B&W Wedding with 1939 Summitar - LOVELY RESULTS

[sleepyhead]

THE REQUEST
I recently attended the wedding of some friends, and a couple of weeks before the event the groom asked me "if I could take a few photos". I said sure, and spent those weeks pondering what gear and film I would use.

I knew that I had to carry very little equipment with me as I would be at the weding with three small kids of my own and not have any hands free. If i carried a bag it would have to be a diaper bag (and one filled with DIAPERS...).

THE CHOICE
So, I finally settled on my trusty M4-P with collapsible Summitar (1939, not coated), a small handheld meter, and two rolls of Fuji Neopan 1600. That's it. It could all fit in my dinner jacket pockets with the lens collapsed and not look too strange.

ON THE DAY
It was a small wedding in a small Danish church, and the day was very rainy and windswept. The Bride was beautiful and Groom sort-of handsome. There was no official photographer or professional, just me and another friend who had some kind of dSLR with a zoom lens - it looked big and kept flashing and I didn't inquire anything about it. Of course there were a few people with digital point-and-shoots as well. As the only one with a film camera, the older folks at the wedding thought my leica was great.

As the church ceremony progressed I could tell I was having "an ON day" and getting some good shots. I shot one of my rolls in the church and the other at the reception - 70 frames in all.

THE RESULTS
I developed the film in Ilford DD-X 1:4 at 20C for 5 minutes, and scanned the film with a Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner. I'm really pleased! Of the 70 frames, a WHAPPING (for me) 46 were worth scanning, perhaps my best hit rate ever. The tones were nice with Neopan 1600 and DD-X, and the grain not too bad. I reduced it using Neatimage.

The old uncoated Summitar greatly exceeded my expectations: it was sharp in the right places and with a lovely vintage look in Black and White. It was easy to focus quickly and I kept it at f/2 pretty much all day.

All-in-all I'm very pleased and so are the married couple. Here are some of my favorite shots:

THE BRIDE AND HER FATHER COMING DOWN THE AISLE
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2948193397_ac47f7ebe6_o.jpg

THE HAPPY GROOM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2948192889_ec4c5f9a6e_o.jpg

GREETING THE GUESTS AFTER THE CHURCH CEREMONY
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2948192801_08338e1063_o.jpg

BRIDESMAIDS
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/2949046544_d727008c79_o.jpg

WEDDING CAKE
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/2948193179_71d925ab35_o.jpg

WEDDING CAKE AGAIN
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3193/2948193267_e2579ae51d_o.jpg

GROOM WITH NEW FATHER-IN-LAW
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2949046652_a063259998_o.jpg

BRIDE AND GROOM RELAXING
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2948193017_c8878d84f4_o.jpg

[Chyn]

Nice story and wonderful set of images. I love the Neopan 1600--never expected that coupled with a 70 year-old lens (and alot of photographer) it could produce such great results. Thanks for sharing.

[kully]

Those are gorgeous Yaron. Is your summitar coated? I am impressed by the lack of flare.

[zgeeRF]

Great pictures sleepyhead! I am sure they will love them. That Summitar looks excellent and the right choice!

[nzeeman]

very nice photos. did you show them to bride and groom? i think they will be very happy.

[sleepyhead]

Thanks for the comments.

Kully, NOPE it's uncoated. I agree with you about the lack of flaring, but you can see some in the shot of the groom and his father-in-law talking - they are back-lit from the large window and the frame was very low contrast. On all the shots I did a Curves adjustment in Photoshop to bring up the contrast somewhat (a S-type curve).

The day was also extremely dull and overcast and that may have helped with any potential flaring problems.

[ray*j*gun]

Nicely done!!!!

Bride is a 10......I need to move to Denmark.

Ray

[sleepyhead]

Nicely done!!!!

Bride is a 10......I need to move to Denmark.

Ray

Yeah, we got it good here. You can always come for a visit... ...maybe meet a nice danish girl, settle down, get married...

(Look at me, I'm from New York originally... ...But my wife is Swedish...)

[harry01562]

Very nice shots, and the bride is lovely. The Summitar is a good specimen, and the shots do exploit the great vintage look using the B&W film. This type of shooting is what made the lens such a favorite for so long with the 35mm fans.

