Infrared Photography with the Leica Monochrome Camera

Goats Peak Park (No. 387) Urth 720nm IR filter. 1/2-second exposure, 21mm Voigtlander lens. 

 

 

Lately I have been playing around with infrared filters on my Leica M246 Monochrom. I have tried out a few different filters on my Voigtländer lenses.  With all of these often very dark infrared filters, I had to use the electronic viewfinder for the M246. 

 

 • Flic Film IR Filter (720nm) : This was the least expensive of the ones tried, at $25 (CDN) for the 39mm filter size. It worked well, but I found it had longer exposure times compared to the others I tried. 

 

• Urth Plus + filter (720nm ): This filter was about $80 (CDN) for the 39mm size. My tests showed that it was a full stop faster than the Flic Film filter. This can be significant when exposures are 1 sec or more.   The difference comes down to the quality of the glass and the advanced chemical coatings used by each manufacturer. 

 

• B+W 092 IR (695nm) filter:  This filter was about $95(CDN) for the 39mm size. It was very close to the Urth filter, maybe a touch faster in speed and has a little less infrared effect. B+W call it a dark red filter. When looking through it, it’s very dark. The filter has a much nicer attachment ring made out of brass compared to the aluminum ones from Urth and Flic Film. Plus, my lens hood for my Voigtländer 35mm ƒ2 lens fits over this filter. With the other filters, when screwed onto the lens, the lens hood will not fit over the filter. I find it’s my most-used filter, top quality and produces a nice subtle IR effect. 

 

• B+W 093 IR (830nm) filter: This filter was about $170(CDN) for the 39mm size. It’s a true infrared filter. The exposures are very long, often in the 60-second range. Also, not all lenses work with this filter. Some of my newer Voigtländer lenses would not work all that well due to severe flaring from the internal lens elements on modern lenses. One of the best lenses that works well with this filter is a vintage 50mm Leica Elmar ƒ3.5 lens from about 1954, probably because it has no internal coatings. I found pretty good results from the Voigtländer  21mmColor-Skopar ƒ4 and the TT Artisan 28mmƒ5.6 lens. The Voigtländer lenses that didn’t work well were the 35mm Ultron ƒ2, 50mm Color-Skopar ƒ2.2 and the 90mm APO Skopar ƒ2.8. Even with the old 50mm Elmar and the B+W 093 filter, there were occasional flare issues. The B+W 093 IR (830nm) filter is the most difficult to use but also produces the most dramatic IR effect.

 

 • I prefer the B+W 092 IR (695nm) filter because the exposures are shorter. Also, with this filter, I could not use the electronic viewfinder (EVF) as the filter was so dark that I could barely see an image with the EVF. Through testing, I found that the focus shift was at the ƒ11 mark on the old 50mm Elmar lens. I used the frame lines in the optical viewfinder on the M246 to compose my picture on a tripod, of course. Then focused with the rangefinder focusing system. Then moved the focus over to the ƒ11 mark. I hit the right focus consistently. 

 

Comparison between the B+W 091 (695nm) filter (top) and the Urth 720nm IR filter (bottom). 

 

 

Powers Creek (No. 122) Flic Film 720nm IR filter. 60-second exposure, 50mm Voigtlander lens. 

 

 

Royal Roads Ponds (No. 232) Flic Film 720nm IR filter. 3/4-second exposure, 50mm Voigtlander lens. 

 

 

Tower Point (No. 262) Flic Film 720nm IR filter. 2-second exposure, 35mm Voigtlander lens. 

 

 

Witty’s Lagoon Park (No. 277) Urth 720nm IR filter. 17-second exposure, 50mm Voigtlander lens. 

 

 

Goats Peak Park (No. 394) B+W 830 IR filter. 60-second exposure, 50mm Elmar lens. 

 

 

Tower Point (No. 575) B+W 695nm IR filter. 6-second exposure, 21mm Voigtlander lens. 

