# Problems - difficulties - faults! (Or: "The Leica, my scanner and I")



## LaFoto (Jan 14, 2007)

For more than two days I have wondered if I should start a thread like this at all, if so, where to start it, and how to call it.

Well, I have settled on the General Gallery (for you are going to see all sorts of photos).
And yes, I have decided to share my pics.
And I called it as you saw before you opened this thread.

Why the difficulties, why the problems, why the faults?

It's all about me using my Dad's Leica.
And as many of you here, also I am pampered by the digital era, by zoom lenses and auto-focus or even auto-everything (which I no longer use, not even in digital, mind you).

But that Leica has a fixed focus 35mm lens ... and I find that I have to get myself into a totally different mind frame whenever I use that camera. And sometimes the outcome is just ... not good.

For this roll of film, I set myself the assignment "Wide Open Aperture Only", only because I am notoriously bad about taking notes on my settings (too pampered by exif data and so on). So I would at least know about my aperture. I had planned to have it at widest open (= f2) at all times, to later find out I had somehow moved the dial a bit, so now the photos are between f2, f2.8 and f4.

Among other things I tried to take "given light only" portraits (or let's call them "face photos") of Sabine, only to see if a regular El-Cheapo-200-ISO-Fuji film would allow for it.

I made all the mistakes one can possibly make! Composition was totally off, and once more I was proved that portraits and wide angle don't go together well!

To make matters worse, my (equally El-Cheapo) scanner, which after only two years seems to be at the end of its life, it is getting worse by the day, gives me horrible scans, so I have to work on the scanned prints like crazy to make them presentable AT ALL ... well, at least so the scans would resemble the prints (which are good, that lens does take tack-sharp photos!)

OK, after this long ramble that few of you will have wanted to read, some example pics - and you will see that I can make all the mistakes of a total newbie even now, after all those years!

*One:*
Original scan of Sabine at her computer:





(Yes, this is what I originally get)

Establishing similiarities with the print:




(Wrong as the white balance may also be on the print, this being a daylight film and the light being that of lamps, it is sharp, all the same)

Further edit - better composition, I think:




A crop

And an experiment: a conversion into B&W,...




... for that is what I think the photos I take with the Leicashould be: black and whites, but getting them developed and printed is ever so much more expensive than colour film.
Oh, and I am just seeing that this is one of my playing around with the layers and desaturating the colours one by one, leaving only the green  )

Yes, it will only be Part 1 and you will (if you want to) get to see other examples later.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 14, 2007)

Ok, so after I got a bit long-winded about my difficulties in USING the Leica, as well as those in SHARING my problematic photos, here are some more:

*Two:*
Again - original as it comes out of the scanner first






Then the attempt to give it the look the print has:






And a look that I thought ought to have been the look in the first place, if we all lived in an ideal world, that is:







*Three*

Same procedure as before - original scan






Closest likeness with print as possible:






Better compo and "colours" (I think)






*Four*

What the scanner gave me:






Just ABOUT what the print looks like "in real life":






And look: composition like that of someone who holds a camera in hands for the first time ever: eyes smack in the centre of the frame (though I did go vertical at last) ...

... so here is a crop that I might have made if I had my own darkroom and knew how to make my own prints:






These are just the test pics with Sabine indoors. I have many more examples to show you... :roll:


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 14, 2007)

Several weeks earlier, I took this one of Florian, my son, when we were waiting in a doctor's waiting room, and the print does not show the clear division between window light (from left) and lamp light (from right), as the scan does or any attempts to adapt the scan to the colours of the print ... I just could not fight this division of his face into pink and yellow:

Original scan:






First edit (to resemble print, but it doesn`t):






A little play with desaturation and a (so I think) better crop:






And a full b&w conversion:






Of course he asked me about the Leica and its use and the apertures and how to set them, and how to set the exposure and focus, and wanted to play, so he took my photo (I was sitting at the opposite wall of that waiting room):

Original scan (and original composition, too, of course):






First edit (attempt to make the scan resemble the print):






Second edit (crop and play with levels etc):






Third edit (b&w)


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 14, 2007)

So now that you know where my problems with composing properly with the 35mm and those with my scanner are, do you still need to see all the ugly original scans? I don't think so.
The following were not cropped, so I show you the end product of my digitalisation process at once, all right?