I would expect the happy couple to be very appreciative of your efforts.

Harry

[Double Negative]

Those look great, Yaron! Lovely images and the rendering is also quite nice.

[Mr_Flibble]

Wonderful photos Sleepyhead!

I'm actually in the same boot you were in.
I've been asked to shoot a wedding of a good friend in May next year.
And I've been trying to think of a good setup to use. I felt digital was the way to go (and I needed a good reason to buy an Epson R-D1s).
But it looks like my own uncoated 1939-dated Summitar on a IIIa or IIIc would do the trick.

Thanks for sharing those photos, they're an inspiration :)

[pesphoto]

nice photos....

[sleepyhead]

Wonderful photos Sleepyhead!

I'm actually in the same boot you were in.
I've been asked to shoot a wedding of a good friend in May next year.
And I've been trying to think of a good setup to use. I felt digital was the way to go (and I needed a good reason to buy an Epson R-D1s).
But it looks like my own uncoated 1939-dated Summitar on a IIIa or IIIc would do the trick.

Thanks for sharing those photos, they're an inspiration :)



Rick, I seriously considered using my R-D1 for those wedding shots, but once I felt that the "vintage look" was the way to go (to balance all the digital point-and shoot shots that I'm sure the couple have received from other guests), I figured:
(a) I would spend a lot of time post-processing the R-D1 shots to look "vintage", and
(b) would my 35mm lens on the R-D1 (about 50mm equivalent) give the right look? I could choose between the 35mm Summilux ASPH (too modern looking), or the 35mm Summicron type IV - this later might have been a good choice, but it was being CLA'd at the time so was not available,
(c) the R-D1 is also a bit louder than my M4-P (concerned about the church ceremony)

[LeicaTom]

One of Leitz`s finest lenses!

It was a big hit in 1939 and still is today, Lovely Photos :)

My 43' IIIC K`s original issued lens is a "uncoated" 41' Summitar which I hope to be shooitng again soon as the camera comes back Weds. from a Youxin Ye CLA.

I never thought of paring up such a fast film with such an old lens, very good job, I think it helped the work look even better on such a overcast day.....

Tom

[helenhill]

Quite Fab shots...Lovely :)

Does the Summitar work on an RD1 /s?
I'm NOT sure collapsible lenses do ?
anyone tried it ????

Thanx in Advance
Best- Helen

[peter_n]

Rick, I seriously considered using my R-D1 for those wedding shots, but once I felt that the "vintage look" was the way to go (to balance all the digital point-and shoot shots that I'm sure the couple have received from other guests), I figured:
(a) I would spend a lot of time post-processing the R-D1 shots to look "vintage", and
(b) would my 35mm lens on the R-D1 (about 50mm equivalent) give the right look? I could choose between the 35mm Summilux ASPH (too modern looking), or the 35mm Summicron type IV - this later might have been a good choice, but it was being CLA'd at the time so was not available,
(c) the R-D1 is also a bit louder than my M4-P (concerned about the church ceremony)Wonderful pictures Yaron, I love the vintage look you got here. Your use of NP1600 is very interesting as I associate that film with noir-type nighttime shots. You're right about a modern lens like an ASPH, I recently attended a wedding in England and used a 35/75 ASPH kit with the new T-Max film and just got the negatives back. They are so very different from yours and the contrast is quite startling.

[lubitel]

Wonderful photos and great look to them. Thats quite brave of you, I dont know if I would have chosen that lens if I had to choose between that and sumilux!

[sleepyhead]

Thanks for your kind comments everyone, and interesting tidbits of information.

Helen, the summitar will safely collapse on my RD1, but my modern Elmar-M will not.

Regarding Neopan 1600, I forgot to mention that I exposed at 1250 ISO. My experience with it is that with some over exposure and some under developement it's contrasty look is tamed.

[charjohncarter]

The simple approach served you well. B&W plus the lens gives the wedding a timeless look that I'm sure the couple will love and thank you for all their lives. Those are the best wedding shots I've seen in 44 years.

[maddoc]

Wonderful photos Yaron ! You did a very very good job, I think the both, bride and groom will be very happy getting your photos.

