I know most of you will think this is silly, but I got an assignment from Motorola to photograph a microprocessor chip die. It measured .25 inches in diameter. The 65 Macro on the R bellows wouldn't do four X magnification and I really needed to fill the frame as the image will be enlarged many times. I experimented with a number of different lenses, including some enlarging lenses and then, just for kicks I decided to reverse mount the Tri-Elmar on the Bellows. Three small c-clamps held the 55 mm retainer plate. I used a lot of Gaffer's tape for insurance. WOW! The image, at 5.6 looked much better than what I was getting with enlarging lenses. 28 was too much magnification and the lens got too close, but the 50mm setting worked so well it was amazing. A little discussed benefit of the R8 is the very convenient and easy to use mirror lock up. One click on the cable release locks up the mirror (when the switch is set) and then a second pressure releases the shutter. It opens again for viewing but it still set in mirror up mode until you release it. What a wonderful camera.

Does anyone have a recent, good condition R8 that they would like to trade for an R6.2 with box in almost mint condition?

If so, let me know.

I'll post a link to the die photo when I finish the project.

Actually working with and loving the R8 in Austin. Kirk

-- kirk tuck (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 15, 2002

Answers

This joke, right? Hi pay job for big companie, you shoot with 35mm and lens scotch taped to bellows? You shoot this on Kodak Gold 100 to save more money, too? Come on, this would be so much more easy to shoot with medium or large format or even digital. With digital you'd see results instantly and adjust accordingly. Hand big shots disc, walk with check. You're a smart guy, I think. Why would you make extra work for yourself just to brag to this group?

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

I for one would like to see the shot Kirk. Keith - as someone who made my living for a lot of years doing just this sort of shooting I can tell you that the most successful photographers are the most innovative.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Keith said, "this would be so much more easy to shoot with medium or large format or even digital."

I don't think so. You shoot your assignment with what you have, period. And the R8 probably isn't any slouch. And what a marvy trick to use the reversed tri-elmar. I've done this with the 50/2 R with excellent results. Can't wait to see the photo.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 15, 2002.

Yes, I too think that Kirk's sounds like a good move. It would be a pain and a half to do this kind of micro shot in MF.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Keith is typical of the armchair pro. Puporting expertise in any and all matters, topics, discussions, and areas, that's out boy! ; )

-- John Doe (anon@anonymous.com), May 15, 2002.

Keith is right. I should have shot it with something more impressive. Am thinking of selling all of my Leica gear and getting a Leaf digital back for my old 8x10 Deardorf. That would kill two birds with one stone: Lots of bellows real estate for those extreme close-ups while having all the panache of digital. What will I do with my "scotch tape."? I'd better act quick, I heard that film will be off the market by year's end.

Kirk

-- kirk (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 15, 2002.

Let's not be too quick to attack Keith. At least he's got a point of view. I wonder what his background is? As I recall from his intro he is a college student somewhere. Keith, can you post some more info?

Best, Kirk

-- kirk (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 15, 2002.

In the interest of full disclosure for Keith: I shot the job with 35mm EPY, a tungstun balanced slide film. The image will be scanned and delivered on disk. The pay was not so exciting. It is a big company but they are not doing as well as they had been. I tried to shoot a chip die on MF once but the geometry dictated such an enormous bellows draw to get 4x magnification on film that the stage became unstable. Also, the loss of light from the bellows extension neccesitated a very long exposure, and the dim groundglass image was very difficult to focus. Many years ago we tried this on 4x5 and each increase in format size multiplied the effects I just described. We ended up with three bellows attachments fixed to three Sinar standards just to get the bellow extension necessary for the requisite image magnification. We found the images from 35mm to be sharper due to film flatness and planar consistency of front standard, lense mounting, etc. But Keith, thanks for asking and be sure to keep those questions coming. That's how you young kids learn stuff. I'm glad to see rank beginners with such curiosity.

-- kirk (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 15, 2002.

"That's how you young kids learn stuff. I'm glad to see rank beginners with such curiosity."

Rank? Maybe my English is not so good, but I think this is insult? Rank means "smells bad, rotten" I think. Why you insult me when I'm asking questions?