1.





2.





3a.





3b.





4a.





4b.





5.





I took these last ones (and more) on Wednesday for I wanted to fill that film at last and meant to also show the bleakness of our awful (and way too warm) January weather.

For more I'll start a "Part 2" thread, but not tonight.


----------



## lostprophet (Jan 14, 2007)

just out of interest, what Leica is it?
and don't talk to me about the weather


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 14, 2007)

The M5


----------



## lostprophet (Jan 14, 2007)

ahhh the M5 introduced the year I was born.

we part exchanged a Leica M6 on saturday, I would of borrowed it this weekend but I can't focus it very well, never been very good at MF


----------



## Alison (Jan 14, 2007)

I think you're on the right track, by keeping one setting static and worrying about the others. I was bad about writing down my settings when I shot film, but when I started to it did help! That and bracketing, which felt at first was a waste of film but I really learned how much impact just a few stops or a change of shutter speed could have. 

On a completely unrelated note...it's amazing to see how much your children have grown in the past few years! "Faults" or not, I really enjoyed looking at these photos!


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 14, 2007)

You should invest in an 80A filter.  This way you can continue to use daylight film, but for the shots you will be taking indoors under tungsten illumination, you'll get a nicer color balance in the negative.  For your portraits, don't be afraid to fill the frame.  If you aren't going to do that, then let's see more of the environment.  Many of these are "tweeners" to me, or in-between a portrait, and an environmental portrait.  The dead space above your daughter's head in the first few is just wasted space.  Either show more or less I think.  You end up cropping them anyway.  Take a look at your crops, and try to think about that the next time you shoot.  Leaving some room to crop can be ok, if you want to print a photo with a different aspect ratio than 2:3, but I would still think about how you've been cropping, and come in closer.

In the photo of your son, you say you cannot see the difference in light from the daylight on his right side, and the lamp on his right in the print.  I can clearly see the difference in this scan, obvioulsy, and it must be in the print.  No matter how different the print is in terms of color balance, the ratio cannot be different.  My guess is that the lab tech corrected for the tungsten more.  A cooler skin tone on his right is probably less noticable than a very orange/yellow one on his left.  It is wise to avoid mixed lighting for portraits, at least at first.  It is near impossible to get a good color balance in a print.  One or more parts of the scene will be discolored when you choose a spot to correct to.

It might be helpful to you to shoot B&W film for a while, and just concentrate on your exposures and compositions.  Leave the difficult aspect of color out of it   If you make yourself a little sheet to keep track of your exposures, and really compare them to your negatives, you'll start to learn quickly.  Don't look at the prints, because the lab tech is correcting them for you, unless you ask them not to correct, so you can see exactly what you did.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 15, 2007)

Thanks for looking and commenting, Matt. 
I feel very honoured.

Now this is not to make excuses, for I started this thread to SHOW you (and admit to) the difficulties I am having - zoomlens-spoiled as I am - when using this 35mm fixed focus lens. And all my photos are mere "play", only tests. Or taken for fun. Like the two in the waiting room in two different light sources.

What I have learned is that with a wide angle lens that only allows for a maximum proximity of 70 cms to your subject (take Sabine as the example) you cannot take any really good portraits. For all these examples show the closest I could possibly get, there was no closer, so apparently this lens is not designed for any real portraiture. "Environmental portrait" at the most - as you call it.

I wonder what camera my dad used when we were little and he took close-ups (candids) or real portraits (with us posing) ... supposedly the Rolleiflex - or his older Leicas have different lenses? 

