[bucfan1234]

I use Flickr. Upload the size you intend to display here (I default to 800px on the long axis) and link back to the image using the Flickr-supplied BB code.


Steve

Thanks! Signed up for flickr, and to my eye, the image looks much more like the original, much sharper and not washed out.

[bucfan1234]

Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, 50mm Tessar F2.8, Arista.EDu Ultra 400, DD-X, V600

1941 Ford Super Deluxe

[stevebrot]

Thanks! Signed up for flickr, and to my eye, the image looks much more like the original, much sharper and not washed out.

It should. If you link back to the original, they will serve back your original image, with EXIF intact! If you link to any other size, YMMV.


Steve

[_quicksilver_]

It's a good lens. I've been using it a lot lately trying to learn it better. The DOF scale on the lens is too optimistic I've been finding out.

I remember reading somewhere that you need to use external finder to shoot with this lens. Is it awkward to use? Is it difficult to compose a shot using it?

[tuco]

I remember reading somewhere that you need to use external finder to shoot with this lens. Is it awkward to use? Is it difficult to compose a shot using it?

Yes, you need a external viewfinder for the 43mm field of view. It is fragile piece of gear and ideally is something you wish you did not need but not too awkward to use.

This rangefinder does not make for a good rugged landscape camera. It is easy to haul around and you can get away with a much smaller tripod but at the expense of other things. That's the way medium format film cameras are. Each has a strength at the expense of something else it seems.

The camera is not tripod friendly. You have to take it off the tripod and remove the quick release plate if the tripod takes one to change film. That may not sound like a big deal but it can be. Also you can't see through the lens when using a polarize filter. The camera is a better street camera than a landscape camera in use.

[Davidw0815]

I just started shooting BW film with my Pentax ME and developed my first roll last week. I think it worked quite well: got the film on the reel, the chemistry part worked well and I didn't scratch the film. Nevertheless the contrast turned out a little flat. I scanned the negatives and boosted the contrast a little bit in PS.

Ilford Pan F+ developed in D-76 at 20° C for 8 min 30 sec.

[tuco]

I just started shooting BW film with my Pentax ME and developed my first roll last week. I think it worked quite well: got the film on the reel, the chemistry part worked well and I didn't scratch the film. Nevertheless the contrast turned out a little flat. I scanned the negatives and boosted the contrast a little bit in PS.

Ilford Pan F+ developed in D-76 at 20° C for 8 min 30 sec.

I'm really impressed with your first results. It doesn't get much better than that. All have good tonal scale and the level of contrast is a matter of taste. If your scanned files have good latitude in them, I don't see why you can't pull that contrast cure to taste in an editor.

[tuco]

A tragedy of errors makes this a bad test shot for evaluation but a testament to the latitude of film and getting a usable image. This is a experimental development with 100TMX for me. The most important lesson is never take someone along who is nagging at you to hurry up because it is cold.

Details of what should have happen was I got a reading on the gravel just below the street lamp at EV 2. I went with that as the middle gray exposure of 4 min for f11, EI 12, corrected to a 10 min exposure for reciprocity failure.

What happen was I left the lens on f16 and forgot my reciprocity chart so I went with one stop more of 8 minutes as a guess. Acros is nice because you don't need to remember that darn chart. So I should have been more than a stop under exposed. The frame was thin but scannable with only a little scanner noise in some areas. It was well past sunset and the light in the atmosphere is from the moon under a thin, hazy layer of clouds.

100TMX @ EI 12

[Davidw0815]

I'm really impressed with your first results. It doesn't get much better than that. All have good tonal scale and the level of contrast is a matter of taste. If your scanned files have good latitude in them, I don't see why you can't pull that contrast cure to taste in an editor.

That's nice to hear! When I first saw the scans I was shocked, but after some treatment in PS most of the shots seemed to be ok. This is what the first image looks like without pp:



Is this what I have to expect from a scan? Is there something I should change with the development next time? I read somewhere that the only way to really evaluate a negative is to make a print.

[tuco]

That's nice to hear! When I first saw the scans I was shocked, but after some treatment in PS most of the shots seemed to be ok. This is what the first image looks like without pp:



Is this what I have to expect from a scan? Is there something I should change with the development next time? I read somewhere that the only way to really evaluate a negative is to make a print.

That processing is a little flat on that one. Rule number one with BW photography: Think and see the scene in BW. Learn what colors render as a middle gray. Learn to use color filters to either improve contrast or alter the tone rendition of a scene.

One of the hardest scenes to make interesting tonal-wise is winter brownish and green foliage dominated scene on a gloomy, overcast day. Most everything renders in the middle tone areas so you really need a mood or some way to get more scale from black to white in the scene, IMHO.

Try shooting some street scenes or similar that can offer up more tonal scale as test shots to start.

[Davidw0815]

Thanks for your advice, Tuco! That helps me a lot.
Last weekend I went out and shot some scenes with more contrast. Also I decided to try with the Ilford HP5+ a film which is better suited for handheld shooting.
Cheers, David

[womble]

This image was originally shot in colour on Kodachrome 64 but a number of people suggested BW would be better so I converted it. What do you think? Kris.



Kris.

[k0og]

Kris,

Your conversion to B/W looks really good to me.

David,

Your B/W unmodified scan looks similar to mine if I don't adjust the histogram in my scanning software (I use the Epson V500 with the Epson software). Without adjustment, my negatives always come out with "compressed" histograms like yours. Here is an example of what happens with the histogram, using your unmodified scan as an example (demonstrated in Sagelight Image Editor using the automatic histogram adjustment function).

-Joe-

[Davidw0815]

David,

Your B/W unmodified scan looks similar to mine if I don't adjust the histogram in my scanning software (I use the Epson V500 with the Epson software). Without adjustment, my negatives always come out with "compressed" histograms like yours. Here is an example of what happens with the histogram, using your unmodified scan as an example (demonstrated in Sagelight Image Editor using the automatic histogram adjustment function).

-Joe-

Thanks for the detailed info, Joe! I have really no experience with scanning bw negatives. It's good to know that adjusting the levels after scanning is the normal process.
Cheers,
David

[Snapper_UK]

Hey Joe. How did you do that?

I scan b and w negs with epson 500. I used to adjust the b and w levels but now find i get better picture if tick unsharpen mask(If I dont I get flat out of focus effect) and then make sure I set b and w correctly in levels in ps. How are you doing it. I am very interested

John