On a side note, very good choice of equipment. A simple but reliable M, one 50mm lens and only two rolls of (BW) film. Very brave this minimalistic approach !!

[chut]

Excellent shots sleephead. The tones are just lovely.

Recently, I too shot a friend's wedding with a Bessa, a Summicron 50 v.4 and Ilford Delta 3200. The images turned out quite well and the couple really liked the shots I gave them. The photos were a lot different from the ones taken by the professional photographer who was using a DSLR.

[CK Dexter Haven]

Very nice stuff. I read most of what you wrote, and then scrolled down to the pictures. My first reaction was, "did he use NeatImage or something on these?" I think the 'effect' is too obvious, and i'd love to see these images with their natural grain. Otherwise, the couple should be quite happy.

[oftheherd]

Wonderful photos and great look to them. Thats quite brave of you, I dont know if I would have chosen that lens if I had to choose between that and sumilux!

I can't comment on Leica lenses, but I would have been reluctant to choose the 1600 film. What a great choice it turned out to be! I would be surprised it they don't want 8x10 or even larger of some of those.

[Nikon Bob]

A good photographer coupled with an excellent choice in lens and film produced this fine result. I am sure the couple will be more than happy. Hard to beat a Summitar or 35/3.5 Summaron for that look.

Bob

[Yammerman]

Very good work with a great atmosphere I'm looking forward to receiving my Summitar even more now. Did you use the handheld meter as an incident or reflective?

[vdonovan]

Great work. And you have given them something very special, hand-crafted photos that are unlike any others.

[shadowfox]

Very very lovely, and the lens is only part of it.

You have good eyes for composition and the right coordination for the right moments. Good job!

[robert blu]

real excellent work ! stunning images, bravo!
rob

[helenhill]

Well SLEPPYHEAD/Yaron
Its all your FAULT...... :)
I just ordered a 1950 Summitar
and am TRES excited
Should receive it next Tuesday

If it does not fit on my rd1s (but you did say it does Work on the rd1)
then it will be eternally on my M4

Cheers & Thanx for the Inspiration....Helen

[Pherdinand]

great shots, great bride indeed.. No oppinion about the groom but he must be okay if she married him :D
About the neopan:i am surprised of the smoothness and not exaggerated contrast. I guess lens and light helped too, but anyway, looks very good! I will be in a very similar situation in a month...just to "shoot a few pics" for my friend (next to a hired pro,though,so less pressure on me)... Now i'm thinking about neopan too.

greetz

[peterm1]

I presume its uncoated. Dont these old summitars take wonderful photos? I have to get mine out and try some - too eaasy to fall back on digital shots these days. I must admit its lenses like these that make me want to save my pennies and buy an M8.

[chris91387]

anyone have info on manufacturing dates and serial numbers in relation to being coated or uncoated?

my boss has his father's iii and a summitar lens and i'd be curious to know more about his lens.

- chris

[Mr_Flibble]

Chris, I'm sure some of the Leica Connoisseurs here will correct me but from what I understand Leitz lenses after serial 600000 (or 610000), just after World War 2, are all coated, before that time only military lenses were coated.

From what I've gathered on these board Summitars after this serial number also had hexagonal aperture openings instead of the more rounded ones, because the folks at Leitz used up their supply of old Summar aperture blades. I don't know at what serial number they ran out of Summar blades though.

After the war Leica offered to coat older lenses. And so many were.

I'm quite interested to see what you Summitar can do on the R-D1, Helen.
That might be enough to push me over the edge and buy one of those cameras myself.

Concerning Neopan 1600, I'm interested int trying this, as I've never used film higher then 400 before.

[sleepyhead]

Very nice stuff. I read most of what you wrote, and then scrolled down to the pictures. My first reaction was, "did he use NeatImage or something on these?" I think the 'effect' is too obvious, and i'd love to see these images with their natural grain. Otherwise, the couple should be quite happy.


I agree with you that the Neatimage grain removal looks too smooth on these down-sized JPGs (800 pixels on the long side). This is because the original TIFFS are about 4000-5000 pixels on the long side and they show a pleasant amount of grain - apparent but not distracting in my opinion - but in the down-sizing the grain kinda gets averaged out.

