Leica LTM Newbie messes with 3.5cm Elmar in subway.

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Sanders -- Would you make that adjustment -- for "overexposure" -- at the ASA setting on your meter? For example, by setting the meter at ASA 200 for Tri-X? Or do you prefer to set the meter at the box speed and then simply open up one stop?

Dumb question, I know, but I'm new to B&W and struggling to find a relatively fool-proof approach to avoiding underexposure.

Your photos are terrific -- I would kill to have your "newbie" chops.

Thanks
 
Bingley said:
Sanders -- Would you make that adjustment -- for "overexposure" -- at the ASA setting on your meter? For example, by setting the meter at ASA 200 for Tri-X? Or do you prefer to set the meter at the box speed and then simply open up one stop? I'm new to B&W and struggling to find a relatively fool-proof approach to avoiding underexposure.
Click to expand...

Bingley, I think everybody does it different. And there are so many variables. Is your meter accurate? Is your shutter accurate? What did you point your meter at? How did you interpret what it said? In the darkroom, is your thermometer accurate? How do you agitate during development? And so on. The cookbooks offer at best a starting point. You have to find a way past the formulas to find a way that works for you.

That said ... here's how I do it.

In theory, you are metering (using reflected light) off an 18-percent grey card. I don't carry a grey card but I do at all times have a palm on my hand and it's maybe 1/2 to 2/3 stops whiter than a grey card. So when I want to take a picture, I hold my palm at the place I care about and take a meter reading off of it. I figure I need to reduce my EI by at least 1 1/2 stops from the box rating -- one stop on principle, plus another half-stop to account for the difference between my hand and a grey card. So, when I shoot TX400 I set my meter for 125; when I shoot Foma 200 I set it for 80. And then I meter off the palm of my hand and those are the settings I dial into the camera.

That's not the end. What you do with the film in the darkroom matters too. I do not pull the film, at least not much. I process as if I had exposed the film at box speed, shaving maybe a minute off the number. Most sources say to process Foma 200, shot at EI 200, for 8 to 10 minutes in a 1:50 Rodinal solution. I take the low end of the range, but I do not reduce the time further, as one would do if pulling development. The point is to put enough light on the negatives to bring up shadow detail. A side effect is going to be to induce some blown highlights. But so long as you have exposed the point that matters properly (in portraits, the face), then the blown highlights elsewhere will add to the image, not detract from it.

That's an awfully long answer to your question. I hope it helps.

Sanders
 
Last edited:
Sanders -- Thanks much, that explanation makes a lot of sense. While I regularly meter off my hand, I haven't been making the connection w/ the 18% grey card, and so I haven't been adjusting the extra half stop. I'll give that a try.

B
 
I realise that this thread has moveon a bit, but I wnated to post this, but was frustrated by a broken internet connection.

I recall following the thread about adjusting the cassette fit, finally decided not to bother as I actually quite like the sproket holes in the bottom of the frame (OK, I know it's the top as the film flows through the camera). Anyway, I have a couple of Leitz cassettes if I want to bother.

It's quite odd - I have three older Barnack bodies, a Standard, a II and a IIIa - only the IIIa exhibits this property. I'm wondering if it has something to do with the condition of the two small leaf springs that sit behind the pressure plate. The springs on the IIIa are definitely not as powerful as the other two bodies. Would higher pressure tend to keep the film between the guide rails more?

Or could it be more to do with how the body is transported & handled - i.e. more vibration with the camera upright = more chance of the film slipping in the gate?

I don't have an answer, just more questions....... ;)
 
Last edited:
Sanders,

I'm interested in your "overexposing" technique - do you find that you get very dense negs that take forever to print? Or do you scan them and correct in PS?

I have used Foma 400 in 120 and found it to be a superb product - sooo much silver in the emulsion. Tried the 200 version, but believe it to be a cubic emulsion that had loads of latitude, but (for me at least) very little character.

Tri-X I use as well, but miss the old formulation. The new stuff is very good, but not as good as the original, sadly.

I'm trying some out of date APX400 at the moment, and have yet to get comfortable with it. I wonder if you have tried your technique on that?
 
john neal said:
Sanders,

I'm interested in your "overexposing" technique - do you find that you get very dense negs that take forever to print? Or do you scan them and correct in PS?

I have used Foma 400 in 120 and found it to be a superb product - sooo much silver in the emulsion. Tried the 200 version, but believe it to be a cubic emulsion that had loads of latitude, but (for me at least) very little character.

Tri-X I use as well, but miss the old formulation. The new stuff is very good, but not as good as the original, sadly.

I'm trying some out of date APX400 at the moment, and have yet to get comfortable with it. I wonder if you have tried your technique on that?
Click to expand...

John, in 120 and large format I am a Tri-X man all the way.
I do meter and expose the same way with Tri-X as with Foma,
setting my meter for 400TX at 125, and for TXP at 100.

There is some dispute over the structure of Foma 200, but the
film appears to be a traditional emulsion, not a tabular-grained
one. (This has been discussed over on apug.org if you want to
go read more about it.) Whatever: It shows "loads of latitude,"
as you put it, so it works for me.

I use Foma only in 35mm in the Leica. I've never shot APX.
Did you know that Adox is resurrecting the APX film line?

Sanders
 
pesphoto said:
Why do you put yourself down so much. What is the need?
Click to expand...

