I love my new Leica but was a bit dissappointed with my first results. These are the best of them and feel that the subjects had some potential. It certainly is a new way of seeing and will take some adjustment: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=131640

The fountain shots for example were my first attempt at using hyperfocal distance. How can they NOT be sharp? Of course I'm using a cheap flatbed for scanning and am just learning that whole process too. Would appreciate any comments that might speed up the learning curve. Thanks, JLee

-- JLee (jlee@sccoast.net), July 12, 2001

Answers

Yes, I too think the fountain shots have good potential, and there were a number of photos that were quite good. A couple of things though. Firstly, if you read through some of the threads on this site you will find lots of comments to the affect "give your M an extended period of use before deciding on whether it works for you or not". It truly is a different way of seeing and requires some adjustment, especially if you're coming from the world of SLRs and zooms. Secondly, concerning hyperfocal use. The general rule is that at whatever F stop your acceptable focus will extend a certain distance. This distance runs approximately 1/3 in front of, and 2/3 in back of your true focus distance. The big words here are ACCEPTABLE FOCUS. Don't assume that throughout this range that everything will be tack sharp.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

Decent photos! IMHO, you are dealing with two problems, and possibly a thrid. 1) Hyperfocal rarely works as an end-all solution to focus; you should have one part of the main subject at a point close to prime focus. 2) In most of your shots you were using f16, which is about the worst f-stop for sharpness on any Leica lens. IMO, the same shots at f8 with the main subjects (the people) at or very near prime focus would haver yielded the results you wre looking for. (However, to make this work in sunny daylight, you'll need to switch to 100 speed film, and reserve the 400 speed emulsions for lower light.) 3) You could indeed have scanner focus issues, especially with a flat- bed. I say this because for some reason "sack race" looks better sharpness-wise to me than the fountain shots.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 12, 2001.

Hey don’t be so hard on yourself! Your photographs are pretty good. I can’t see too much out of focus but as im viewing them on a notebook screen its difficult to judge. It a shame you didnt make more of the fountain oppotunity but hey... I think that about my photographs every time I press the shutter! When I use hyper focus I generally set the lens to f4-f8 (on my 50mm Summicron) or so and the distance to an estimation that will be relevant for my subject. So for example if im in the street I can estimate that the subject will be within 8 feet. Im pretty new to the Leica as well and I really am practising hard with focusing at speed.. its hard! but worth it.

Jason www.futurafish.com

-- jason (jason@futurafish.com), July 12, 2001.

I'm not seeing camera issues, I'm seeing digital processing problems-- your use of the program, not the scanner. I think that I'd be able to tune them up to your liking pretty quickly in Photoshop--there's a serious lack of local contrast in important areas. In the old days I'd be telling you to leave the prints in the developer until they'd had a chance to develop fully :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

This truly is a great forum without all the negatives (no pun) I've found on some others. Thanks for your help. I think I've learned a few things today which makes any effort worthwhile. Bob: You mentioned the 1/3-2/3 rule of focus. I'm familiar with the concept and have used it in informal portraiture but thought that hyperfocal would be the way to go for street work based on reading. But what you and Jack has said brings some realization, I think, in that hyperfocal is not an end all solution but more of a compromise for somewhat acceptable results in fast paced situations. Jack, on the Sack race I remember specifically focusing on the zone I planned to shoot before the action reached it instead of using hyperfocal distance. Therefore the 1/3-2/3 rule probably was applied and apparently worked here. Jason: Thanks for your comments and I am quickly learning what it means to "see differently" with a RF system. I do think I'm going to like it. I haven't had the urge to pick up the Nikon since. I would like some specific recommendations on how to make the most of the Fountain Op as I will probably have the chance to try and try again at that location. Mike: Is there somewhere on the net you could point me to give me some basics on scanning and Photoshop manipulation for best results? I'm using Photodeluxe Home Addition 3 and recognize the need for Photoshop but thought I'd bundle it with a film scanner when and if it can be afforded. I really have little/no knowledge of scanning for best resolution image size vs.file size. These were scanned at 150dpi and converted to JPEG was that my best option? Finally, since my Pro Lab is 45min. away and I was anxious to get these back I used a drug store 1hr. photo. Heresy I know and everytime I do it seems I'm disappointed and wonder if it was the photographer or printer. Thanks again for all your good feedback. Regards, JLee

-- JLee (jlee@sccoast.net), July 12, 2001.