Well, anyhow, what surprised me is that while concentrating so much on getting the focus right and in the right spot of Sabine's face, for example ("Aim at the root of the nose", my sister kept saying, "the root between the eyes, not the tip"), I forgot ALL about composition and left her squarely in the centre! 

My problem may also be that I am not so very much a "wide angle person", I have struggled with the wide angles almost forever - but this lovely little camera does all right as an outdoor camera, even when loaded with my el-cheapo-Fuji-colour-print film (which I use and will continue to use for economical reasons, for getting a print in colour costs me 1 cent per print, while getting one b&w print is 35 cents !!!).


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 15, 2007)

One more of my earliest photos on this film (with the "assignment" Wide Open Aperture Only in my mind), just the "resembling-the-print-the-most" edit and a crop edit after that, of Mia, the cat, lounging on our dinner table (! :shock: !)


----------



## cosmonaut (Jan 15, 2007)

Rangefinders have their benefits though. I also am experimenting with one, a Canon QL-17. I took it out for a test drive yesterday. I have only shot one roll of film in it before now just to test the metering system.
For one I like the fast lens. I think I will finally be able to use lower speed films without a tripod. I also like the small size. I don't know about the Leicas, but the Canon is very small and easy to carry. I also can't beleive how quite it is. When I first got mine I thought the shutter was broken. 
I have color film in it now but think I will try some B&W. That's probably what I will wind up using for mostly anyway. I have only recently bought my first DSLR, but I intend to carry both the DSLR and Rangefinder in the same backpack. On the down side mine is hard to focus and meter, and I also miss the zoom. But being 40mm seems to be a good comprimise. I will share some pictures if they come out...
Cosmo


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 15, 2007)

I know about the Leica's certain benefits, one of which is the lens I use with it! 

But for someone who is quite spoilt with zoom lenses (well, the fact that they ZOOM is what did the spoiling, see?), easy ISO adaptations, WB settings that can be changed as the light suggestes they should, auto focus and other such "little helpers" it IS a very different feeling to be using a rangefinder camera. 

A good feeling ... but some of the outcome just doesn't match the feeling.
Or say: the outcome as I can show you (but that is the problem with my SCANNER then). For in the prints, you can see each and every one of Sabine's eyelashes, while none of the versions presented here even SUGGESTS that.

Well, so as you see that I am not only struggling futilely with the Leica, I shall start another thread in Landscapes with a couple of shots I took last Wednesday to fill the film.  Those are quite ok, I think


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 15, 2007)

Well, seeing that out of the 12 replies this thread has got 7 are my own I might give this another little shove ... and after that I'll let it die forever.
I think I SPEAK too much, anyway... no one is interesting in what I write.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 15, 2007)

i think this thread is just a cheap excuse to show us almost the entire family from all angles possible


----------



## notelliot (Jan 15, 2007)

which 35mm is it? out of curiousity.


----------



## cosmonaut (Jan 15, 2007)

LaFoto,
        Seems as thought we are going two different directions. I have just entered the world of DSLR, and my head is swimming from white balance and histograms. Good luck getting good scans with your negs. Even the good labs are letting me down lately. You probably won't get anywhere scanning at home unless you get a really good scanner. When you get your film processed get the lab to do a CD only and it will only be a couple of dollars more. I feel film is slowly going to fade away. Our local K-mart has closed it's one hour service down. They send the film to Kodak. All of your shots look good except the indoor shots. Looks as though you could use a better flash. Try a bouce flash next time and use the flash in manual. Open the cameras aperature two stops more than the flash unit calls for to make up for the lose of light on the bounce. I use a Yashica unit on my Canon and it worked great..
          Cosmo


----------



## darin3200 (Jan 15, 2007)

I personally liked the first one of the cat, without the crop. One of the things to learn with wide-angles is you don't need to completely fill the frame with the subject, you have the challenge of finding other things to include in the frame.