 

 

Review of the Leica M246 Monochrom

Update: June 10, 2026. I have been using this camera for about a year now, and I still very much enjoy using it. I have added a set of Voigtlander lenses, 21mm ƒ4 Color-Skopar, 35mm ƒ2Ultron, 50mm ƒ2.2 Color-Skopar, and a 90mm ƒ2.8 Apo-Skopar. I also have a set of B+W filters, yellow, orange, and red. In addition to those filters, I have a set of infrared filters which I am still experimenting with. I hope to make a separate blog post in the future when I get all my filters and make some interesting photographs. One thing I like about using the camera is the use of coloured filters to change the tonal values of a particular scene (usually landscapes). This gives me “intent” when I’m deciding how I want to visualize my photo. In Ansel Adams’ book “The Negative,” on pages 4 & 5, he talks about what he was thinking while making the photograph, Monolith, The Face of Half Dome, Yosemite National Park, 1927. He considered that photograph his first visualization, seeing in his mind the image he wanted before making the exposure. He first tried a conventional yellow filter (#8) the took a second shot (his last sheet of film) with a dark red filter (#29), and in doing so, he achieved the very effect he wanted. That’s what I loved about film photography, one had to be “in the moment” and thinking on one's feet in order to achieve the desired photograph that a photographer might be thinking about. Often, when I shoot with a colour digital camera, the black and white idea is an afterthought, and I will work it out when my colour pictures are downloaded on the computer. That’s fine too, as it does give me a wide choice of black and white variations. I have made some beautiful black and white photographs using this method. But there is something about being in the field and deciding my vision just as Ansel did nearly 100 years ago. 

Update, November 25, 2025: I have been using this Leica M246 for about 6 months now, and I have shot well over a thousand photos with it. It's been very interesting. Here are a couple of comparison panels showing the dynamic range of the 246 compared to a Nikon D850 and a sharpness comparison between a 4x5 view camera with a Fujinon 180mm lens and the 246 with a 50mm Voigtlander lens.

Orginal post: This review is based on my personal observations of using the Leica M246 Monochrom since I have had an opportunity to use one for the past 3 months or so. I am by no means a camera reviewer; there are many more professional reviewers out there on the internet who will provide a much more comprehensive technical review of the Leica M246 Monochrom, which has been on the market for over 10 years now. 

 Back in 2012, when Leica first announced a Monochrome version of its colour digital Leica M camera, I thought it was an interesting idea and I would very much like to try one. There are not many monochrome-only digital cameras on the market these days; Pentax has its K-3 Mark III; otherwise, they are a fairly rare camera; some might question the wisdom of buying and using a camera like this, given that the Leica is so expensive. Plus, many will find it much simpler to just convert a digital colour file to black and white and have the option of playing around with colour sliders to mimic using colour filters, like in the days of shooting black and white film, to darken a blue sky, for example. 

 First thing I noticed with the Leica M246 Monochrom is that the dynamic range is not as good as some other digital cameras, but it's still pretty good. I think my Nikon D850 has better dynamic range, even when converting to grayscale, and from what I have read, it's partly because there are three colour channels (RGB) when overexposure occurs in highlight areas. With the grayscale sensor, there is only one channel. 

 So consequently, when using the Leica M246 Monochrom camera, it's very easy to overexpose or clip the highlight areas of a photo. When using the Monochrom, I often find myself exposing for the highlight areas, especially if they are a significant part of the photograph. When reviewing the pictures on the screen on the back of the Leica Monochrom camera or importing the DNG files onto the computer, the resulting photos can look quite dark, and honestly, sometimes they can look awful. It takes some post-processing work, using your favorite editing program, either Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw (which is what I use), and then Photoshop, to make the pictures look good. 

 So don’t review the pictures on the screen on the back of the camera and expect to be blown away by an amazing black and white image; you might be disappointed. I like to review my pictures of the M246 with the histogram option selected, so I can get a better idea of how much highlight clipping is occurring in a particular photo. Sometimes in high contrast situations, it's hard to avoid having some highlight clipping. I try to look for photo possibilities that have a moderate amount of contrast, something that fits the unique characteristics of the gray-scale sensor in the M246. 

  One thing I found about this whole black and white process while using this camera is that, out in the field, I find myself imagining and thinking more in “black and white” mode and how potential subjects might fit the unique characteristics of how this camera “sees”. I find that it can be a lot of fun and helps me visualize more. When I do find the right subject matter, I have made what I think are some good images. Sometimes I will try using coloured filters over the lens; they do have some effect with the M246, but I think not as dramatically as with using filters with black and white film. 