[sleepyhead]

Very good work with a great atmosphere I'm looking forward to receiving my Summitar even more now. Did you use the handheld meter as an incident or reflective?


Hi, when I use a handheld meter, I almost always use it as incident. For me this works best. The meter is less fooled by large windows, etc.

On the day of this wedding, with Neopan 1600 at 1250, I was getting around 1/60th at f/2 in the church, and around 1/125 at f/2 in the reception hall. The light was remarkably constant that day, it being rainy, so I actually didn't meter much, just a quick check every once in a while.

[sleepyhead]

Well SLEPPYHEAD/Yaron
Its all your FAULT...... :)
I just ordered a 1950 Summitar
and am TRES excited
Should receive it next Tuesday

If it does not fit on my rd1s (but you did say it does Work on the rd1)
then it will be eternally on my M4

Cheers & Thanx for the Inspiration....Helen



Helen, enjoy the lens. Thanks for your kind comments.

I haven't used it much on my R-D1s because it's more like a 75mm lens which forces me to stand back a bit which makes teh depth of field less narrow which reduces the "look" of the out-of-focus areas that you get with the Summitar. So I prefer the Summitar for film - you'll see what I mean when you try it.

[sleepyhead]

I'm quite interested to see what you Summitar can do on the R-D1, Helen.
That might be enough to push me over the edge and buy one of those cameras myself.

Concerning Neopan 1600, I'm interested int trying this, as I've never used film higher then 400 before.


I have recently taken some pictures with my R-D1s with the 1939 Summitar and the 50mm Summilux ASPH within a few minutes of each other. I'll start a new thread with some examples, here in the Leica Screw Mount forum.

[Mr_Flibble]

Thanks,

Looking forward to seeing them.

[Mr_Flibble]

Oops, Turns out I'm talking bull manure about the Summitars with six aperture blades being from just after the war. These first appear in 1950/1951. somewhere around serial number 79xxxxx.

[chris91387]

thanks for the info, rick.

maybe sleepyhead could share the first few digits of the serial number on the lens. i feel some gas coming.

- chris

[visiondr]

There are some very nice shots here, Yaron. How much post processing Sharpening did you use here?

[fdigital]

Congrats on doing a great job with the photos. My only suggestion - rescan them without that noise reduction. Grain is beautiful.

[capitalK]

I recently shot a wedding on NeoPan 1600 as well and loved the results. I haven't shown them to the bride and groom yet, and may not ever, but I certainly enjoyed doing it for myself.

Great job.

[sleepyhead]

thanks for the info, rick.

maybe sleepyhead could share the first few digits of the serial number on the lens. i feel some gas coming.

- chris


Hi Chris

My lens is number 520726.

[sleepyhead]

There are some very nice shots here, Yaron. How much post processing Sharpening did you use here?


My general sharpening procedure is as follows: I scan at around 3600 dpi and end up with a file around 5100 x 2400 pixels in size. Then I clone out dust, and do some grain removal if necessary with Neatimage. Then I do a very light sharpening with Focalblade just to reverse the slight softening that results from digitizing. Then I do whatever Levels, Curves, Dodging/Burning I'm going to do. That's the final TIFF file.

Then I resize the file to whatever size is appropriate for the Output intended (web or print of whateversize). Then I use Focalblade again to get the appropriate amount of sharpening for that output, and save the file as a JPG.

By the way, I feel that some of the web-sized pictures that I posted in this thread are a bit over-sharpened.

And I agree with a previous poster that they would look better with a bit more grain. The pritn-sized JPGs show the grain more.

[marke]

Yaron, you certainly WERE having an ON day!!! These are magnificent. And your success rate in something to be joyful about.

Looking at these have given me more inspiration. I have a 1946 coated Summitar with the curved blades sitting on my IIIf RD right now, with the serial #627xxx. You've encouraged me to give it a try on my MP.

[Nh3]

Congrats on doing a great job with the photos. My only suggestion - rescan them without that noise reduction. Grain is beautiful.

I agree.

Beautiful images but the texture is mixing.

