adrianb wrote:
Some images shot on Contax 645 and Portra 400, lenses used: Carl Zeiss 80mm F2 planar and Carl Zeiss 35mm F3.5 Distago (unless they were all shot with the 80mm, can't remember)
These are great! I haven’t seen a picture I didn’t like with the 80.
johnld wrote:
Those are great tones between black and gray, but my roll did not have that . Just a bland gray throughout. Nice photos.
I worked my way through a bottle of Rodinal and it taught me a lot about how to handle Tri-X. First was the Rodinal works best with Tri-X when it’s exposed at 200. The other being very gentle agitation. Applying some of the same techniques to the D76 clone is yielding good results. Next up is Xtol.
M4-2, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, no filter, Tri-X @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1:
lifeandmylens wrote:
Still getting the hang of scanning. I need to get an anti static brush or something for the dust. Pentax 67 + 105
How do you like working with the Pentax? It’s a big camera but from the ones I’ve handled, seems to be well balanced for hand held exposures. In the late 90’s I had a Horseman VH-R with a left hand grip. It was great on a tripod but kind of a dance when hand holding it. Advance the film, cock the shutter, focus, compose then make the exposure. Plus it was a 6X9 so only eight frames on a 120 roll.
madNbad wrote:
How do you like working with the Pentax? It’s a big camera but from the ones I’ve handled, seems to be well balanced for hand held exposures. In the late 90’s I had a Horseman VH-R with a left hand grip. It was great on a tripod but kind of a dance when hand holding it. Advance the film, cock the shutter, focus, compose then make the exposure. Plus it was a 6X9 so only eight frames on a 120 roll.
I like it! Very easy to focus and while heavy it's pretty balanced. I had the 67 and then got the 67II. I like a few things about each. On the 67, I like the metering needle better than the LCD of the 67II and also like the plain focusing screen of the 67. I'm not a fan of the micro prisms.
Tried Fujicolor 200 for the first time on my Canon P (which needs a CLA; the shutter is dragging at high speeds) with the Voigtländer 35/2.5 Color-Skopar LTM.
And one with the Mamiya C330 at dusk with Delta P3200. Taking photos in snow is challenging...I overexposed by a stop but should have overexposed by two, as the lab scans came back very gray and I had to do some pretty radical postprocessing of the jpegs. Since there was no detail in the people I figured I'd just accentuate the contrast and create a stark silhouette image.
I have one more roll of this film in my Mamiya now and next week I'll try again, this time at night; there's a big light that lights up part of the hill and I might be able to get some interesting shots.
Kodak Retina IIc + Ektar 100
Shot at f/2 (while the IIc normally comes with an f/2.8 lens, mine had the lens module switched out to the faster lens found in the Retina III . . . lucky me).
rji2goleez wrote:
Kodak Retina IIc + Ektar 100
Shot at f/2 (while the IIc normally comes with an f/2.8 lens, mine had the lens module switched out to the faster lens found in the Retina III . . . lucky me).
Bob,
Whoever swapped the 2.8 for the 2.0 knew what they were doing. I'm always impressed by how accurate the focus is.
Rollei 2.8F. Almost no dust on these scans, but some newton rings. There's only sheet of ANR glass on the bottom. Not sure how to solve that or what's causing it.
lifeandmylens wrote:
Still getting the hang of scanning. I need to get an anti static brush or something for the dust. Pentax 67 + 105
I use a little hot dog air compressor that's designed for a finishing nail gun. I set the regulator to a very low pressure and I hook up a coiled hose with a trigger nozzle on the end. It fits in a corner and provides a gentle puff of air to clean off film for scanning. I don't even have a brush. the beauty of the air is that it doesn't scratch the emulsion.
bjhurley wrote:
And one with the Mamiya C330 at dusk with Delta P3200. Taking photos in snow is challenging...I overexposed by a stop but should have overexposed by two, as the lab scans came back very gray and I had to do some pretty radical postprocessing of the jpegs. Since there was no detail in the people I figured I'd just accentuate the contrast and create a stark silhouette image.
Agree -- as a rule 2 stops for snow. If the lab scans are coming back grey, is that because they're just running the scanner on autopilot and nobody's making a decision on how your individual images should be scanned? I'd be disappointed in a lab that scans snow and forces it to neutral grey. That suggests that their scanner is on autopilot for exposure or the person running it doesn't care enough to give you that extra stop when scanning. In the old days it was common for me to get film back from labs where they forced all of the prints to have exposures balanced to neutral grey. Kodak was the exception. When Kodak processed my prints they always had a person making the decision on exposure, and they would override the neutral grey exposures if they thought it would improve the image. That alone made it worth the extra processing cost.
The problem is that if you've got a difficult image and you're picky, then nobody will do as good a job scanning as you would do yourself.
