Color with Summar.

[Sanders McNew]

My wife and I took a visitor to ride the
Staten Island Ferry today. For a giggle,
I loaded my II with Fuji Superia 400,
ignored the light meter, and shot through
a Summar 1/30 second at f/2 -- at least
4-5 stops overexposed. Here's what I got:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2812321681_2649e4c9ac_o.jpg

I may have to explore more with this
color thing.

Sanders

[Nando]

Magic...:)

[Hibbs]

WOW...just lovely. The green eyes are mesmerizing.

I will commence looking for a summar.

~hibbs

[CK Dexter Haven]

Beautiful shot.
Your wife reminds me of Jennifer Connelly. And, that's a good thing. A very good thing.

Okay, but, what about the rest of the roll? Why do you think it's 4-5 stops overexposed? I wouldn't think you'd get anywhere near this type of IQ if the frame were so seriously overexposed..... Neg film or not.....

[Uwe_Nds]

Great shot of your beautiful wife!

Best regards,
Uwe

[Bingley]

A really lovely portrait, Sanders, in every respect. The soft colors have a lovely retro look, and if you hadn't mentioned the exposure bit I would have attributed them to the Summar. The right side of her face appears to be illuminated by a window; the left side appears to be angled more to the shadows, and yet it looks well exposed to my eye, so I wonder if the 1/30 at f.2 really was that far off. Whatever. It still looks great. Like Dexter Haven, I wonder about the rest of the roll...

[LeicaTom]

Sanders,

Wherever you, Leica and family go it seems you ALWAYS get great pictures :)

This tiime in colour, nice to see a Summar being used this way for a change, Great Job!

Tom

PS: I had a "minty" Summar last year out of a 1945 Leica IIIC deal, but I regret to say I sold it without even playing with it.......the Summar is classic Leitz understated, I want to find a 1939 issued one to add to my IIIC K kit :D

[Highway 61]

My wife and I took a visitor to ride the
Staten Island Ferry today. For a giggle,
I loaded my II with Fuji Superia 400,
ignored the light meter, and shot through
a Summar 1/30 second at f/2 -- at least
4-5 stops overexposed.
You can't actually overexpose a color negative film by "4-5 stops". These films don't have a linear response curve.
In other words, that's how the Schwartzschild rule works.

This shot looks correctly exposed to me. The lightly washed-out colors are probably more due to the flare of the Summar than to the exposition.
If it was so much overexposed, there wouldn't be any details in the black shirt tissue. But they're here.

Anyway, the only thing you must never do with a color negative film is to underexpose, so, no big deal with overexposing, even heavily.

Very nice shot BTW, mainly because of the model and soft lighting conditions.

Yet I'm not too sure if I'm a big fan of those visible film sprocket holes.

Maybe that's what Fred K. would call a "signature". ;)

[EcoLeica]

Very nice shot! it seems im gunna have to load my leica IIIc with some colour film and give my summar a go!

[retnull]

Sanders, really great shot !

Here's one I did with my Summar at f2 with Fuji Superia 400 just like your shot. No tweaks after scanning, I left the contrast low because it seemed to suit this particular image:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2549043915_00124293d8_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11058951@N00/2549043915/)

[tomasis]

wow wonderful shots!!

[Sanders McNew]

and yet it looks well exposed to my eye, so I
wonder if the 1/30 at f.2 really was that far off.

I wanted to overexpose it, and did not meter the
roll, but shot it at 1/30 @ f/2. I shot this at the
south end of the ferry where the light was
brightest. After, we walked back to the rear of
the ferry, with only indirect window light, and I
shot a B+W (Foma) roll with an M3 + Summitar,
which I did meter. Using EI 100 for that roll, the
meter prescribed 1/125 @ f/3.5. Here's a link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2812323205/

Since the Fuji was Superia 400, I count two stops
for the slower shutter, two more for the faster EI,
and another 1-2 stops for the aperture. And that
does not take into consideration the brighter light
where I shot the color film.

This is my first time shooting color film in many
years. I bought what Ritz had on the shelf and let
the one-hour shop process it. To be honest, I was
surprised (and disappointed) that the film proved
so resilient to overexposure -- I was aiming for a
more impressionistic result. Maybe I'll try slide
film the next time out.