Yeah, why? Stop it, you're really good. I looked at your Flickr. It's okay to be critical to yourself, but not in public. An old professor told me that and I stick by it.

And your wife didn't have poor judgment marrying you. You're both lucky you share a similar interest like photography.

Okay, I'm going to stop playing counselor now.
 
ugly bokeh said:
The sprocket hole at the bottom of the film is normal
Click to expand...

hummmm I don`t get it?
I`ve shot with everything from a Leica III to IIIG and NONE of them ever had sprocket holes in my finished images/negatives, never
(I worked a 39' IIIa for at least 6 years straight, back in Germany in my Army days and never once saw sprocket holes)

I also read here at RFF someone else say that it`s normal that IIIC`s do it.......that`s hogwash!
I shoot almost everyday with a 1946 "Half Race" Leica IIIC and also have shot work with my
IIIC K "Grey" and NEVER any sprocket holes........

The film`s loaded wrong that`s all it is, that`s the reason you see them, the cassette and spool are`nt seated properly

*Sanders I like that Subway photo BTW Good Job!*

Tom
 
Last edited:
Sanders, great shot again! Now that's the last one you may post with "Newby...." in the title!
BTW, I like this thread a lot with all the "howdo" info! Reminds me that I have a couple of films to develop, and I'm just lusting for setting the old Durst up again.
 
John Shriver said:
Adox is just cutting up the remaining master rolls of APX-100. Can't be made again, the kettles have been destroyed.
Click to expand...

John, I am very happy indeed to tell you
that you are wrong. :)

Adox has hired Agfa's key employees and bought
Agfa's recipes and the essential machinery and
is tooling up to return Agfa MCC 111 paper and
APX 25, 100 and 400 films back to market -- each
of the films in 35mm, 120 rolls and LF sheets.

Mirko Boddicker, one of Adox's principals, is a
contributor on www.apug.org and has been giving
regular progress reports to APUG members. As
for the MCC 111 paper (my own paper of choice),
they are shipping production samples to testers in
the next two weeks. Adox is waiting until the
existing stocks of APX are run through the dis-
tribution chain before producing APX films.

You can find the Adox announcement of the return
of MCC 111 to market at this URL:

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Papers/MCC/MCC.html

As that site states, "Adox MCC Fibre Based Papers are
being reproduced on original Agfa machinery purchased
from the liquidator of Agfa Photo Leverkusen and show
identical parameters and image properties." I am in line
to be a tester of the paper, so I will be happy to let you
know how "identical" it is to Agfa MCC 111, which I still
use daily.

The APUG threads on the topic are at this URL:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/39066-resurrection-some-former-agfa-products.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/40721-resurrection-mcc-progressing.html#post508159

Here is a direct link to Mirko's post in the second thread,
summarizing Adox's project to return APX to market in
all speeds and formats:

http://www.apug.org/forums/490297-post12.html

This is very exciting news. Adox is going to take Agfa's
formulas and staff and equipment, and produce the old
emulsions in a scaled-down facility where batches will
be better-matched to demand for silver products in the
digital era. I don't care much about Agfa films, but
the loss of MCC 111 paper would be grievous to anyone
who prints under an enlarger.

Sanders
 
Sanders,

Enjoyed this shot first on APUG.

Nice to see it here.

I wonder if you had metered using the glare on the "Penn" in the sign if you might have been able to "control" the highlights" a bit better?

BTW: looks like the C/E platform on Eight Avenue. Hard to tell if it's downtown (I think) or uptown from the shot!
 
25 ASA Black and White Film!!!!!!

Back on the market?????

That would be TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE....AGFA 25 was my favorite film while I worked in Germany
The most amazing black and white film, a dream to use with a vintage Leica

It would be wonderful to have that back to work with again :cool:

Tom
 
Last edited:
Athena said:
I wonder if you had metered using the glare on the "Penn" in the sign if you might have been able to "control" the highlights" a bit better? BTW: looks like the C/E platform on Eight Avenue. Hard to tell if it's downtown (I think) or uptown from the shot!
Click to expand...

Location: Yes, the downtown C/E platform, north end.
You know the subway right well for a goddess from Mt.
Olympus.

(I did not start with a salutation because I am untutored
in the etiquette of addressing omniscient goddesses.)

Exposure: Had I metered for the glare then her face
(the only essential element of the photograph) would
be underexposed. If you want Leica Glow, you have
to be willing to let the highlights blow out. What else
is Leica Glow, after all, but flare and blown highlights
bleeding into their darker surroundings? With this
camera, I look for opportunities to blow highlights
adjacent to dark areas -- I love what these lenses do
under those conditions. That's why I chose this place
to shoot in the first instance. No flat light! :)

Sanders
 
Last edited:
Well done, Saunders. I like the image a lot. Once, I took a similar image in a subway station in Nagoya, Japan. I used the Olympus XA with Ilford XP2 set to ASA 200. I also meter like you, but with a twist to it. My palms match a grey card. I did not have the stranger look at me (not my wife!), so your image is stronger.
 
raid said:
Well done, Saunders. I like the image a lot. Once, I took a similar image in a subway station in Nagoya, Japan. I used the Olympus XA with Ilford XP2 set to ASA 200. I also meter like you, but with a twist to it. My palms match a grey card.
Click to expand...

If only I could live in your skin, my world would be easier. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom