Newbie messes with 3.5cm Elmar in subway.

[Sanders McNew]

I let my old Leica II go quiet.
For this I should be shot, yes?
Instead, I shot Melanie on our
way back from B+H.

Here's what you need to know
to avoid shooting one like this:

I used a 3.5cm uncoated Elmar
with a FISON hood, 1/30 @ f/3.5,
Foma 200 @ EI 80, in Rodinal.

I promise to do better next time.

Sanders

 

[sweathog]

Great shot. I really like it, the shot has a wonderful feeling to it.

 

[john neal]

Nice shot Sanders, particularly given the "available darkness" in the subway. What can I say - keep on trying!

How did you manage to avoid being wrestled to the ground by some over-zealous cop or security guard? Pointing a camera at someone in the subway? Definitely a subversive act!

 

[Keith]

Excellent photo ... is it just me or do those sprocket holes in the bottom of that pic really add something?

Do not remove them! 😎

 

[thomasw_]

Pointing a camera at someone in the subway? Definitely a subversive act!

Is that his wife?

 

[john neal]

Is that his wife?

Yes, it is - very photogenic (Sigh)

 

[Sanders McNew]

Thanks for the kind words.
Thomas, John: Yes, Melanie
had the poor judgment to marry me.
Photogenic as she is, she also
is an awesome photographer.
So we fight over stuff like who
gets to use the darkroom next.
Here is her photo of me at the
Cheyenne Diner across from B+H,
taken with a IIIa and 5cm Elmar:

 

[pesphoto]

Why do you put yourself down so much. What is the need?

 

[Thardy]

Why do you put yourself down so much. What is the need?

Tongue in cheek, shtik. It works very well for him.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Tom S, your avatar reminds me of portraits
I shot recently with a striking woman. I used
a Tele Rolleiflex so I'll not post them here in
deference to the group, but if you want to go
see them on Flickr, here are the URLs:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/584920553/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/585322074/

Sanders

 

[Sanders McNew]

Excellent photo ... is it just me or do those sprocket holes in the bottom of that pic really add something? Do not remove them! 😎

Keith, me being a Leica newbie, you've
touched upon something of interest to me.
I print full-frame. I notice that on both of
my Leica screwmounts (a IIIa and an
older II) I get the same pattern -- the
top margin will be clear but the sprocket
holes intrude into the bottom margin, and
more so at the right side than the left.

Is this typical? I note that Melanie's IIIa
doesn't seem to show the same pattern,
as you can see from her photo of me
posted above.

Sanders

 

[ugly bokeh]

Sanders,

The sprocket hole at the bottom of the film is normal. The older Leica LTM bottom plate does not have the protruding post that holds the film in place and prevents it from slipping down. I think the IIIf/g has this post. BTW, I love your photos and make it a point to check out your flickr every now and then. Excellent work!!!

Nelson

 

[alternatve]

Great photos with a great camera!

How did you manage to shoot with ISO 200 film at 1/30 and at f/3.5?

 

[Sanders McNew]

The older Leica LTM bottom plate does not have the protruding post that holds the film in place and prevents it from slipping down. I think the IIIf/g has this post.

Nelson, interesting observation. Do people
ever modify their older LTM bottoms to keep
the film cassette in place? Maybe a penny
and some duct tape? I don't have the camera
in front of me but a fix should be possible, yes?

Sanders

 

[Sanders McNew]

How did you manage to shoot with ISO 200 film at 1/30 and at f/3.5?

I always overexpose B+W film as a
matter of principle. So my EI for
this shot was about 80, not 200.
Subway light is dim and harsh, so
I just left the lens wide open and
dropped the shutter speed down
slow enough to capture some motion
in the train. That would blow out
the highlights in the train but I figured
that would be a good thing, so long as
I got the light right on Melanie's face.

Sanders

 

[ugly bokeh]

Nelson, interesting observation. Do people
ever modify their older LTM bottoms to keep
the film cassette in place? Maybe a penny
and some duct tape? I don't have the camera
in front of me but a fix should be possible, yes?

Sanders

Sanders,

Actually, some people prefer the sprocket holes at the bottom, personally I don't mind too. The film cassette is always in place, it is the film that sometimes slip down when it curl around the film spool. Imagine this, the protruding post is located at the bottom of the back pressure plate and the film will rest on top of the post to prevent it from slipping down. The older LTMs base plate don't have this. I am not sure whether you can interchange the base plate of IIIf/g and use it with IIIa/c camera. Hope this helps.

Nelson

 

[Limpovitj]

As far as I know, the problem is modern cassettes being to short (really the spools in the cassettes). Any which way, it is easily fixed. There was a thread a while back on how to fix it. Someone tried mounting a conical spring on the baseplate to push the cassette in to place. Reportedly worked fine.
I myself have used paper to shim the locking mechanism where the baseplate meets the cassette (in a Leica II and a III (my IIIc didn't need it)). You'll have to waste a film to do it. Load as usual. Wind on several frames to ensure everything has settled. Open shutter on T or B, and with the lens off, carefully (don't blame me if you muck anything up by sticking a pen in your Leicas people!) draw lines, following the edges of the frame aperture. Take the film out to see how tilted the frame is, wind it back in to the cassette. Use a thicker paper shim and redo using the same film until your frames are straight.

Was that understandable?

As far as I can remember (neither camera is here right now so I can't have a look) I shimmed the III's baseplate the proper, and harder, way (dismantling the locking mechanism, inserting paper shim under a metal shim), but doing the II was a bit of a quick-and-dirty job. I just cut a piece of stiff paper, sort of mushroom-shaped (you'll know what I mean when you look at the mechanism) with a center hole for the screw, a little too big (to make a good push-fit). I expected it to wear out quickly but it's still going strong after 200+ rolls.

YMMV.

Hope it helps...

 

[Limpovitj]

Oh, and a little note of caution!

Don't take the locking mechanism apart unless you feel quite confident in doing things like this. They can be hard to get back together again. Some of the parts are a TIGHT fit.

 

[alternatve]

I always overexpose B+W film as a
matter of principle. So my EI for
this shot was about 80, not 200.
Subway light is dim and harsh, so
I just left the lens wide open and
dropped the shutter speed down
slow enough to capture some motion
in the train. That would blow out
the highlights in the train but I figured
that would be a good thing, so long as
I got the light right on Melanie's face.

Sanders

I'm still astounded at your results. It looks perfect, not overexposed. I guess I still have a long way to go before my standards reach yours.

Samuel

 

[Sanders McNew]

It looks perfect, not overexposed.

Samuel, my experience has been that traditional films like Tri-X and Foma 200 are amazingly tolerant of overexposure, but completely unforgiving of underexposures. So I downrate traditional B+W films by a stop, and then I resolve all metering doubts in favor of overexposure. That way I can be sure I'm getting enough light for the shadows. I cannot be certain, but I suspect much of the vaunted "Leica glow" came from people overexposing their film as I do, for the same reasons I do -- the overexposure, combined with the uncoated Leica glass, seems to create flarey highlights, as you see in this photo. But that's just a guess.

I should add that, when I say "overexposed," I mean only by comparison with what the meter says should be the correct exposure at the film's box speed. I do not think this photo is overexposed -- I believe it to be correctly exposed. I just get there by "overexposing" the film according to the cookbook's recipe.

Sanders