 Years ago, when I shot a lot of film, one of the joys of shooting black and white film was scouting around and finding a particular scene, whether it be a landscape, still life, or portrait of a person, and following through the whole process to make a wonderful black and white print. There is a “Thing” about black and white photographs which makes it endearing to use; it engages my mind to look beyond the obvious and to find patterns, shapes, and relationships between shades of gray that are usually not seen in the colour world. 

 All the pictures posted with this article were taken with the M246 Monochrom; lenses used are from the 1950s and 1970s: the Leitz Elmar 50mm ƒ3.5, Leitz Summilux 35mm ƒ1.4, and the Leitz Tele-Emarit 90mm ƒ2.8. The top photo of the M246 with the 50mm Elmar was taken with my Nikon D850 and 50mm Nikkor ƒ1.8 lens.

Charlie's Trail No. 148A

Charlie’s Trail, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, July 2019.

Charlie's Trail No. 147

Charlie’s Trail, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, July 2019.

Charlie's Trail No. 146

Charlie’s Trail, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, July 2019.

Charlie's Trail No. 102

Charlie’s Trail, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, June 2019.

Charlie's Trail No. 98

Charlie’s Trail, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, June 2019.

Film tradition meets digital technology

 Semi conclusion update: August 17, 2018

During the past two months I have been experimenting and testing various ways to digitize film negatives with a digital DSLR camera, my conclusions so far "it depends" For the most part it works really well depending on film size, and how big the resulting digital files end up being. I have been doing a lot of comparisons between the camera copy method and using a film scanner.

I have tried all sorts of experiments, first I devised a system of using an 8x10 view camera as sort of a reverse copy camera, it did work just fine with 35mm negatives and even my medium format negatives. I finally settled on using a good copy stand, this one made by Kaiser which was given to me on long-term loan. It's probably the best method as it easier to square up the camera so it accurately lines up with the negative or slide. All one needs is a light source, I have a customized lightbox with LED daylight balance bulbs or I can use a drawing lightbox, mine is made by Huion sold by Amazon.

Here are some of my observations so far...

35mm film: Without a doubt using a digital camera (Nikon D7200 camera with a Nikkor 60mm macro lens) to copy 35mm negatives or slides, produces far better results than what I could achieve with my flatbed scanner, (Microtek model F2). The results are very clear and it makes a real difference in capturing the minute amount of detail from 35mm negatives, which every bit of detail is needed if making prints around 33 x 48 cm (13" x 19") in size. The D7200 has a 24-megapixel sensor which makes for a 13 x 20-inch print @300 dpi. If I photographed the negative with a Nikon D850 at 45.7 megapixels (which I don't own) it would make a print at around 27 x 18 inches.

120mm film: There is a slight edge to the camera copied images, I photographed the negative in two parts then stitched them together in Photoshop which gave me a finished digital file of around  19 x 19 inches from 6 x 6 cm negatives. The same negative scanned looked quite good actually, it's just that the camera copy negative showed a bit more detail. With some extra sharpening applied to the scanned negative, I was able to match the camera copied negative. However, I would prefer to use a minimal amount of sharpening. Plus I am shooting all my camera copied negatives in raw format (Nikon's NEF) using in-camera jpeg works fine too, except that the sharpening is already included.

4x5 film: Not much difference here, if I squint really hard I could maybe see a difference but there really wasn't any. I photographed the large format negative in four parts and then stitched them together. A fair amount of work actually compared to a single scan and with no real discernible difference.

5x7 and 8x10 film: No difference, depends on the print size. My scanner can take quite a while to chug through a scan from an 8x10 negative or a slide, especially if its big enough to make a 30 x 40-inch print.

Semifinal thoughts: If you have no scanner and are shooting some film these days or have some old negatives or slides laying around, and you have a reasonable digital camera on hand (12 to 24 megapixels), and a macro lens (but not essential), you can achieve some very good results if you have good technique. If you already have a flatbed scanner and want the very best from your 35mm or medium format negatives try copying them with a digital camera. If you already have a dedicated film scanner, like the Hasselblad Flextight X1 or X5, then you have the  Mercedes of scanners

Original Article  starts here:

A while back (July 11/2018) I wrote about my experimental idea with adapting my 8 x10 view camera as a sort of makeshift copy camera to digitally copy my film negatives. I made a bunch of parts to attach to the camera in order to make it work. And it did work to a degree, except I found that the wood field camera was not exactly lined up perfectly so it was hard to square and level everything up since I was photographing various sections of the negative and stitching them together.