Sanders

[Mr_Flibble]

Lovely shot Sanders,
Retnull, you've posted that one before, but it's still beautiful.

I took a IIIc, a Summar and a roll of Kodak Color 400 film for a trip around a nature reserve this afternoon. Should have some pictures by tuesday.

Also had a Zeiss Super Ikonta with me and my new Leica III with a 90mm Elmar.

Cheers,

Rick

[Highway 61]

To be honest, I was
surprised (and disappointed) that the film proved
so resilient to overexposure -- I was aiming for a
more impressionistic result. Maybe I'll try slide
film the next time out.
I think that I get what you are after - most of your flickr shots have that nice "high-key" look.

That said - this is not what slide film will allow you to do. Overexposed (or shadows exposed) slide film doesn't turn out well. You would have to deal with some very unpleasant color shifts and completely washed-out highlights.

Color negative film will allow you to get some high-key color shots - just use a meter and expose for the deepest shadows.

Given your personal taste, what would give you the best results are RAW digital files from a DSLR but this is another problem...

[sweathog]

Sanders, that is a beautiful shot.
I'm looking through your flickr and am really enjoying your work.

[NickTrop]

The results of the Summar - often lovely, are also often unpredictable. The results here at f2 have more contrast than my results at f2 with the Summar. Beautiful stuff.

[sanmich]

I wanted to overexpose it, and did not meter the
roll, but shot it at 1/30 @ f/2. I shot this at the
south end of the ferry where the light was
brightest. After, we walked back to the rear of
the ferry, with only indirect window light, and I
shot a B+W (Foma) roll with an M3 + Summitar,
which I did meter. Using EI 100 for that roll, the
meter prescribed 1/125 @ f/3.5. Here's a link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2812323205/

Since the Fuji was Superia 400, I count two stops
for the slower shutter, two more for the faster EI,
and another 1-2 stops for the aperture. And that
does not take into consideration the brighter light
where I shot the color film.

This is my first time shooting color film in many
years. I bought what Ritz had on the shelf and let
the one-hour shop process it. To be honest, I was
surprised (and disappointed) that the film proved
so resilient to overexposure -- I was aiming for a
more impressionistic result. Maybe I'll try slide
film the next time out.

Sanders

Sanders
Really a beautiful portrait.
How would you compare the Summar and the Summitar?
Also, for some reason I am not "authorized" to access your Flickr.

[Erik van Straten]

Yet I'm not too sure if I'm a big fan of those visible film sprocket holes.



To avoid the appearance of sprocket holes in the film gate of early Leica-screwmounts, just glue a felt ring into the cassetteopener in the bottomplate that will push up the cassette a bit (2-3mm). Check with some useless film into the filmgate (camera at "Z") if there are still any sprocket holes visible.

Erik.

[sanmich]

To avoid the appearance of sprocket holes in the film gate of early Leica-screwmounts, just glue a felt ring into the cassetteopener in the bottomplate that will push up the cassette a bit (2-3mm). Check with some useless film into the filmgate (camera at "Z") if there are still any sprocket holes visible.

Erik.
I ended up doing something a bit different:
The round metal piece on the baseplate on which the film cannister lays is steped. If you open the screw that holds it, and put it upside down, it will push the canister a bit without adding friction.

[Sanders McNew]

How would you compare the Summar and the Summitar?

The results of the Summar - often lovely, are also often unpredictable. The results here at f2 have more contrast than my results at f2 with the Summar.

The Summar is a very cool lens. I got lucky. I bought an early
nickel Summar off eBay, that had some milky stain on the front
element. A Leica repair shop here in Manhattan said it could not
be cleaned. Then I sent it to Sherry Krauter. She made it look like
a new lens -- no stain, no haze. That accounts for the contrast.

My initial experience with the Summitar was not happy. But I've
learned to shoot with it and now I like it very much. Optically,
it probably falls somewhere in between a Summar and a
Summicron -- it lacks the Summar's vignetting (which I like
most of the time) but still produces interesting textures away
from the focal plane. Here's a link to another recent Summitar
shot of mine, also of my wife:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2753582986/

I like the look of the iron fence at the left as it recedes into
the background. I'm not sure I use it enough to keep it,
though -- I seem most often to reach for my Summar.