Leica focusing is difficult at first, but once you know it, it's amazing. Try shooting without film for a few days. Just carry the camera and "take pictures" and just work on focusing on different objects around the room. When you shoot without film you can make a lot of mistakes and it's not a big deal.

Then the next day just focus on composure. Without film you don't need to worry about exposure or focus. 

Day 3 just work on taking meter readings and being able to quickly adjust exposure. One tip that I would recommend for leicas is having you aperture set at 2.8. That way if there is a darker subject, it is easier and faster to just open up the lens to f/2 instead of trying to adjust shutter speed.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 15, 2007)

Now that is some helpful advice, Darin. Thank you!

As to photographing indoors _without_ flash, cosmo, (which is how all these were taken), this was one point in my self-set assignment "wide-open aperture only". I just wanted to see how far I could go with the lens wide open. I don't even HAVE a flash for the Leica.

And notelliot, when I dig out that old camera, I will then use a Leica M5 + Summicron 1:2-3.5 35mm.

Alex: :greenpbl:
And it it NOT showing them off. It is the only people I ever FIND for such experiments as these!


----------



## darin3200 (Jan 16, 2007)

If you use a flash on an M5 you would need to _*find the distance to the subject and then adjust the aperture*_ based on that.

Ooops sorry, Darin, I edited your post when I meant to QUOTE from it ....  ......... big moderator mistake!!!


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 16, 2007)

How utterly utterly embarrassing!
  

How can I make it better?
Your post is almost gone now. I meant to quote ONE line, but had gone to "edit" instead of "quote" .... oh dear-oh dear!

What I wanted to reply to is your saying that when using flash with the M5 (and you were talking about TTL flashes that will, however, only work with the newer brands as of M6 onwards), I would have to do all this extra manual work, and I would not KNOW how to do it.

And you also said that wide open lends itself well to 200-speed film, and that you'd not recommend I use flash because that would create additional problems.

And I think you are RIGHT!


----------



## darin3200 (Jan 16, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> How utterly utterly embarrassing!
> 
> 
> How can I make it better?
> ...


haha no big deal, sort of funny though


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

Hi LaPhoto.  I read in more than one post of yours where you sadly admitted to using cheap Fuji color print film.  I actually prefer the stuff for color prints.  Very nice greens & blues usually, and pretty accurate skin tones.

Anyhow, you said you were using it because of the cost of printing B&W.  Consider this:

They make color chemistry B&W print film.  Kodak makes at least one, adn so does Ilford.  I don't know if Agfa does or not.  It is processed in C-41 chemistry, and when printed without correction, it comes out sepia.  So try this film, have it processed in your local one hour lab, and tell them to develop only (no prints) and scan the negatives to CD.

Once you have those negatives scanned to CD, you can open the files with your software and dial down the saturation until it is B&W, then adjust the brightness, gamma, and contrast accordingly.

I was shocked to read that a Leica had a fixed-focus lens.  These days, they are reserved for very cheap point & shoot cameras.  They give reasonably sharp images from 6 ft. to infinity.  It is a shame lenses are so expensive now for old Leicas.  Those darned collectors who never use them have driven the prices up for you. 

To the other poster who commented that he was surprised at how quiet his Canon rangefinder is: That is because #1, there is no mirror slap, and that is what makes most of the noise.  #2, the smaller rangefinders usually don't use SLR type shutters. (at least the ones I had didn't)  It is a totally different experience, shooting with a rangefinder.  It takes some getting used to after shooting with an SLR.

I hate to admit this, but when I press the shutter release and don't hear a good, loud "CHIK-CHIK", I feel like there is something missing. :blushing:  When I got my first digital camera, the Olympus C-750 Ultrazoom, I was so happy when I found the sound effect menu that would play a proper shutter sound when the shutter tripped.  Ditto for my Canon Digital Elph.  There are a few different sounds; some are electronic, and some sound mechanical.  I wonder if they did research about this? 