Shooting film and then removing the grain is like shooting digital and adding grain. :)

[2REP]

lovely shots especially that Bridesmaids shot, very classics! Indeed the Summitar is excellent when pairing with B&W film. Wonder how it will look with color slides.

[John Shriver]

These absolutely show the "look" of the Summitar in B&W. That wonderful creamy tonality is typical.

First coated Summitars were the serial number block 586001 to 589000, allocated in 1942. They were sold only to "war photographers". (So says Puts in Leica Lens Compendium.) I have one, wonderful blue and amber coatings.

Serial number 600000 is the beginning of "everything coated".

Challenge with coated Summitars is finding one where the coating hasn't been butchered, it is extraordinarily soft. The front glass is also soft flint glass, easily scratched once you get through the coating.

[Nando]

Nice photographs. The Summitar is an excellent choice for a wedding.

I took my M3 and Summitar to my cousin's wedding a couple of years ago and it worked beautifully. I think I used Illford XP2. Unfortunately after about 12 glasses of wine, my understanding of the aperture-shutterspeed-iso relationship flew out the window. The only shots that turned out was the ones I took before dinner. I can't remember much but from the look of the photos, I must have been using Sunny 16 rule even though we were in a dark banquet hall.

[Benjamin Marks]

It's funny. Elsewhere on RFF a debate rages about the value of frankness on the forum. The chief complaint seems to be that we don't tell one another often enough that our photographs are terrible. And then these wonderful pix show up. They are GREAT! I am sure your friends will be thrilled. It seems like one of those occasions where the gear, the film, and the technique came together perfectly. While I'm sure your friends will be happy, only those who realize how many wrong turns are available to a photographer will be properly impressed with results like these from two 36-exposure rolls of film. It's like watching a gymnast "stick" a landing. Bravo!

Ben Marks

[FPjohn]

Your friends are fortunate.

Fine images.

Yours
FPJ

[Daneinbalto]

Sleepyhead - lovely pictures!

I am interested in how you approached being both an observer and a participant (with 3 kids to boot!) at the wedding. Recently the son of some of my friends got married in China. A few months later, his parents invited us to a wedding reception here in the US along with about 40 other guests.

I brought my camera to the party so that I could take some pictures to offer as a gift to the hosts as I figured they wouldn't have a professional photographer. So about an hour into the party, I committed myself to covering the party by taking pictures of the couple, the parents, and the guests as they were conversing one-on-one or in small groups. An hour later, everybody was featured in 1 or 2 pictures so I put away the camera and went back to "participant" mode. In other words, at a given point, I chose to act entirely as either an observer or a participant, not both at the same time.

Did you manage to enjoy the party as a guest while you were taking these great pics? If so, how did you do it?

[sleepyhead]

Hey, thanks for your kind words All!

Daneinbalto, regarding your question: First a bit more details - my wife was there as well, so she could also help with the kids. Second, two of my kids were old enough to pretty much run around with the other kids at the wedding during the reception and take care of themselves, whilst the ypoungest was only about one year old at the time (August 2008), so she (luckily) slept for a good 2-3 hours and freed us up.

But to answer your question - NO - I didn't participate in the wedding to the same extent as if I were not photographing - I didn't drink very much, I wandered the rooms alot rather than sit chatting, I floated on the periphery of things. That was during the reception.

During the preceeding church ceremony - the shots with the Bride and her father coming down the aisle, etc. - I was stuck in my Pew with my 4 year old son on my lap. Once or twice I stood up and plopped him down. All the church ceremony photos were taken from one spot, with one lens (50mm), but yet they were varied enough somehow (miracle).

All-in-all, it was a fun and satisfying experience photographically, but I wish I had my hands a little more free and could move around abit in the church, and perhaps have had my 75mm Summilux with me.

[easyrider]

The pix are stunning. Congrats!

But I have a question: Is the M4-P not a bayonet mount Leica? So how did you use a 1939 screw mount Summitar?

A few years back, I used a IIIF as a backup camera at a wedding with an F2 Summitar. Fortunately, I had other cameras and did not have to reload it.

Anyone who has ever loaded a Barnack will know what I mean.

Congrats again on the pix.