Sanders

[P. Lynn Miller]

Sanders,

Beautiful work. Lovely portrait of your beautiful wife. I have just started down the slippery slope of old Leica lens with the purchase of a M3 and Summarit 5cm 1.5. The first rolls of film from the set will be coming out of the tank in about a hour.

Thanks for sharing...

[Abbazz]

Thank you Sanders for the beautiful picture.

I love the Summar when used with cheap color film. Here are some of my modest attempts with Superia 100:

http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p59308665-4.jpg

http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p244473157-4.jpg

http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p410913604-4.jpg

http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p370651617-5.jpg

http://abbazz.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p159631007-4.jpg

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Matthew Allen]

As always Sanders, that is a beautiful photograph. You know, something like half my Flickr favourites are by you - keep up the good work.

Matthew

[colyn]

Seeing all these color photos done with a Summar makes me want to give my 34 vintage Summar a taste of color film..

[Sanders McNew]

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words.
I think I will play around some more
with shooting color film through the
Summar -- maybe load up some slide
film and see what happens.

Does anyone here have experience
printing color negatives with the RA-4
process?

Sanders

[projectbluebird]

Does anyone here have experience
printing color negatives with the RA-4
process?

If you really want to print your own color, buy a modular paper processor with two modules. One for developer, one for Blix. (Bleach-fix) It makes the job of keeping the chemistry temperature constant much easier, it also is handy to be able to turn the lights on as soon as the paper is in the chamber. Remember, you can't use a safelight with color paper.

It also does a good job of keeping the chemistry contained. Color chemicals are quite a bit more offensive on the nose than black and white (at least in my experience) especially the Blix. You'll want to make sure you have very good ventilation as well.

If you get into printing, be prepared to print, and print, and print. just for a single good image. Getting the colors to balance can be tricky. The good news is that color paper is much cheaper!

[landsknechte]

I had a "minty" Summar last year out of a 1945 Leica IIIC deal, but I regret to say I sold it without even playing with it.......the Summar is classic Leitz understated, I want to find a 1939 issued one to add to my IIIC K kit :D

Not to rub salt in any wounds there Tom, but it does work quite nicely in color. :rolleyes: :angel:

[LeicaTom]

Not to rub salt in any wounds there Tom, but it does work quite nicely in color. :rolleyes: :angel:

I`m glad you enjoy the lens :)

I`m still holding out on finding a 1939 *503xxx* series lens, while it will match up better with all the other gear I own....if anyone out there has a crisp/clean Summar in the #503xxx serial number series let me know
(There`s NOTHING special about this series lens, I`m just collecting a number that`s all that`s about)

Tom

[Mr_Flibble]

Hahaha, you really won't let him forget, Landsknechte will you. :D

I scanned about two rolls worth of negatives shot with a IIIc and summar last night. Unfortunately I don't have time to post the pictures (My jeep is getting a new gearbox this evening and I'm heading to the Ardennes tomorrow morning for a long weekend with friends). From what I can tell some of them did turn out very nice.

I'll check my Summar for you Tom, thought I pretty sure it's an earlier one.

[Sanders McNew]

I've never paid attention to lens
serial numbers -- I shot this color
image through a Summar in a
nickel casing, bearing a 217xxx
serial number. How old is it?
(The camera, a II, is 90806.)

Sanders

[Mr_Flibble]

Mine has #420xxx

Some Spector 200 Color, all stopped down too much ;)

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/ot080805.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/ot080813.jpg

KodaColor VR Plus 400

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/wa080801.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/wa080802.jpg

[rlouzan]

Sanders,

Love your pictures!!!

Leica II 1932
50mm f2 Summar 1934

I've never paid attention to lens
serial numbers -- I shot this color
image through a Summar in a
nickel casing, bearing a 217xxx
serial number. How old is it?
(The camera, a II, is 90806.)