Camera shake can be an issue, even at high shutter speeds, so don't rule it out. Plus, hyperfocal distances can be tricky: did you set the lens so that infinity was covered for those shots? If so, why? I usually work using hyperfocal calculations with the focus set at 3 or 4 feet (tho not with something as long as a 35).

My experiments with flatbeds convinced me not to bother for 35mm negatives, so part of your problem might be that, too.

Otherwise I didn't see any huge problems with your folder that a little dodging, burning, and contrast control couldn't deal with.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

John, Boy, I hate to think camera shake is an issue for me at these shutter speeds since I rarely had a problem with my Nikon F4 or N90s down to 1/30 with a 35mm. Being able to push that limit when necessary was one of my reasons for switching to a rangefinder. I won't rule out anything though. Maybe I'm going to have to adjust my stance and grip a bit with the smaller body. I had the right f16 hash mark set at infinity and the left fell somewhere around 4 ft. I think (I don't have my camera in front of me to tell.) I'm about to agree with you on the flatbed scan. Have some limited dark room experience and am debating a home set-up though I like to shoot chromes as well so a film scanner may get the vote.

-- JLee (jlee@sccoast.net), July 12, 2001.

I have been using flatbed scanners for a couple of years now, and find that with black and white it's the way to go. For some reason not many of the 'inexpensive' neg scanners do really well with B&W. If anyone noticed in the interview a few posts back on Ralph Gibson - he said that to get the intense blacks he's so well know for he uses a flatbed scanner, but scans the prints wet, right out of the wash. Can't quite bring myself to do this, though maybe in the future......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 12, 2001.

I usually cringe when reviewing "see what I done" pictures, but if these are your first attempts, you have a great future in the medium (IMHO). Until you are using the Leica comfortably, I suggest that you don't try to use hyperfocal distance, and try to focus carefully on the main subject. Keep it up!

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 12, 2001.

Many other opinions here are more knowledgeable than mine but as per what you say about your experience and based on the images you shared with us I think it is far too early for despair. I was in despair with my first several rolls in my first M3. Though years of previous experience with SLRs the results were far poorer than yours. Not that I'm doing high level photography today but my results have noticeably improved a lot. I assume that there is no single cause for less than perfect results but time will polish down most of them until only "structural" ones will remain. Those are the really hard ones to improve, I have noticed. Some of us will never be able to get to the same heights than our photo heroes but we all can still enjoy the process and keep trying, can't we? By the way: I read an advise somewhere in this same site I think, stating something like "Always focus on what you think you should unless it is not practically possible" and it has been of great help for me. IMO even focusing just close in a hurry is better than zone focusing. May be it could work for you too . . . Have fun. Best regards.

Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 12, 2001.

Love the train station and the seated ladies. Keep it up. You are using the Leica M appropriately.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 12, 2001.

Again, great forum. Thanks so much for your encouraging words. From a group of excellent photographers such as this they mean a lot. I will try to put all of your advice into practice. Good shooting, JLee

-- JLee (jlee@sccoast.net), July 12, 2001.

I took the liberty of swiping one of your photos that seemed like it had tonal promise and made some quick corrections on it so you could see what I mean. I'm calibrated for my printer, not web work, so it might be a tad dark on your screen.

http://home.mindspring.com/~mdarnton/image-display[1].jpg

I don't know websites that would help you. My favorite source is the book "Professional Photoshop" by Dan Margulis. It's very advanced, though, and you might find it tough sledding until you have more digital experience under your belt. In terms of tonal and color correction it's by far the best book I've seen, but it assumes you already have a working familiarity with Photoshop.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), July 13, 2001.

How are you evaluating your focus? If you're using a good loupe and a lightbox with your negatives then you're on the right track. If you're evaluating your focus from your prints or from your scans you may be either seeing softness that was introduced by the printing or scanning process or missing focus problems.

I say this because machine prints or scans often look somewhat soft compared against the negative. This can cover up problems with the negative if you assume that a focus problem is a printing problem and it can make you think you've screwed up the focus when your negs are nice and sharp.

-- Mark Wilkins (mark_wilkins@yahoo.com), July 18, 2001.

My advice is always to keep shutter speeds higher rather than lower (Leica lenses are designed for wider apertures) and for real sharpness forget hyperfocal focussing - focus on what you want sharp and it will be sharp. Hyperfocal often means little is really sharp.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.