I just came back from my vacation and the proposal to my fiancee Sarah went exceptionally well! :)... I did manage to shoot a lot of pictures and was rather happy with the Leica-only photoshoots especially where I was able to capture her in ambient light (w/ no harsh flash). Also I plan to replace the Leica Mini with the Leica Z2X now and hopefully leave the Mini with the princess.

I shot 16 rolls of film on the trip and did mostly Tri-X (which haven't been developed) and Fuji NPS and tested the Kodak Consumer Gold 100 film.

I shot most of the rolls with my Leica R4 handheld and tripod the shots for the Leicaflex at her apt. The conclusions of the shoot for Leica and engagement were the following:

1) Strangely enough, the shots from the older Summicron-R and Elmarit-R lens from the 1970's are softer (yet still sharp) in the look than the shots I got with the newer 1991 Summicron-R 50mm lens I had on my Leica R4. There is a greenish cast especially on the wall and I don't know whether that it is related to the classic Leica look that people talk about or to the fact that I used the 1 hr. processing at Wal-mart which I needed to do before I left (although I did have some film to develop at the Philly professional lab here).

2) Kodak Gold film is nice and contrasty although for me, it has this 1970's look of sharpness and retro feel relative to the "softer" and more elegant look I get from the Fuji Professional Film such as the NPC and NPS film I used to shoot Sarah's face.

3) Kodak Gold film sucks in backlighting situations or very strong light. For example, all of the landscape shots I used with the Leica R4 turned out mostly washed out especially with the grass except when I used the +2 exposure compensation. Unfortunately, I believe that the Leica R4 TTL meter is fooled by the strong lighting around noon-time and that I always need to do +2 when shooting on Kodak Gold in order to get the details I want. Strangely enough I don't have this problem with Fuji films. I had this same problem occur to me on Kodak T-Max before too with the Nikon cameras.

4) The princess is a very good smoocher and what is so so cool is that I let her play around with my Leicaflex and Leica R4. I hardly trust very many people to use my cameras but the princess enjoyed using it. I explained the manual functions and how to to do the meter readings and she got some pictures of me. Not bad for someone who tends to be heavily used to point and shoot Canons :) I did give her a Minolta AF-Zoom P and S of which the Leica AF-C1 was based on model-wise.

5) I like Fuji and Kodak for different reasons. I like the Fuji's very "tender" look relative to the absolute sharpness of Kodak and for me, each type produces a different feel dependent on the situation. Of course, I'm still taking a lot of time to get used to the Leica R4 and mastering the Summicron 50mm 1:2 lens.

I will be back to see her family during Xmas and I will be bringing the Leica Z2X and Leica R4 only and possibly also the Yashica T4 to shoot a lot more Xmas pictures. I will be scanning in the results of my engagement shoot and post my personal favorites plus some candid Cartier-Bresson/Eugene Smith-like shots I managed to capture of my faithful beloved.

Conclusion: It's so nice to be back home on LUSENET and I appreciate all of the positive support I've been getting here and it makes me rather happy to have the opportunity to have my Leicas being put to use in relation to romance and youthful love.

Leica-fully yours, Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001

Answers

Glad to see you back, Alfie.

Some of us were worried about you!

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.con), November 26, 2001.

Actually I need to clarify my viewpoint on the Kodak Gold 100 film I shot. In backlighting I compared it to my dad's photos he took during the early 1980's with his Nikkormat. Definitely I agree that strong lighting needs the +2 exposure compensation in order to fill in nice details. I just think that Kodak film has this old fashioned looks where colors tend to be rather extreme :) and very bright. I like that look sometimes depending on what I am shooting.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

Alfie, On behalf of the majority of readers, I beg you to restrain yourself from supersaturating this forum with your comments. I don't mind the odd contribution, but your verbosity and ineptitude is getting under my skin.

-- Stuart Wentworth (s_wentworth@hbs.edu), November 26, 2001.

I second that (even though your grammar is wrong. It should be "verbosity and ineptitude _are_ getting under my skin.)

-- Eve (Evehessler@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

Alfie! I can wait to see your snaps of the "princess."

-- Harry Monroe (Monroe9@newsnet.uk), November 26, 2001.

Alfie:

First, congratulations on your engagement!

Now, some comments on your evaluation of lenses and films. I am using quotes from your posting to make this clear.

<> Comment: There is nothing strange about this. Newer lenses with modern coatings should have more contrast. Lenses designed in recent years may also be sharper due to use of aspherical elements or better glass.

