Are the folks in this forum using the fast lux and nocti lenses only shooting B & W indoors? It would seem silly to use these lenses indoors, and use a flash.. .So: If you are shooting indoors, with color, how are you adjusting for the various light sources? Filters? Flash? This adjustment for color balance is obviously not needed with B & W. Input on this would be greatly appreciated! Bob Stevens.

-- Bob Stevens (matlaw@hargray.com), March 26, 2002

Answers

thars a lot of questions packed in your post!! to answer a few: (1) i think a lot of folks do shoot primarily b&w with their leica gear, particularly noct users; (2) if you want to adjust for color balance with indoor lighting and color film you can do it via filters certainly, or have the printer adjust the color balance at the printing stage with trad printing, or you can do it up digitally; (3) even if you use flash, there are some (for me, many) situations in which fast lenses are used wide open to achieve shallow depth of field, even where lite is abundant. for many, the reason to own an f1 lenses are DOF characteristics, rather than sheer speed (modern films are so fast -- f1 would have been a godsend fifty years ago); (4) you may also want to use a noct, even stopped down, if you appen to love the distinctive thumbprint of the lens. i personally only see a unique quality in noct shots when the lens is used wide open, but others see it throughout the aperture range. i hope this helps a little.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 26, 2002.

I use color film in mine indoors without flash. Mostly Portra 400, and I just live with the slightly off color, which in my case is slightly warm as most of my lighting is tungsten. The lab seems to adjust for it fairly well. The color shift is not nearly as severe as the traditional orange you get when doing the same thing with transparency film; which of course I do filter for (80B).

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 26, 2002.

I dont have a Noct, or Summilux, but I do like shooting under available darkness at times.

I think the trick with incandescent is to use the warm colors to your imaging advantage if possible.

I also find in houshold lighting, or even stage lighting, I'm always about a stop underexposed, no matter what TTL or handheld meter I use. I'm note sure if its the contrast that gets added in some of those situations, or if film sees the warmer light with less sensitivity.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 26, 2002.

I have been using my 75 mm Lux and 90 Elmarit-M for photos of my daughter's choir and orchestra concerts and plays using available light. I prefer Fuji Superia 800 or 1600 color print film, as the darkness dictates. When I can get in position I like to use my Gossen Sixticolor meter to determine the color of the lighting source in degrees Kelvin. I usually use a B+W KB15 (3100 degrees Kelvin) or KB12 (3300 degrees Kelvin) filter to get the proper color balance for daylight film. The filter loss of 1.0 to 1.5 f-stops is regrettable but necessary. I think it is important to use these filters, even with print film that can be corrected by the lab tech. Not to use KB filters means the blue portion of the print film is being under exposed. A lab tech is then asked to correct this color imbalance in the printing process, bringing forward the underexposed blue portion of the film, which is thin. I want the best picture quality that my Leica can deliver so I use KB filters every time. The exposure protocol I follow is to meter (with my Minolta 1 degree spot meter F) on faces (Caucasian) and give 0.5 to 1.0 f-stop more exposure, depending on the tan and the intensity/variability of the lighting on stage. Sometimes I have to deal with a 2 f-stop swing of lighting intensity and that is quite the challenge. I find this kind of photography rewarding and immensely enjoyable, when everything works right. ;-)

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

Although I mostly use B&W (& never use a flash), when I do shoot color (NPZ or Supra 800) I adjust color balance in Photoshop. I usually can't afford to lose the stop or 2 required by a correction filter & w/the variety of interior lighting nowadays (fluorescent, halogen, incandescent, etc.) I don't want to worry about the various color temps.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 27, 2002.

Because I don't go through film like water, I tend to make do with 100 ISO film, usually Reala or Provia/Sensia II 100. I hate flash, but carry one (small Vivitar softlite 1400a) with the SC-17 and haven't used it yet.

Luckily with my 35mm Lux Asph, softie, a viewfinder that doens'tt blackout and a relatively steady hand I can get acceptable results to f/1.4 and 1/8 sec. I don't like to shoot 400 or more with this camera because when i shoot outdoors I cannot limit depth of field. I always have to stop down, which isn't my style of photography.

Unfortunately unless you have at least two bodies, compromises must be made.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Doug from Tumwater is absolutely right in his advice on how to properly use color film for flashless pics indoors. It does sum up as a drag, though... ;-)

Post processing corrections of negative films are also a major drag (you can go on tweaking Photoshop for a long time to correct mixed light negs, or decide to accept being submitted to the arbitrary filtration decisions of the printing lab...).