Sanders

[raid]

Summar 5cm 2.0:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/RFSummar14.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/RFSummar20.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/RFSummar12.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/RFSummar13.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/RFSummar17.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/RFSummar1.jpg

The low contrast Summar can be paired up with a high contrast film for great results that look "normal", or push the limits and use a low contrast film.

[helenhill]

Quite Lovely, Mr.Fibble & Raid
best-H:)

[Hibbs]

Splendid Raid...do you happen to have anything from a Canon Serenar 50/1.9 that you could post?

Maybe a separate topic eh?

~hibbs

[raid]

Splendid Raid...do you happen to have anything from a Canon Serenar 50/1.9 that you could post?

Maybe a separate topic eh?

~hibbs

Hibbs,
I may have 18 50mm RF lenses, but I do not own the Serenar. I have read that images by it may look similar to a Summar.

[raid]

Quite Lovely, Mr.Fibble & Raid
best-H:)

Thank you, Helen.
I had a Summar for many years,and when it was stolen, I got a replacement one.

[landsknechte]

Hahaha, you really won't let him forget, Landsknechte will you. :D

He did mention it first. :cool:

Just reassuring him that his pet went to a good home.

[LeicaTom]

He did mention it first. :cool:

Just reassuring him that his pet went to a good home.

.....oHH yes it did ;)

I`m hoping I can find a Leica IIIB/Summar *original* combo sometime, either that or a #497xx to 503xxx serialed lens series lens - not really in a big hurry though I have too much gear now as it is and not enough time to work with it all

Great Shots here on this page BTW :D


Happy Shooting

Tom

[john neal]

I've never paid attention to lens
serial numbers -- I shot this color
image through a Summar in a
nickel casing, bearing a 217xxx
serial number. How old is it?
(The camera, a II, is 90806.)

Sanders

Sanders,

I have said it before, and will probably say it again in respect of your work:

It's not the film, camera or lens - it's the photographer

BTW - the lens serial no looks like 1934, body 1932 or 33 - all those nos were issued in 32, but a lot of the bodies were actually finished in 33.

[KenD]

Summar 50 f2.0 on M2

[Hibbs]

Hibbs,
I may have 18 50mm RF lenses, but I do not own the Serenar. I have read that images by it may look similar to a Summar.

Hehehe...I thought you had that one. I'd heard it is more like a Summitar...and had never heard comparisons to a Summar.

Maybe someone else can clarify.

[raid]

The Summitar is sharp and it is better controlled against flare than the Summar. The Serenar can give you dreamy images, I have read.

[amateriat]

Sanders: that image is simply enchanting. I could go technical on you right now, but what the hell would be the point?


- Barrett

[Sanders McNew]

I hope you all will forgive me for
hijacking my own thread, but I wanted
to alert you all to the September 18
opening of my wife Melanie's show of
her photography at the Lead Apron
Gallery in Los Angeles, "Jacob's Ladder."
Come to think of it ... she is the subject
of the photograph that started the thread
... maybe it isn't a hijack after all.

I've posted a new thread here on the show
and you can find the particulars there:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=889053#post889053

We hope to see some of you on the eighteenth.

Sanders McNew

[raid]

Sanders and Melanie,

I wish you an excellent show and good luck. If I had been anywhere close to where the show will be given, I would have tried to make it there.

[Mr_Flibble]

Late reply,

Thanks for the comment Helen.

Some Summar negatives I got around to scanning today:

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/2adrg11.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/2adrg12.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/2adrg13.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/2adrg16.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/2adrg17.jpg

I'm pretty sure the grain in the sky is due to the film. KodaColor VR Plus 400

[Sanders McNew]

Mr. F, what aperture were you using?

[Mr_Flibble]

I stuck to 1/500th most of the time during that ride around the 4x4 track so I guess it would've been between f/6 and f/9. They were all guesstimates.

That second to last one really was under-exposed, but the skin color is typical for war-time photos I feel

[KenD]

Have we heard from Sanders recently? Or had any of his super shots?

[Sanders McNew]

I've been shooting my Rolleiflexes
and Brownies so I've not had an
occasion to post stuff here of late.
It is kind of you to remember me. :-)

If you want to see what I've been
shooting, you can find me at

www.flickr.com/sandersnyc

where I try to post photographs as
I shoot them. I'll try to shoot some
color with the Summar in the next
few weeks and contribute here.