<>> Comment: Blame this on machine operator error at Walmart. I would never evaluate cameras, lenses or films with 1-hour prints. There are too many variables in this method. I would use slide film instead.

<> Comment: Kodak Gold film of today is nothing like the Kodak film of the 1970s. Advances in film technology have made modern color negative films significantly better than anything available in the 1970s or 1980s. How Fuji NPS could be "softer" is beyond my understanding. You are using highly subjective terms to describe prints from films that other photographers would probably not comprehend.

<> Comment: This could be true of any high contrast film in a situation with extreme lighting conditions. Most films have a narrow exposure latitude.

<> Comment: I don't think anyone will describe Fuji film as being "tender"! Read a review of films in any photography magazine. The reviewer will talk about sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc.

It is good that you are an enthusiastic photographer! You have a long way to go! :-)

-- M. Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

First, italics off!

Muhammad is pretty dead on with his comments. C'mon, Alfie, let's give a little thought before we write these long-winded posts that go no where. A little restraint will go a long way.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), November 26, 2001.

Muhammed:

Thanks for screwing up the text for eveybody... Now why don't you fix it?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

Thanks Richard! Obviously you are competent with HTML...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

I don't understand why people get so upset with Alfie's frequent postings? I for one find some of them refreshing. I don't know about anyone else but I don't open every post, just those that might be of interest to me. If you're not interested you know what you don't have to do.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), November 26, 2001.

Sorry for not being specific or verbally competent in describing the Fuji vs. Kodak prints I was alluding to. I think that Kodak film has a sharper feel relative to the Fuji look especially with the slower film, especially in the shadow highlights. The Fuji tends to gives me a "lighter" feel than the Kodak which renders a flater look to the shadows in the landscape portraits. I don't think that there is any objective way to explain the Kodak vs. Fuji film's ability to capture reality to be honest. We may tend to give some film/grain/contrast testing but I prefer to stick to my eyes and my aesthetic instincts to determine whether I feel like the film quality is apropos for the situation I am shooting at. :)

Indeed, I'm rather hoping to procure the jpg files by the end of the week :) so that those who are interested in seeing my shots of the princess (esp. close-up) or the nice bokeh I got Sarah's face wide open at f2 (lots of those shots) is what accounts for my reason why I enjoy shooting Leica for this artistic and rather inexplicable/ineffable reason :)...

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

Alfie, one-hour lab prints are a very poor way to judge anything about lenses. The film processing is OK, but the printing process is way bad. First off, the is no predicable color management, so whatever the channel/miscalibration/etc. produce is what you get. The green tint, that's anybody;s guess. More problematic is the very, very poor quality paper that is typically used. The Fuji Crystal Archive and "Kodak" papers have very poor grain structure, I defy you to see the difference between NHGII and Reala, the paper grain controls, not the film. You really need to use a Loupe and chrome, or do some home B&W to get the a feel for lens quality.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 26, 2001.

Alfieeee! You're baaaaaaaaaaaack!

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), November 26, 2001.

For those "majority of readers" (??) who don't approve of Alfie's verbosity, with or without good grammar, either take a hike, or don't read it. It's not a difficult decision. Good grammar or not, don't bash Alfie! Don't bash anybody! Don't be a jerk! How's my grammar on that one?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 26, 2001.

Tony:

Seems to me that since the passions about "Alfie" posts seem to run so high, you should create a separate catagory just for him... Easy to find for those that love him, easy to avoid for those that don't.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

Congratulations on your engagement Alfie, by stating that your proposal went well I assume that the answer was 'yes'. You are lucky to have a Leica or two to play with at such a young age. I wish I would of had one when I was young, heck I didn't even have a Kodak Brownie. All those old girlfriends and friends are just a fading memory now, and I could of had so much fun with such friends in my own darkroom too.......sigh!

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

Alfie,

How stupid of me; of course the answer to your proposal was 'yes' because you refer to your intended as you 'fiancee'. Too much work and not enough sleep.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

I'm afraid you lost me at 'shadow highlights.'

-- Joe Brugger (joebrugger@news.oregonian.com), November 26, 2001.

Alfie,

Congratulations on your engagement! I look forward to seeing the results of your shoot. You seem to be an incurable romantic and I must assume that the results of your engagement photography are of great importance to you. I would suggest, therefore, having used high quality equipment to create the negatives, that you do yourself a favour and use equally high quality services in the printing stage. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As to Tony's comments, I agree with them but I think that the "Alfie Bashers" constitute a very small, if rather too vocal, minority. The majority of us have a life and are not so mean-spirited.

Regards, Ray

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 26, 2001.