 Before I started this project I had already concluded that my cropped frame Nikon D7200 with 24 megapixels produced better detail from the negative than my Microtek F2 scanner. If the scanner was a camera it would be about 6 megapixels. I found that my scanner is only able to optically produce about 1000 dpi or 3X the size of the original negative anything larger gets interpolated.

A couple people mentioned a copy stand, at first I didn't have but just a few days ago one magically appeared (thanks Michael!). For my light source I have tried a suggestion to buy a LED light pad that artists use for tracing, it about 20 x 30 cm in size, works quite well, with good daylight white balance of 6000k.

My unique light box that I am using is constructed from an old 8 x 10 contact printing box that I acquired from a photo swap and shop, I have been using it for years as my light table, but the lights I was using were not very bright, so I installed some regular daylight balanced (5000k or better) LED light bulbs and it works great and look good!

I am using the copy stand with camera and lightbox with the film attached to metal film holders, I position the camera once, move the film negative around and photograph various sections of the negative, then using photoshop I stitch the photo files together to make the original negative or slide. It works very well and lines up perfectly square. The example I posted here (which has been downsized for the internet) was made with four separate images with my Nikon D300 (12 megapixels) in raw format, and a 60mm Macro lens. I then combined all the images to make one, which made for a 40 x 50 cm print @300 dpi. With a newer camera with more megapixels, I can make even bigger prints.

Lead photo: Copy stand and camera digitizing process.

1— Top photo: Gellatly Bay, West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, October 1994. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 8 x 10 slide (positive film) Tachihara 8 x 10 field camera, 300m lens. Fuji Velvia film.

2— Middle photo: Mt Rundle, Banff National Park, September 2017. Rolleiflex with 75mm lens. Kodark Ektar film. Two-stitch combination made with Nikon D7200, 20 inch wide print @300 dpi.

3— Bottom photo: three picture combo showing the camera capture process, using a Nikon D7200 camera and 60mm macro lens. From the left, the original 35mm negative made with a Leica III camera circa,1936 and an uncoated 50mm Summar lens. Middle frame shows the enhanced negative after removal of orange coloring. On the right is the completed digital file with final color corrections and dust removal, ready for printing. The photo was made at Royal Roads University Gardens, October 2011.

www.patreon.com/garynylander         www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Update: (July 31, 2018) I have decided to go with a copy stand to photograph my negatives, follow this link: Film meets digital technology, version 2.0

Here is my idea that I have been working on recently to get as much detail from my 35mm and 120 negatives by using a DSLR camera and a macro lens to photograph my negatives instead of scanning. I have a flatbed scanner and it does a good job on my large format negatives (4"x 5" to 8" x 10"), but anything smaller and it quickly loses resolution. For this set up I am using a Nikkor 60mm ƒ2.8 macro lens with my Nikon D7200 (24 megapixels cropped sensor) camera, I then stitch the medium format negatives together using photoshop.

 I made a special bracket to hold the camera securely onto the front standard of my Tachihara 8 x 10 view camera and the negative is held in place where the film holder normally would be, in the back standard of the camera, I made a negative film holder and bracket to hold those pieces in place as flat possible. The bracket is made of ebony and aluminum with a clamp-like device that fits on the front stand of the view camera with the lens board removed. All the parts I used are made from scratch with all raw material that I found around my home workshop.

I use the front rise and fall of the view camera to help centre the negative. Since this camera has no side to side shift, I adapted an old Rollei sliding panoramic device so the camera and lens can slide from side to side also helps to centre the camera. To light the negative I pointed a flash at a white wall. I still have some issues to work out, the panoramic device doesn't slide that well, which was made for a lighter Rolleiflex so kind of panoramic device the slides from side to side (about 4 inches).

So far the results look promising, I scanned this same 120 negative with my flatbed and my camera and macro lens setup which a fair amount sharper, at least when I zoom in on the photo. All the parts I used are made from scratch with all raw material that I found around my home workshop.

Powers Creek (No. 7-16) West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, April 2018. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 120 film negative. Rolleiflex camera, 75mm lens, Rollei ISO 25 film developed in HC-110.