Sanders

[Mr_Flibble]

I've been cheating.....I've had my Summar lens on my Epson R-D1 for the last 2 weeks, so I'm not sure it would be appropriate to post the results here in the Leica LTM section. ;)

[buzzardkid]

I've been cheating.....I've had my Summar lens on my Epson R-D1 for the last 2 weeks, so I'm not sure it would be appropriate to post the results here in the Leica LTM section. ;)

Hm. Similar trouble: I got so fired up reading this thread just now, I went upstairs, put tape on the Summar and the Summar on the M8.

Should I post here or not? I've scored at least one great shot...!

[Brian Sweeney]

Well, the LENS is LTM!

I vote Post the Shots. Besides, with the adapter on those cameras, they ARE LTM cameras.

Now, if I convert one to S-Mount, I will post it on the Nikon RF forum.

[Brian Sweeney]

My best color sample with the Summar, so far. This is an early lens, perfect glass, SN puts it at 1933.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/3061728343_765e7637d2.jpg

On the Leica IIIa.

[Mr_Flibble]

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/summar02.jpg

Summar on my Epson R-D1: 400 ASA 1/125th @ f/9
I forget the exact date of manufacture of my Summar, but it is a pre-war one.
I think the R-D1's image processor influences the Summar's characteristics quite a bit.

I need to go through about a 100 photos from a WW2 re-enactment photo shoot from last weekend. I'm sure something interesting will turn up to post here.

[buzzardkid]

Well, the LENS is LTM!

I vote Post the Shots. Besides, with the adapter on those cameras, they ARE LTM cameras.

Now, if I convert one to S-Mount, I will post it on the Nikon RF forum.

Right, I like that line of thought. Here you are:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5098/20090405kprl1000993.jpg

Yes I know it's a pet shot, they were the only models I had at hand in the spur of the moment:)

This is shot on M8, ISO 160, f2.0, 1/30th. I shot about twelve photos, this one was the best by far, due to timing.

I love the 15cm DOF at close up in this lens, and it's low contrast. Should get some real models (safe to say, the dog isn't paying attention to me right now)

[Mr_Flibble]

That's a great picture, looks like there's a little starring contest going on ;)


These are from two weeks ago, also with the R-D1
http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/WD090311.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/WD090312.jpg

[Mr_Flibble]

Here is a selection of photos from last weekend, not much colour beyond Olive Drab and Khaki though ;)

Weekend at the Engineer Museum Vught (http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/thumbnails.php?album=144)

No glow :(

[Mr_Flibble]

Don't worry, they were dummy rounds! Most of our arms are modified to only fire blanks. And there's the business of having all the permits ;)
The 50-cal and the Flamethrower are live-firing, but they were on loan from the Royal Dutch Engineers.

[cjm]

Unfortunately I no longer have my Summar but here are some pictures from when I did, all taken with a cheap CVS 400 color film:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1312/1307140653_0ea32db160.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1210/1307909030_66094935be.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/1308049084_4730628212.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1020/1307888694_7d243b941e.jpg

[buzzardkid]

...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1020/1307888694_7d243b941e.jpg

Like that one very much, not necessarily becoause of a cat in it, but because of the nice OOF areas

[Sanders McNew]

As promised, I carried my II and its
old uncoated Summar with us to Tulum
in Mexico last week and ran a roll of
color film through it. I decided color
wants to be unfocused so I shot with
the aperture open and the lens racked
out to focus at 1m. See below.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3462924670_fd3231939a_o.jpg

The film is Superia 400, grossly overexposed.

[Bingley]

Sanders, you are brilliant! That is wonderful!

[Artorius]

Sanders,

I don't understand, OOF for color? What is the point for this? What does this photo have to do with color and the Summar?

OOF, is this a new rule for poor shooting, or am I missing something.

Not trolling, I have this lense, but I don't understand the reasoning.

Many years ago, I didn't understand the Campbell's tomato can either.

Re-inform me if I am out of place.

[hans voralberg]

Matter of taste I guess, I sometimes want to shoot OOF as well, for the "painting" / "impressionism" look.