No, I'm no child and no, I won't introduce myself. Why should I? I ask questions, I get insults. Maybe you have me confuse with somebody else?

I read posts here, I look at pictures. I think many people here rich show offs. Where are high quality pictures from all this best quality equipment? Lot of talk.

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Kirk - just curious, but why not a 100 APO + extension ring(s)? Not enough mag?…

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 15, 2002.

Yes Keith, your english is a bit at fault here. 'Rank' can also mean a beginner or someone without a lot of experience. I will assume from your original post that you do not have a lot of commercial shooting experience. As Kirk (and others here) will attest, the myth of the glamorous pro surrounded by all the newest, best, hi-tech gear is just that - a glamorous myth.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Rank=Beginner. OK. Well I'm not beginner either. I understand the process and understand idea of right tools for job. I'm sorry to hear that Kirk cannot afford high-tech gear and does not live glamour lifestyle. I'm sure he deserves both. :-) Too bad photography job doesn't pay well. Maybe it's a better enjoyment (?) for most people than job. People on this list earn big at other jobs to buy Leica?

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

And how do we know Kirk Tuck isn't pulling a leg with this?

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Yes you are correct Keith. Photography is kind of a high profile job and there is a certain perception of what the lifestyle is like. A good comparison is the music or acting business. For every U2 making millions of dollars there are hundreds of musicians just making ends meet. For every National Geographic shooter there are hundreds of wedding and portrait and commerical shooters making a comfortable, but by no means rich living. This is the reason I got out of shooting professionally and now consider myself an 'artist' with a day job. I wasn't enjoying the photography anymore and I sure wasn't getting rich. Another thing to consider is this. If Kirk doesn't normally shoot extreme closeups (I'm making assumptions here, but it holds true more or less), and is likely to only be doing this one job that requires it, it isn't cost effective as a businessman to spend really big dollars on a piece of equipment if it's going to sit on the shelf, unused for the next 5 years. One last point is that many good, even great photographers don't do it for a living. They do it because they love it, and have taken the time to learn how to do it properly. I'm not sure, I think it was an interview I saw once of John Sexton where he stated that in his mind some of the best photography unfortunately sat in the closets of people who did it because they loved it, not because it was their job, and that other than their friends and family no one would see it.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Kieth, Kirk:

I work elsewhere for a living to be able to afford my joys (Leica's, film, batteries, computer for internet and food to sustain the body). I used to shoot some for $'s, but it is more fun when you want to do it. Money isn't everything, just the means to everything. I like Kirk's creative approach. I wonder why he didn't reverse a 50 Summi or 60 Elmarit. How does the Tri-Elmar hold up to a flat field in reversed mode? How about showing us a reject, so the client still gets what they paid for? This sounds interesting.

Thank-you for the details.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), May 15, 2002.

Keith, to own Leica stuff doesn't necessarily mean one need be wealthy. More precisely, it means that one acquires Leica gear perhaps more slowly and often more methodically. I don't understand the relevance to whether Leica users "earn big." It doesn't matter on this list. And by the way, you can rest assured that Kirk isn't pulling anybody's leg here. I appreciate very much every one of the threads that Kirk has begun.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 15, 2002.

I should admit that I was a little flip with Keith because I thought he was one of my wiley freinds tweaking me from behind an alias. Sorry Keith. I wanted to answer the question about why I didn't use a reversed 60 macro. I tried it. At 4x it seemed a bit veiled and lacking in overall contrast compared to the tri-elmar. The tri-elmar was a last ditch attempt before borrowing a specialty micro lense (zeiss protar 25mm) from a friend. I was delighted with the tri-elmar. at 5.6 it was very flat across the field. Will post a file tonight.

-- kirk (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), May 15, 2002.

Mr. Tony Rowlett, I didn't mean to say that to own Leica you have to be rich. I own a Leica and a lens, I'm very proud, and I'm not rich person. Lucky for you to be rich person who can own cupboards full of Leica cameras and lenses, like so many who post here, at least that's how they talk.

I don't think I understand what Kirk Tuck said about a "wiley freinds tweaking me from behind an alias." What does this mean? I didn't try to insult Kirk Tuck. I now understand that his macro close up set up with tape and clamps, etc., was clever not cheap and desperate. Bravo!

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.