Update: Posted below is a scan from one of my 35mm negatives, on the left is made with my Microtek F1 scanner on the right is the same negative copied with my Nikon D7200 with 60mm macro lens. The difference doesn't show quite as much because of the small jpeg size. Those interested can email me for a large size image. gary@garynylander.com

www.garynylander.com, www.patreon.com/garynylander, www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Compositionally Speaking; My Frame of Mind

I am a photographer that likes to compose my images full frame in the camera with as little cropping as possible. Often when I'm out photographing, I already have a pretty good idea of what the composition will look like even before I have my camera set up and have tripped the shutter to make the photo. However, it can be challenging at times before I find the right composition. Other times composition happens unexpectedly when what I thought was going to work as a great composition just doesn't work, take the example posted, I was photographing at Ellison provincial Park near Vernon BC and was struggling to find the right composition as nothing "felt" quite right, then the camera, on a tripod and on a ball head accidentally slipped over to one side due to the fact I had not tightened the ball head enough, I was looking at looked at the focusing screen when this happened and when it tilted over I thought that's it, perfect!

One can Methodically examine the composition of a print and look at what worked and what didn't, but it's actually when taking the photograph where everything comes into play and every situation is different. I know that when I'm looking through the viewfinder of my camera I have a feel for what it should look like, but I can't explain how I got to know what is right or doesn't feel right in terms of compositional balance, it's having the right balance of the various elements within the frame which is the key. I think that looking at the work of other photographers including painters has been a great help to me, and sometimes when I am really stuck I use a small plastic framing card with to "frame" things up. Often its the interpretation of the scene before me that works the best, I try not to put too many elements into the frame but keeping things simple, with photography it's not what you put in the camera frame lines but its what you leave out.

To crop or not to crop:

Sometimes the original compositional idea just doesn't work and it makes sense to crop the photo afterward.

I feel that cropping a photograph for stronger artistic composition is a personal preference, and it can make for a stronger image. However, many photographers believe in presenting a full frame image with no cropping. Personally, I have always admired the work of photographer, Henri Cartier Bresson, the originator of street photography who never liked to crop his images. I also love the work of photographer, Edward Weston using an 8 x 10 view camera and making contact sheets, where he had no choice but to present his photographs "full frame".

When I was working as a newspaper photographer for the Kelowna Daily Courier, my photos were cropped on a regular basis, sometimes by the editors or by myself when I am editing through my digital images, for instance from a sporting event like hockey , I often cropped an image for more impact so there is less "dead" space around the players, with other feature and news photos I left them full frame to convey all the elements to help tell a story in a pictorial way.

 Each photographer has their own unique style in terms of how they look at the world through with their cameras and lenses. I think cropping is a personal preference, each photographer has their own way of looking at things in terms of how they present their work, there is no right or wrong way. For my fine art black and white work I almost never crop my images as I always try to shoot full frame when I make the picture, even when I shoot with the square format Rolleiflex.

I think one of the keys to making a good photograph is to have some kind of idea when out in the field as to how the finished image might look, that way when working on the photo afterward either on the computer or in the darkroom you will have a sense of where you are going with your photograph instead of just guessing and hoping for the best.


Ellison Provincial Park (No.651) near Vernon, British Columbia, Canada, November 1992. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Scanned from 4 x 5 negative. Tachihara view camera, 120mm lens, Tri-X film. The camera accidentally tilted on the tripod so I made the photograph at a skewed angle.

www.garynylander.com, www.patreon.com/garynylander, www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Art of Polaroid transfers

What you are looking at here are some of my Polaroid Transfers that I made in the years, 1992 to 1994 and 2001. To explain a bit about the process and how I made them it's useful to read my explanation and to help the viewer understand what you are looking at. Also of importance, It should be noted that each of these Polaroids featured here is a 1 of 1, that is they were made directly from my 8 x 10 view camera, with only one exposure made at the scene. Also here is a link to a PDF downloadable gallery of the entire collection.

olaroid film has long been used by amateurs and professionals since it was introduced to the market in 1948 and was manufactured until 1992. Many professional photographers used Polaroid film to "proof" to gauge how the finished photo would look while out in the field or in the studio,  as it only took a minute to develop to develop the film. This was before the days of digital photography in which a photographer could look at the screen on the back of the camera.