[MartinP]

Easyrider, all the screw-mount lenses can be used with full rangefinder coupling on any M-bayonet by means of a cheap adapter, designed specifically for that purpose when the M cameras were originally produced. The only exceptions might be with deep lenses on some of the M bodies having metering cells in unusual places.

During the design of the bayonet mount cameras, Leica realised that continuing to be able to use "old" lenses would help the take-up rate of the M3 (and it's descendants) amongst existing users.

After the first half-a-dozen times the bottom-loaders are not really so tricky - by then, the loader learns to make the film bulge as it is eased over the drive shaft teeth.
;)

EDIT: And I nearly forgot to congratulate sleepyhead on the quality of his craftsmanship. Very nicely done.

[Double Negative]

So, um, who wants to sell me their mint, coated <50's Summitar? ;)

[Mr_Flibble]

Heh, no, besides mine's not mint, and not coated ;)

I was one of two 'hired' photographers at a wedding last Friday. I carried my IIIa with a 90mm Elmar, yellow filter and a FIKUS hood for portraits and my Epson R-D1 with 35mm Ultron and a SB-24 flash for all inside photography and the park photoshoot. In the end, I think most of my Leica pictures were better then the Epson shots... *shrugs*

[easyrider]

Easyrider, all the screw-mount lenses can be used with full rangefinder coupling on any M-bayonet by means of a cheap adapter, designed specifically for that purpose when the M cameras were originally produced. The only exceptions might be with deep lenses on some of the M bodies having metering cells in unusual places.

During the design of the bayonet mount cameras, Leica realised that continuing to be able to use "old" lenses would help the take-up rate of the M3 (and it's descendants) amongst existing users.

After the first half-a-dozen times the bottom-loaders are not really so tricky - by then, the loader learns to make the film bulge as it is eased over the drive shaft teeth.
;)

EDIT: And I nearly forgot to congratulate sleepyhead on the quality of his craftsmanship. Very nicely done.

Thank you. One never stops learning. I have been around for a loong time but didn't realize that. I have two Leica IIIs -- a B and an F -- but never bought any M series. I mainly used a Rolleiflex for many years.


I am quite good at the bottom loading. Tnx. But I always tremble until I see that the rewind knob is moving . . .hehehe. Don't want to reloading in the middle of a wedding.

Tnx again.

[Trius]

Lovely (and loving) photos indeed. Since Neopan 1600 can be contrasty, pairing it with an older lens makes good sense.

[Melvin]

So that's what a Summitar's for.

[Bingley]

Wonderful shots, Yaron! Bravo! The tones are just outstanding. One question I haven't seen in this thread is: what developer did you use for the Neopan 1600?

[dfoo]

He said in the first post

The tones were nice with Neopan 1600 and DD-X, and the grain not too bad.

I love Neopan 1600. I've used it in the past with great success. My developer of choice was XTOL 1+1, 7.5 minutes @ 20C. The tones are beautiful, and the grain is great too.

[Towermax]

Oops, Turns out I'm talking bull manure about the Summitars with six aperture blades being from just after the war. These first appear in 1950/1951. somewhere around serial number 79xxxxx.

That's interesting--it must have been a slow or intermittent phase-in. My Summitar with serial number 81xxxx still has 10 aperture blades. Maybe someone in the factory found a box of the old aperture leaves after production had started on the six-bladed units?

And Sleepyhead, your photos are superb--your friends must be very happy.

[marke]

Chris, I'm sure some of the Leica Connoisseurs here will correct me but from what I understand Leitz lenses after serial 600000 (or 610000), just after World War 2, are all coated, before that time only military lenses were coated.

I find this fascinating, as I have a coated 1946 Summitar myself. Serial #627097. I have a copy of "Leica: Leica & Leicaflex Lenses" by G. Gogliatti. It states that "...after the war there were only six blades forming the hexagonal opening."

From what I've gathered on these board Summitars after this serial number also had hexagonal aperture openings instead of the more rounded ones, because the folks at Leitz used up their supply of old Summar aperture blades. I don't know at what serial number they ran out of Summar blades though.

After the war Leica offered to coat older lenses. And so many were.

This book also states, "Since 11th November 1945 lens No 587601 the lenses were coated...".