[john neal]

Sanders,

Yet again you astound me! Like Artorius, I used to struggle with "modern" art concepts, but I like this idea - something 1930's about it for me - almost Bauhaus deconstructionism (OK, that's too pretentious, I know).

The only thing I wondered about, would be a liitle selective focus, just to throw slightly tighter focus onto Melanie (possibly difficult with a RF). But, hey, it's your art and I like it!

[Sanders McNew]

I'm not sure I can explain myself. But I will try.

I shoot almost everything in B+W, in medium or
large format. My B+W work is all about focus and
contrast and composition and it pretty much goes
by the rulebook in those respects. See

www.flickr.com/sandersnyc

for plenty of examples, including these photographs
shot the day after the one I posted here (NSFW):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3464856892/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3464852688/

There is something abstract about B+W work. The
addition of color, to my eye, makes a photograph more
literal, more representational. So my instinct was to
find a way to reintroduce some element of abstraction
into the negative. I thought that if I could do away with
a slavish adherence to some of my other rules, like focus,
the result might be a less literal, more impressionistic
image. If color wants to dominate the image (as to my
eye it does), then I thought it would be interesting to let
color carry the entire weight of the photograph.

Whether this image succeeds at that, I don't know. I
feel out of my element in color (in part because I am a
bit colorblind) and this was just an effort to push against
convention and my own self-imposed limits and try
something new for myself. And I suppose I was aiming
at an image that one might see more in a memory, with
the mind's eye, or else in an unfocused sidelong glance.

Sanders

[nome_alice]

My best color sample with the Summar, so far. This is an early lens, perfect glass, SN puts it at 1933.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/3061728343_765e7637d2.jpg

On the Leica IIIa.

Totally amazing rendering! I just love the soft colours and contrast and waxy/dreamy feel of it. I don't believe in the "Leica Glow" but there's definitely something in using a 70+ year old lens :)

[Brian Sweeney]

I just saw the post directed at me! Sorry:

I will check the film, probably Fujicolor 200.

[Brian Sweeney]

Fujicilor 200...
At F4
http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=559

Wide-Open
http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=561

F4:
http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=562

Add a Little Flare...

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=563

[john neal]

I'm not sure I can explain myself. But I will try.

Whether this image succeeds at that, I don't know. I
feel out of my element in color (in part because I am a
bit colorblind) and this was just an effort to push against
convention and my own self-imposed limits and try
something new for myself. And I suppose I was aiming
at an image that one might see more in a memory, with
the mind's eye, or else in an unfocused sidelong glance.

Sanders

Sanders,

I just got back from a quick trip to London & Paris. While away, I git the chance to go to Tate Britain & look at the JMW Turner collection. I think your pic strongly resembles some of his later work - take a look at "Three Seascapes (http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=14949&searchid=9239&roomid=5616&tabview=image)" or "Two figures on a beach (http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999876&workid=63761&searchid=9398&tabview=image)with boat". Having seen these paintings and many others at first hand, i now totally get what he was about towards the end of his life. He started as a figurative archtectural artist, but moved towards impressionism over 30 or so years.

My summation of what he was trying to say is "OK, there may be a building here, or some people over there, but LOOK AT THE LIGHT!! Look at it's quality, colour, how it flows and caresses everything it touches."

For me your pic has that - my renewed congratulations :D

[Sanders McNew]

Sanders,

I just got back from a quick trip to London & Paris. While away, I git the chance to go to Tate Britain & look at the JMW Turner collection. I think your pic strongly resembles some of his later work - take a look at "Three Seascapes (http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=14949&searchid=9239&roomid=5616&tabview=image)" or "Two figures on a beach (http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999876&workid=63761&searchid=9398&tabview=image)with boat". Having seen these paintings and many others at first hand, i now totally get what he was about towards the end of his life. He started as a figurative archtectural artist, but moved towards impressionism over 30 or so years.

My summation of what he was trying to say is "OK, there may be a building here, or some people over there, but LOOK AT THE LIGHT!! Look at it's quality, colour, how it flows and caresses everything it touches."