So, if you do NEED color indoors, and want to do a proper job, get the colormeter and the filter set.

Or level it all out, and destroy all atmosphere, with a dose of flash (yuk!)...

I strongly advise to stick to b/w 400 iso, or even tmax 3200 at 1600 iso, with fast lenses indoors. You capture the light balance and atmosphere without having to worry about color shifts. The faster the lens, the more flexibility and the more chances to avoid tmax 3200 grain...

I also use Tungsten balanced Portra 160T once in a while, but it is not made for low levels of light and is unpredictable in mixed light situations (genuine tungsten temperature light mixed with 'economy' long life bulbs, halogen, the occasional tubes, the occasional ray of daylight, the stage lightshow, etc...). Can yield some nice effects though when you know how this kind of film works (I cannot say I do)...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I disagree that flash should be ruled out, and is Yukky. Ham-fisted use of it yes, but ruled out? I regularly use Leica's fastest lenses with a SUBTILE bit of fill with the TTL flash and a tiny soft box that rounds out the light and opens up the eye sockets created by dominate ambient overhead light. Metering the background then tweeking the flash output balances the the skin tones while maintaining a warm ambient atmosphere in the out of focus backgrounds. Using the flash to fill the main subject allows you to shoot much slower shutter speeds than normally feels safe. The flash duration is what freezes the main subject while the slower shutter and open aperature captures the background ambience ( as oppose to the "wall of black backgrounds " when flash is used in the ham-fisted manner). With a bit of practice this technique is absolutely impossible to detect. Actually, I gained confidence in this counter intuitive technique by practicing it with a D-1x and a 28/1.4 ASPH Nikkor. Then I even applied it to the use of the Noctilux used wide open. Beautiful ambient light images without the "Day of the dead" look to the peoples faces. Works great at Wedding receptions where the distances behind the subject are great, and the lighting is almost always directly overhead ( with the exception of the Video guy blasting their 2000 watt light into the face of my subject.) ..oops, did I say that out loud? Anyway, try it, you'll be amazed. --Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 27, 2002.

Bob,

Most of the pro. neg films are good at coping with mixed lighting. I like the Portra range, specifically 160VC,400NC and 800. The Fuji equivelants are great too. (NPC or NPS, NPH and NHGII or NPZ)

These are low contrast films favoured by wedding photogs and are suited for portraiture and the high contrast situations typical of indoor photography.

The press films such as Supra and Fujipress in both the 400 and 800 range are possibliy even better with mixed lighting but are also much more contrasty in nature as they have a greater exposure latitude and are suited to push processing.

Finding a good lab for tradition printing and or photoshop manipulation is equally important. Some labs work better with Fuji and others with Kodak film. Actually more labs work better with Fuji than Kodak.

There's not a lot I miss with my Noctilux and 400-800 film.

Burn some film and see what you like. Try out different labs too.

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

While I do think fast lenses have their uses, I am very happy to use flash quite a bit indoors. Today with wireless slaving including TTL, and the great number of pocketable light modifying/diffusing devices available for on-camera flashes, the awful 1940's #2- flashbulb-in-the-face look is totally aviodable. It is possible to get very natural looking images with flash, if you try.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 27, 2002.

I find that Marc's remarks on subtle flash/ambient balance for indoors shooting are practical only when said ambient is relatively strong. Otherwise, even wide open, to get the ambient right in the background, you'll need very slow shutter speeds, which in turn, added to flash, are a recipe for typical ghosting effects on main subjects. Or you use the lowlight 800/1600 ISo films and you have a real hard time not burning up the main subject through the flash blast while making flash active enough as to tweak the color temperature on the subject. The balance is darn hard to get right.

Now, if you like doing "wireless slaving" with a "great number" of "light modifying/diffusing devices ", my guess is that you will not be using a Leica M setup. You will be using a modern SLR system capable of managing ratios for multiple flashes in an easy and painless way, and a couple of dedicated tripods for the flashheads, and a couple of reflectors, and etc, etc, etc.

I'm not sure that the Nocti or the 'luxes were invented to serve as interfaces for a portable studio.... ;-?

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Thank you all for your input (re: flash output...). Bob.

