of time right now for doing my own developing (which I enjoy quite a bit actually).
If the negs. are really underexposed(as it seems to be in the opinion of the mojority of you) the I am worried about the brightest parts of the images, they allready look nearly burnt-out. Overexposing by a stop would throw them completely on the side of un-usable, at least Im missing anything.
As for the images coming from the Bronica, I really didnt do much post-processing apart from a bit of curves al levels. Someone did mention that they look a bit "under-worked". I would appreciate any tips regarding the improving of this images. I would love to send over some originals and see what other people can do with them. Interesting to see how other people see and work. And probably learn quite a bit as well... :angel:
Thanks again for all the help and opinions. I will continue experimenting. Gosh, I´m hooked to the negatives, I dont recall getting so much fun out of my Digital moments...
All the best, Erik.
Few things.
Except two examples I posted all the images without tweaking in photoshop, wanted to show only the results of the negatives. Yes, I use a flatbed scanner, Epson Perfection 4990. But then, I´ve managed to get reasonable results out of 35 mm negatives, XP-2 and Tri-x. I believe sharpness is not the issue here. Please correct me if I´m wrong, but I believe its better to scann directly out of the negative without any fiddling with scanner software. I prefer to do my post in PS, so I scan with sharpnening off and curves/tone/histogram in default. Resolution would be 300dpi for printing and 72 for web. Size:Whatever needed (I normally scan 35 mm with an output size of about 60x48cm for printing). 16 Bit.greyscale Tiff., and select black & White negative as the original. Even when I understand that ALL my scans will need post in PS for looking propperly, I believe scanning is not the problem here (the Bronica scans where done with the same settings.)
I did rate the film @ 400 ISO, and left the camera´s meter to compensate for the filter, so I understand that I didnt over or either under-expose...I believe the mettering pattern of the Leica should be very similar to that on the RF 645, center weighted or "Chunky-spot meter" if your prefer, and I seem to be getting decent metering with my Bronica. Please feel free to correct me along the way if I am making any mistakes. I take it from what I´ve read in this thread and others that C-41 BW should be rated between 200 and 320 ISO for best results.I plan on doing some experimenting on the following days.
The film was comercially processed, so if any mistake was done it was obviously on their side. I thought the C41 process was pretty straightfoward and standard, so expected no trouble there (again correct me of wrong). The only reason for shootin C41 was the lack of time right now for doing my own developing (which I enjoy quite a bit actually).
If the negs. are really underexposed(as it seems to be in the opinion of the mojority of you) the I am worried about the brightest parts of the images, they allready look nearly burnt-out. Overexposing by a stop would throw them completely on the side of un-usable, at least Im missing anything.
As for the images coming from the Bronica, I really didnt do much post-processing apart from a bit of curves al levels. Someone did mention that they look a bit "under-worked". I would appreciate any tips regarding the improving of this images. I would love to send over some originals and see what other people can do with them. Interesting to see how other people see and work. And probably learn quite a bit as well... :angel:
Thanks again for all the help and opinions. I will continue experimenting. Gosh, I´m hooked to the negatives, I dont recall getting so much fun out of my Digital moments...
All the best, Erik.
Last edited:
Fred
Feline Great
Photon-hunter, it's good to hear that you're still trying (like the rest of us) to improve the results.
The M7 and M6 both meter through the lens pretty much the same, a little photo sensor reads lu light levels from the big white blob on the front curtain. The M models suffixed by TTL have TTL flash measurement, that's roughly the only functional difference.
Different cameras have different metering paterns, the Leica is pretty basic but with practice will be quite easy to know when it's going to need any exposure adjutment. I've an old Pentax MX with a CW meter and it behaves different to my M, as does an old Canon A-1 is slightly different again.
When I got my M I tried to correct for all sorts of things and ended up producing duff exposures, when I left the camera meter to think and do is stuff then only tweaked the reading slightly all worked much better. To be honest though my tweak was metering the scene slightly differently, recomposing and shooting the frame, not a mechanical up or down a stop.
I'd suggest running a traditional B&W film, rated at the manufacturers speed just to see the results. It's possible that the CN film may have been old or got too hot. Certainly looking at the examples from the bronnie you have a pretty good idea of what to do (nice shots). If you do have a problem, RW are a very good dealer and will be able to help.
One last point, use of the filter will be compensated by the M7 meter, changing the ISO to 400 from the boxed 200 will underexpose by one stop, oh and I find that negative film is less likely to blow out highlights (like slide film or a digi sensor) but muddy the shadow detail is more of a problem. Rule of thumb, if in doubt over expose a neg and under expose a slide.
Hope this helps,
Good luck and have fun.
The M7 and M6 both meter through the lens pretty much the same, a little photo sensor reads lu light levels from the big white blob on the front curtain. The M models suffixed by TTL have TTL flash measurement, that's roughly the only functional difference.
Different cameras have different metering paterns, the Leica is pretty basic but with practice will be quite easy to know when it's going to need any exposure adjutment. I've an old Pentax MX with a CW meter and it behaves different to my M, as does an old Canon A-1 is slightly different again.
When I got my M I tried to correct for all sorts of things and ended up producing duff exposures, when I left the camera meter to think and do is stuff then only tweaked the reading slightly all worked much better. To be honest though my tweak was metering the scene slightly differently, recomposing and shooting the frame, not a mechanical up or down a stop.
I'd suggest running a traditional B&W film, rated at the manufacturers speed just to see the results. It's possible that the CN film may have been old or got too hot. Certainly looking at the examples from the bronnie you have a pretty good idea of what to do (nice shots). If you do have a problem, RW are a very good dealer and will be able to help.
One last point, use of the filter will be compensated by the M7 meter, changing the ISO to 400 from the boxed 200 will underexpose by one stop, oh and I find that negative film is less likely to blow out highlights (like slide film or a digi sensor) but muddy the shadow detail is more of a problem. Rule of thumb, if in doubt over expose a neg and under expose a slide.
Hope this helps,
Good luck and have fun.
sf
Veteran
Photon-hunter said:
I love that first touch of the camera out of the box. Cold, heavy, solid. The overall impression is that it's well made and permanent, like a rock. Cold also implies its durability, since warmth implies life and fragility.
M
mad_boy
Guest
The problem may well be in the development.
I have a roll of BW400CN here and on the box it reads
"Treatment C-41"; which is the standard developing done in labs for colour.
If I am well informed, these films are especially developed for the colour development porcess in labs, such that people who do not do their own development can have them developed (hardly any labs do B&W at the moment).
The neg is not Black and white but some sepia colour (after proper development). It will still give good B&W prints though.
Drawback is that you can not develop them yourself using the usual B&W development kits!!!!!! :bang:
As sugested before, get some old-fashioned film, and all should be well.
Mad_boy
I have a roll of BW400CN here and on the box it reads
"Treatment C-41"; which is the standard developing done in labs for colour.
If I am well informed, these films are especially developed for the colour development porcess in labs, such that people who do not do their own development can have them developed (hardly any labs do B&W at the moment).
The neg is not Black and white but some sepia colour (after proper development). It will still give good B&W prints though.
Drawback is that you can not develop them yourself using the usual B&W development kits!!!!!! :bang:
As sugested before, get some old-fashioned film, and all should be well.
Mad_boy