Depending on the film format most used, a special holder for 4 x 5 sheet film was used that also held the film during exposure and acted as the processing device. Each sheet of film contained a pod that was squeezed through rollers that started the development process which usually took 60 seconds. For 8 x 10 cameras, the film and the positive receptor (which produced the finished print) were separate items, a film holder, and a special processor was used in order to process the completed print.


In the 1990's it was popular to make Polaroid transfers using either a camera, enlarger or a special day lab using pull-apart film, for the work featured here I used Polaroid type 809 film ( 8 x 10 inches ), many photographers used previously-taken slide as many did not have an 8 x 10 view camera. I bought a manually cranked film processor made by Calumet Photographics, Polaroid also sold their own special electric-powered processor, which was much more expensive and also had to be plugged into a standard household electrical outlet. With the manual processor, I was able to work out in the field without having to plug my processor into an electrical outlet. I owned one 8 x 10 film holder which holds a single sheet of film.


In order to create the transfer process, first I made my exposure, often of a scenic or sometimes with people that modelled for me, once the exposure had been made, I then inserted the positive receptor into the manual-cranked processing device then loaded the film holder with the exposed film into the processor, I would turn the crank handle and it would pull the film out of the holder and join the two pieces together, positive and negative normally I would wait for 60 seconds for full development, but instead I would pull the two pieces apart 10 to 15 seconds into development.



I would then have my "receptor" material ready, my preferred choice was BKF Rives fine art paper, a nice thick paper used for printmaking purposes. I would pre-soak this paper in water, squeegee out excess water so it was just the right dampness, put the paper on a piece of polished 12 x 12 inch slate, then lay the still developing 8 x 10 negative, containing the color-dyes on to this paper, I used a wide rubber roller to apply pressure and then let it sit for 10 minutes or so, after that I would gently peel apart the two pieces, this was the tricky part of the process as sometimes the image would not transfer totally and some would still be left on the negative which would be then thrown away, only one print could be made from each negative.

Each photograph was unique in its own way, as the paper added texture, plus not all colors would transfer 100% so they often looked muted. After the print was dry I often enhanced the print with colored pencils or watercolor paints or even oil pastels, adding another layer of uniqueness the photo.

As I mentioned each of these Polaroids in this portfolio collection here is a 1 of 1, as they were made directly from my 8 x 10 Tachihara view camera, with only one exposure made at the scene. I even devised a system where I could create the image out in the field, setting up my processing equipment in the back of my then Toyota 4-Runner, on occasion I would backpack my 8 x 10 view camera with only a single shot film holder to be used that day, for example, my hike to the Valley of the Ten Peaks in Banff National Park.


I hope this information helps in understanding how I made these photos. 

Book review: Beyond Casual Vision by Merg Ross

 A wonderful surprise greeted me when I opened up my mail box this past week and found a book sent to me by my friend and fine art photographer Merg Ross called "Beyond Casual Vision." Ross who hails from the San Francisco Bay area has put together his first monograph featuring 63 duotone images from 1953-2016 spread over 144 pages.

 For those of you that may have not heard of this fine photographer, Ross has been photographing for over 60 years and has rubbed shoulders with many of the most famous photographers of the 20th century — Edward and Brett Weston, Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan and the list goes on. In the book Ross will tell you about his close friendship with Brett Weston and what it meant to him and how Brett influenced his work.

 The beautifully printed book is packed with insights into the lives of other famous photographers he has met along the way, including when Edward Weston reviewed his portfolio as a teenager in 1956. Ross's story about his cross country trip across the USA and Canada soon after he graduated from high school is an unbelievable adventure of meeting some of the biggest names in photography in the

1950's.

 Most importantly Ross showcases his beautiful and thoughtful black and white photographs, using everything from 8 x 10 view cameras to medium format film cameras incorporating traditional photographic darkroom methods. Ross's unique eye for seeing abstract forms is evidently displayed throughout the book, seeing everyday objects in his own unique way, a book that any lover of the arts and especially photography will cherish to have in his or her book collection.

 The softcover book is printed in Canada by LensWork Publishing of Anacortes, Washington and is available for $30 per copy, includes shipping by USPS Media Mail to US destinations. For Canadians the book is US$40 and includes postage.

Click here for Beyond Casual Vision

 Contact Merg Ross via email