-- Bob Stevens (matlaw@hargray.com), March 27, 2002.

I'm not sure that the Nocti or the 'luxes were invented to serve as interfaces for a portable studio.... ;-?

What if the portable studio consisted of an SF20 plus a 10 grams SFILL, color balancing included? Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), March 27, 2002.

Hey Lutz,

When are you going to put your products up for sale again? You seem to be doing a lot of marketing on this site (to which I do not object at all), but your selling function appears to be unsupported! :)

-- enrique munoz (dem331@yahoo.com), March 27, 2002.

Jacques wrote further above: if you do NEED color indoors, and want to do a proper job, get the colormeter and the filter set

I have found this to be not the case. All the indoor colour shots at 4020.net were shot with unfiltered C41 colour film.

You just have to use a better quality film (Fuji Press 800, Kodak Supra 100) and learn how to use the colour correction tools in Photoshop, in particular the R,G,B panels in the "Curves" dialog box. Although daunting at first, it only takes me 1-2 minutes now to get a pretty exact colour balance from any unfiltered indoor image (whether under fluro, or tungsten, or halogen or whatever).

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), March 27, 2002.

Re: Jacques reply concerning flash. When talking about ambient light, the reference was to indoor situations ( like the wedding receptions mentioned). In most cases ISO 400 or 800 film coupled with a Noctilux gets you there with out any flash. The room isn't totally dark. The flash is used in this case as a fill. It also balances out the skin tones regardless of the Tungsten influences. Also, I often shoot at 1/15th of a second. where the TTL flash duration lights and defines the main subject, while the speed/aperature combination reaches out to record the background. It's not tricky or complex to do. Set the camera manually and TTL on the flash. Shoot. Works every time. It's just counter intuitive, so every one thinks it won't work. I never get blasted out faces as you suggest. And the backgrounds are there. Doesn't look like flash at all. Sincerely, --Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 27, 2002.

Andrew,

I am quite well acquainted with Photoshop and agree that a lot can be done to tweak colour balance with that software. I do not agree that it is necessarily as efficient and as fast as you say, in the circumstances discussed here. Mixed light situations (tungsten+all sorts, as described in my 1st post)have consequences on the content of the negative itself, to the point where exposure discrepancies appear between the way the various layers of emulsion catch "their" wavelengths from the various lightsources. A daylight negative shot under tungsten and/or mixed light is not simply a negative where the balance shift has gone the wrong way. RGB curve corrections are fine, but they will not necessarily bring back a properly balanced image: some noise here, some posterisation artifacts there, some strange casts elsewhere, etc.

Just went through that exercise a couple of days ago with a picture taken of a new born at hospital (mixed fluorescent/tungsten): when I finally got the whites whitish and the skin tones acceptable, the baby's eyes were green instead of blue (Fuji 800)...

Not saying it cannot be done, and not saying that certain films are not easier to manage in that respect than others. I'm saying it is a drag. And so is the usage of colormeter and filters. So my answer to Bob's initial question is to favour bw in those conditions.

A good digital camera managing sophisticated white balance does at preshooting what Photoshop does postprocessing. Undoubtly one of the unsung key differenciators in favour of filmless photography... ;-/

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

Marc,

My experience does not coincide with yours: ambient does not only influence the background, it also influences the subject. Sending flash output on the subject means you have to underexpose ambient for a given amount. The more flash you send, the more daylight compatible the color on subject becomes while ambient influence diminishes (to the point where it is reduced to background lighbulb points and halos), and, therefore, the less atmospheric the shot (unless you take control of all parameters and set up that portable multiflash studio of course).

And I am not sure I like that mix of casts: main subject bathing in daylight equivalent while rest of party swims in yellow...

regarding speed: around 1/15th and below, wide open, with ambient light in good quantity in final balance, the subjects must remain still to avoid very typical ghosting effects. Yes, the flash output does freeze a subject, but if subject moves, you are confronted, next to that frozen subject, with the traces of what you would have gotten if you had chosen not to use flash. That ghosting effect was fashionable 10 years ago when auto fill-in flash became mainstream, but has become a no-no through market saturation.

So, again, my advice is to use fastest lenses, with the film that allows reasonable handheld shooting speeds. A Summilux at f1.4 and 1/30th sec can easily mean iso 1600 in many indoors situations (parties, etc). In turn, this encourages opting for b/w.... ;-)

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.