Just a brief installment to address (in a small way) one of the issues raised in response to Chapter 1. These shots were made the night before the bar shots (a few hours after the lens arrived). The heavily-pushed Delta 3200 used in the bar has its own funky tonal qualities that can be a little overwhelming--for these shots, I was using HP5+ at EI 1000 (pushed 1.5 stops in Xtol 1:2). The "tamer" film choice and a better-lit environment reveal more of the characteristics of the 75 Summilux. The top shot was made at (I think) f1.7 and 1/50. John had asked about flare with strong light sources in the photo. Most of the lights in the background are the interior lights of bar across the street--while there's the usual off-axis coma (also quite noticeable with the 50 'lux and 90 Summicron at wide apertures), there's no localized flare. On the far right of the image are car headlights; in addition to the out-of-focus blob, there is obvious flare, but it's well controlled. I'm sure the lens will face tougher tests in the future, but it passed this one without a hitch. The second photo doesn't really demonstrate anything in particular, but I like the light. I think the aperture was about f2.8. These were shot with an M3 simply using the 50 framelines as a guide. For this type of shooting, I think I can estimate well enough. What small gains I might make in framing accuracy using an accessory finder would come at the price of being able to focus and fire quickly. How well I can estimate coverage will be put to the test this weekend. A friend
has been bugging me for weeks to come visit her, and in the interest of properly testing the full capabilities of my windfall, I've finally agreed. [Ah, so many obligations! ; ) ] Working with a model makes quick focus less vital and accurate framing more important--we'll see how well the "finderless" approach works. I'll have a few days to put the lens through its paces in a more-controlled setting (well, to the extent that doing anything with Renee is "controlled"), then I'll report my findings next week. Stay tuned . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 28, 2002

Answers

Even with nothing-special shots your rendering is a real enjoyment, Mike. This is both fun and inspirational.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 28, 2002.

mike:

you sold me. i was looking to get the 75 to go with a m3 precisely to go to take these kind of pictures. they can not be taken with an slr (shutter speed limitations) a 90 f2 (too slow) or a noctilux (too short). the photos are great! now i have a standard to try to approach.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), February 28, 2002.

Please try some close-up portraits at 1.4, ie, head shots. I have found it difficult to focus with an M6 0.72 vieffineder, and half my shots at this aperture and close distance have been out of focus owing to the shallow depth of field. I am now going to try the 1.25 magnifier.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 28, 2002.

Yeah, I finally managed to induce flare from the 35 lux too. This snapshot of my friend Mike is a testament to that:

Shot f1.4/ 1/60th the lighting source was strong off-axis mercury halide lamps? (y'know... the bright cool lamps at exhibitions) and the sun behind the windows. No lens is perfect.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

Mike:

I'm concerned about you... Renee actually had to "bug" you to come "visit" her??? We need to talk, buddy. Seriously!

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 28, 2002.

Glad these posts have been helpful. I'll be trying some close-up shots this weekend.

Jack, my excuses: She lives in Illinois, I've been busy, I've had to travel other places, it's her turn to visit me, and (most importantly) you can't let beautiful young women just push around--they won't respect you! ; )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 28, 2002.

Mike,

Very useful data points, and interesting examples, as usual.

In a few years, you'll find that respect is over-rated. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 28, 2002.

Good one Mike, now I have buyers remorse over my 90 Summicron Asph. They are some fantastic shots. Well I guess I should start taking some pics to get over it. i am confident that my 90 will knock my socks off, but I am unsure whether it will beat my Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4- but it will in low light. Keep em' comming Mike

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

Jack, my excuses: She lives in Illinois, Then move! I've been busy, You could be just as busy in Illinois! I've had to travel other places, Whimpy excuse... it's her turn to visit me, Puhleeeeassssse! and (most importantly) you can't let beautiful young women just push around--they won't respect you! Well okay, I have to give you this one!

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 28, 2002.

Thank you for the continuing update, Mike. The second photo has a striking resemblance to the works of Edward Hopper, without the unease that I find Hopper instills. I don't remember if this question has been asked, but at what distance from the subjects were you shooting?

-- Margaret (fitz@neptune.fr), March 01, 2002.

I'm back! Didn't get quite as much done photographically as I'd hoped but still enough for a few more chapters.

Ralph, to quote Janis Joplin: "Get it while you can!"

Kristian, no need for remorse; you have a fine lens. There are many types of photos for which my older 90 Summicron is essential.

Jack, it makes more sense for her to move to Nashville; no, I wouldn't have as many opportunities in Nowhere, IL; and shhhhh! she might read this, and she's been buying that excuse.

Margaret, these have all been full-frame images (these two from about 3 to 4 meters away).

The chromes from the weekend will be done tomorrow, and I'll start on the b&w developing tonight. The next chapter should be posted by midweek.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 03, 2002.