The density of my negatives is looking better after giving the Kentmere 400 an extra stop of exposure and seven minutes in HC110b. I'll try the same next with PMK Pyro processing.
I took a bike ride of about a mile to the Tingley ponds. The Leica IIIa is a nice lightweight companion for such an outing.
I like the collapsable Elmar 3.5/50 lens for its compactness and sharpness. I'm not sure it is actually a better performer than the similar Soviet lenses, but it is nice to have a complete Leica outfit.
5 comments:
Happy to follow your Kentmere 400 adventures as I shoot my first rolls of the stuff.
I'll look forward to seeing how it works for you. The 100 is also worth a try. Rick Drawbridge's work on Photonet was my inspiration for trying the film.
On screen, these look great. I had a 50mm ƒ/3.5 Elmar for a few years. The 3.5 and my Leica IIIC made a compact package for some New York City excursions. This Elmar was good but I think significantly inferior to the newer 50mm ƒ/2.8 Elmar-M (mine was 1969 production). The latter I stupidly sold when I thought digital was going to take over the world. The 3.5 used some odd-size Leitz color filters with push-on mounts, while the 2.8 used the common 39mm screw-in filters.
I had the use of a Summitar for a while and it made some nice pictures for me with the IIIa. For the kind of online show I do, however, I think it unlikely that I would really see a perceptible difference between one good Leica lens and another.
Good point. For web display, I challenge anyone to show a difference among any 50mm lenses once they are stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. (unless one of those lenses is broken or misaligned.) Also, I am dubious of claims of superiority or inferiority of bokeh. Nobody worried about it 20+ years ago. Maybe digital capture exaggerates harshness, but I'm not sure.
Post a Comment