I'm at work on lunch now, so I can't see LaPhoto's photos, they are censored here.    I'll try to remember to look later.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

Another idea: you could just have the C-41 B&W film printed in normal color chemistry & leave them sepia. When people comment about it, you could say: "Oh yes, those were taken with a very old camera. That is just how they come out." and check for their reactions. I just love pulling peoples' legs like that. If they buy it, I usually crack up after a couple minutes and explain what is so funny.

I had a girlfriend once who worked in the Ritz Camera One-Hour Photo store with me.  (two actually...)  They could print B&W prints from B&W negatives, but it was very much a trial & error process.  It took a couple waste prints and a couple runs through the machine to get it right.  If the person at the machine is talented and really wants to do a good job for you, he/she can.  But it would have to be during a slow period when there is time to make multiple corrections.  (add a magenta, remove a cyan....)


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 17, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> I was shocked to read that a Leica had a fixed-focus lens.


 
Why is that?
The lens is a Summicron 1:2 35mm lens, and I have another 90mm lens in the bag for this camera which I only tried once. 

So fixed focus does not mean fixed to the camera. I can interchange the lenses I have.

It's just no zoom lens.
That cannot be bad, or reason for shock, now can it? Aren't the fixed focus lenses actually even better than zoom lenses? Or why is everyone so happy about their new 1:1.8 50mm lenses for their digital cameras here?


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 17, 2007)

Let's get this straight.  It's a fixed focal length lens, or a prime, but not fixed focus.  You can focus the lens anywhere from minimum to infinity, correct?


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 17, 2007)

Oh dear ... yes sure: the English expression is "PRIME LENS" 

My fault ... poor English.
I ought to have known better.

Yes. OF COURSE I can focus from a minimum of 70cms (which is why there is so much background around Sabine, I got closest to her as was possible) to infinity. Yes.

Wrong term, Jeremy. 

PRIME lens! OF COURSE!


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

Now that I think of it, you were very close.  "Prime" is slang, and the official term is "fixed focal length"  

So the focus is CAN be changed, just not the focal length.  

For a moment there, I had lost all faith in the mighty Leica name. :meh: 

(that, or your dad somehow got a counterfeit Chinese lens.   )


Don't be so hard on yourself.  I didn't know English wasn't your first language until I read your profile.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

Off-topic.  Matt, your avatar looks like a deranged Russel Crowe.  Though you might find that amusing.  (no offense!)


----------



## PNA (Jan 17, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> Why is that?
> The lens is a Summicron 1:2 35mm lens, and I have another 90mm lens in the bag for this camera which I only tried once.
> 
> So fixed focus does not mean fixed to the camera. I can interchange the lenses I have.
> ...


 
I'll bet he was thinking that the lens was fixed to the camera body......

The portrait shots are much more effective in B&W than color......
The outdoor color shots are OK.....
The cropped cat is my choice.....

When I shoot color film I have the lab (Sam's - $2.48/disc) scan the negs to a CD, no prints, and then I copy all the shots into the computer. Then you can confine your scanning only to documents. I have a flat bed scanner with provisions for negs, but it never scans "clean". With the CD you can then flip between color and B&W, that makes post editing and your choices easier.

I like your self-imposed assignment.....you can truly learn from that.

Paul


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 17, 2007)

I just got a chance to look at the photos.

Matt is right about the 80A filter. With an 80A, it will get you close to proper color accuracy with most tungsten light sources.  Other blue filters will also correct, if you know the color temperature within a tighter range.  If you use the more specific ones, you don't lose as much of your lens speed.

Also worth looking into is an 'FLD' filter, which is fluorescent to daylight.  Of course there are different colors of fluorescent now, but the filter I had was kind of a mix between pink and peach in color.

Here's a very good link on color correction and other uses of filters.

http://www.aeimages.com/learn/color-correction.html

Here it is in German, though it is probably a sloppy translation. (I had Google do it)
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answers.com%2Ftopic%2Fphotographic-filter&langpair=en%7Cde&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools


----------

