Leica! (More of it)

[LaFoto]

Some play with light and shadow, when I saw this trailor (I think it is for cattle transportation) standing in front of that warehouse in the glaring sunlight. I thought it might downright OFFER itself to some more Leica-pics ... but I still have to learn about proper exposure, as you will see:

1.


2.


3. The "sunny side" of the trailor


4. Back of the trailor - and I got blown-out parts in the sunny spots here (and not only here, also in Photo 2)


Well, I might still get better. How knows. Try and error...

[TPF Sponsor]

[Raymond J Barlow]

neat shots LaFoto, looks like you are having fun with B+W.. cool!

[LaFoto]

Ach. If only it were not so frightfully expensive!
Have switched back to colour for the last two rolls I have shot with the Leica, just because one print of regular colour is 1 ct while one print of b+w is 39 ct !!! That is a bit of a difference and in the long run.... Aargh!

But it is fun to be "looking with different eyes" as to determine what might offer itself to b+w.

[Holly]

YOu did a great job with these.. I really like the contrast levels in the 3rd picture.. !

[ThomThomsk]

Something I have been trying recently (following advice on the Analog Photography Users Group www.apug.org) is to decide which part of the scene has the darkest shadow where I still want to see some detail, meter for that and then reduce the exposure by 2 stops. Anything darker still would just be black (clear on the negative). In some of the scans you have included I wonder whether the shadows are a little too bright, and it would be interesting to know how you metered the scenes with the blown highlights. It would also be interesting to know if you can see anything at all in those highlights on the negatives.

Thomsk

[LaFoto]

Yes. I can. The stones as well as the lines between them (my dictionary calles them "interstices", but I don't quite believe my dictionary its every word...) can be seen on the negatives, also in areas where there is only white here on the screen. Is that good?

[mysteryscribe]

you better be careful you will wind up shooting film and be a disgrace to your whole family. They might cut you out of the will...

By the way I have shot film for about 35 years it is always best to expose for the darkest spot you want to look normal. Don't add anything

or

If you can't get in to read the darkest spot and just want to have the shadows register, expose two stops over your meter reading from a distance. But to do it right, you need to just walk up to the dark spots and read. That will get you the best negative to tinker with.

At least thats how I've always done it, but I might be wrong.

[ThomThomsk]

Yes. I can. The stones as well as the lines between them (my dictionary calles them "interstices", but I don't quite believe my dictionary its every word...) can be seen on the negatives, also in areas where there is only white here on the screen. Is that good?

Yes, because if you were printing these images in your own darkroom you could burn in the highlights to show some of that detail. If you had a negative scanner then maybe you could do it in Photoshop. It proves that you haven't blown the highlights, some detail is there in the negative, but the printing hasn't captured it.

Thomsk

[Tuna]

Corinna, I am very excited for you as you go out with that M5 and 35/2 Summicron. I also understand you excitement and enthusiasm as I had the same emotions when I first started shooting with a rangefinder (mine was a 1946 IIIc model).

In these images, I appreciate your eye for line, shadows as well as your compositional efforts. The contrast is a bit harsh but I believe that is the result of not having control of the middle tones of your black and white range.
This could be caused in the capture (the M5 has a built in meter and there are various metering techniques for different lighting situations and different subject textures/reflectiveness).

But the main part of film-capture to digital-presentation is the transference method of the image to second and third generation. I would highly recommend a dedicated film scanner (scanning directly from the negative) instead of scanning from an image - this is where the most information is lost. Once you are able to attain a 30-70 Megabyte, 8-16 BIT, RGB (even from a B&W neg) file from your negative, then you will have much better control and results in your photo manipulation software - both for on-line presentation and for hard-copy printing.

Thank you for your always generous comments on my images and I hope you continue to have this enthusiasm for your "new" film camera.

Keep shooting.

Tuna