For me your pic has that - my renewed congratulations :D

John, thanks for the reply. It seems a common progression
among artists, to work in less representational forms as they
age. I always figured it was boredom with being a slave to
things as they are, and growing interest in fundamentals of
light and color, as you suggest. But I gather, also, that some
believe it is due to physical changes as well -- how the eye
ages, and how that affects what one sees. Monet is said to
have had suffered from cataracts when painting the last of his
Water Lillies series. I don't have cataracts so I'm going with
the boredom rationale. :D

[buzzardkid]

Sold my Summar three weeks back to a fellow RFF-er, so he'll be doing the honours I guess.

Not that smart a move, when revisiting this thread and seeing the shots I put up from it... :(

Must...resist...purchase...AAAAHHHHGGH!!!

:D

[MauroSc]

My new Bolex movie camera 16 mm reflex, with a "strange" lens : a 50 summar :-)
Fantastic dreaming possibilities of taking moving images :-)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4526272275_1bee6ff359.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4526903084_559aa0d6a5.jpg

[Simon Bruxelles]

All taken with a Leica II and an uncoated 5cm Summar on Velvia 100 then scanned on an Epson v500.

Simon

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/debrux/Summar/sum1.jpg
Bath buns
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/debrux/Summar/sum2.jpg
Cascade of blossom

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/debrux/Summar/sum4.jpg
Moss

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/debrux/Summar/sum5.jpg
Bluebell wood
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/debrux/Summar/sum6.jpg
Bluebell wood

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/debrux/Summar/sum6-2.jpg
Butcher's window

[issa918]

Summar, uncoated, on Kodak 160NC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/4616064084_ebecc67286_b.jpg

[Mudman]

Coated Summar. F3.2ish, Kodak Gold 200 or 100.
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb228/taylor210eman/Summar/Summar.jpg

[Mr_Flibble]

"A cold day in Hell" sounds like a good title for that one, Mudman.
(Okay, so it's probably a Pan instead of the Devil ;) )

As luck would have it I'm currently running some color film through one of my IIIc cameras with a Summar attached. Should have something to add to this topic in a week or so.

[Mudman]

Sounds about right, though it is a faun, not the devil For reference - same statue, year earlier with my Elmar.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0VzFgAlBmqA/SV1WjAgOAOI/AAAAAAAAB_U/0w8ktEW_PdA/s800/LeicaRollTwo5.jpg

[issa918]

Sounds about right, though it is a faun, not the devil For reference - same statue, year earlier with my Elmar.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0VzFgAlBmqA/SV1WjAgOAOI/AAAAAAAAB_U/0w8ktEW_PdA/s800/LeicaRollTwo5.jpg

OH MY GOD!!!!!!! So nice!!!

Mudman, do you think the coated Summar performs better in daytime?

[Ronald M]

Given proper exposure, uncoated lenses give a more pastel rendition and they have low microcontrast, perfectly appropiate if that is what the artist wants.

[Mudman]

The summar does great during the day, but it's good at night too
another b&w, no color shots at night unfortunately

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0VzFgAlBmqA/SxKiaXDqYpI/AAAAAAAAFCI/fnqX-q8dMH0/s800/Dale.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_0VzFgAlBmqA/SxKiaARgZ4I/AAAAAAAAFCE/ttcVjyCj8_w/s800/caffe.jpg

Sorry for the dirty scans, really thin negs

[motion_runner]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/motion_runner/k_summar.jpg

Portra 160 VC, Summar from 1934.

Frank.

[Mr_Flibble]

My sister's pooch, Zap.

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/BBQ10052.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/BBQ10053.jpg


Royal Dutch Engineers Memorial Day
http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/GD100501.jpg

http://www.flibweb.nl/flibweb/cpg143/albums/userpics/10001/GD100502.jpg

Leica IIIc + Summar + Spector 200 film

[jhawker]

Hello All,
Here's a recent portrait.
Keep Eager.
JH

[motion_runner]

Hey, let us revive this thread. It's been too long.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/motion_runner/120623_09_web_rff.jpg

[charjohncarter]

I sold mine in 1964, but this was one (that I did use a meter on):

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1151/5111394955_fdf240a025.jpg