Ray, the "majority of readers" phrase was quoted deridingly from an earlier, obnoxious post. Indeed, the majority of folks here are kind enough to simply ignore those who bother them. Except me, of course, but the moderator has to be mean sometimes.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), November 26, 2001.

Hey Hugh, do you have a brother named David. Cuz I know a David Jass and always wondered if he had a (brother) Hugh Jass.....

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), November 26, 2001.

By shadow highlights, I was referring specifically to the details which are rendered underneath the shadows especially in strong backlighting. A washed out look can be good or bad depending on whether one chooses to focus the lens on the foreground by far.

I didn't realize that Fuji color paper was of so-so quality. That's probably the strongest reason why my professional contracted lab was able to print only on Ilford and Afga papers which are of the better quality.

By the way, why is Kodak paper not all that great? :) I would thought that Kodak printing paper was certainly worth it :)

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Consumer films such as Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia are snappier, higher in contrast and have wider exposure latitude because these qualities suit the market well. Professional films on the other hand tend to be more neutral in tone and contrast and unforgiving with exposure. Case in point Fuji 400 NPH - a truly awful or truly great film depending on how you use it. You just have to experiment a bit and find an emulsion right for you.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 27, 2001.

Alfie,

Try shooting slide film. You will learn very quickly the limitations of camera and photographer.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 27, 2001.

In my experience, Fuji Crystal Archive and Fujiflex are excellent papers. They are also the most archival.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), November 27, 2001.

Alfie, Fuji and Kidak both make excellent papers, no doubt. But they also profit from feeding the 1-hour turn-around labs and they are the bottom feeders the compete on cost alone. Think about it, Wal-Mart photo processing? Thus, Kodak and Fuji make super low cost (and low quality) roll paper (4" wide) that is loading in these machine and is made to be just barely good enough to sell. Period. Garbage. If you insist on 1-hour processing, try Wolf Camera. They charge more and use Kodak "Royal" paper which is a step up from the ultra-cheap lab papers. I have found that Fuji NPH and NHGII films print surprisingly well on Kodak Royal paper. Thus, when I shoot print film (and its been several months since I have) I go to Wolf camera. If I find a keeper, I take it to a professional lab and have it custom printed (about $20 per 8x10). Nowadays, I shoot Sensia II slide film and project (Oh that is sooo goood!!!) or I shoot Delta 400 (amazing film!!!!!) and do my own processing printing (this is really the ultimate Leica experience IMHO).

Have fun, shoot often.

Leically yours...

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 27, 2001.

Hallo Alfie,

IŽam one of those, who also missed you a lot.

Good you are back in decent shape, it seems at least! I can hardly await to see the photographs you took from your princess.

But what is a smoocher, Alfie? Could not find it in my dictionary.

Please allow me one suggestion (being married for too many years): Most ladies donŽt like if their husbands prefer cameras to them; so beware!

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), November 27, 2001.

Alfie:

When do we get to see some of your photos? You have a lot of detractors on this list! :-) You need to publicize your work in order to silence your critics.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), November 27, 2001.

Alfie... I second the opinion that you should start using slide film. And as for Fuji papers, Fuji Crystal Archive is, IMHO, the best stuff on the market for making prints from transparencies.

By the way, who is Eve Hessler and why does she only appear to criticize Alfie? I agree with Tony.... if you don't like Alfie, don't read his posts.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), November 28, 2001.

A point of clarification about Fuji "Crystal Archive." Making a categorical statement about this is like saying my Toyota has the most comfortable seats of any car. Fact is, there are many different Toyotas and not all have confortable seats (I think). Fuji Crystal Archive defines a broad range of photo papers including consumer, professional and business products. Some are excellent, some are not. The low end stuff run in cheapo labs is not excellent.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 28, 2001.

Well... the many prints I've had made on FCA come from a reputable digital lab. While I should perhaps refrain from making broad generalizations, I personally don't know of any photo colleagues who are getting prints made on anything other than FCA.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), November 28, 2001.

Some of these posts go off in unusual directions, so I find it worthwhile to look at posts that aren't of immediate interest, when I have time. Half the time, I scroll past the original post looking for amusing tidbits. Thanks, guys and gals.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), November 28, 2001.

>Back from the Engagement with Leicas<

Alfie, start to get worried now. Did you really get engaged to a LEICA or was it the Princess as you told us?

Please have some photos for us, we/ some of us out here are waiting eagerly.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 02, 2001.

This is way too far in the Twilight Zone!!

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), January 11, 2002.

Ahh! Nostalgia, let's ressurect this good old "Alfie" thread?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 12, 2002.