quirkyalone Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Well, here they are in all their glory *lol*. I think they turned out pretty nice, they are much sharper in life than I can reproduce on a monitor, with jpeg and all. The originals were the scanned negatives from my Canon 9950F at 4800dpi. You can see some vignetting (?) but the center could be cropped into a very useable square, I think. Please let me know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quirkyalone Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 Sorry, the pic's are in my folders :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfstone Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Keith - looks pretty nice to me vignetting aside. Is the vignetting expected or an issue with this particular model/instance? Agree you should get some really nice prints from these Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Keith, nice pictures. They should not show vignetting - wrong lens hood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 ... (gently, he adds), Zeiss Ikon [rather than Icon] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quirkyalone Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 I did'nt know really what to expect, as this was the first time I've ever used this camera - so the vignetting was a bit of a surprise. I did'nt use a lens hood, so it was'nt that. I noticed that red blotch as figure it was bleed through, might try some sort of tape or somehow keep the back dark when taking shots. PS I hang my head in shame for the misspelling of "Ikon" ........ I'll be in the corner lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I've got a hunch on the light fall-off. Since Reala isn't terribly intolerant of exposure errors the way transparency film would be, I wonder if you weren't just underexposing everything by around a stop, leading to too little density in the corners? If you're using a meter, try next time setting it to EI 64 or so with your Reala, see if that doesn't improve things. If not using a meter, spend some time getting to know the differences between "sunny" and "hazy" and between "cloudy bright" and "cloudy dull". Also, look carefully at the aperture scale; some of those are marked in such a way it's possible to err by most of a stop if you read from the wrong side of the pointer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quirkyalone Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Thanks Donald, I am using a light meter (and a grey card), but it's of vintage origins as well (Metraphot 3). I figured I was reading it right, but now that you mention it, I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly or not as there is a black and an empty triangle on it. I was using the black one, as it seemed to be giving the more logical reading. Maybe I'll try the empty triangle setting next time, and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Keith, check it against a known value: Sunny 16. Set to an abritrary speed, read the gray card in direct sun with no haze, and you should get an exposure from one mark or the other at f/16, 1/ASA. If the sun is hazy, make it f/11, 1/ASA. If you're not getting that reading, but (say) one stop smaller or faster, then it's the meter; the simplest way to compensate is simply to downrate the film -- set the meter at EI 50 instead of 100, say. If you are getting that reading, then it might be worth checking to see what lens you have in your Nettar -- IIRC, the Novar-Anastigmat common on that model was a pretty standard Cooke type triplet, and as such could be prone to light fall-off at the corners of a 6x9 with a 105 mm focal length; it'll likely be better if you stop down some. BTW, if the meter has two ranges, likely one mark is for the high range, the other for low (some selenium meters did this with a perforated cover that attenuated a calibrated amount of light, or a ND filter). Or it might be for reflected vs. incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbing Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I have the 517/16 and have had good results from Fuji Acros 100. A few samples shots are in my gallery:</p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=419090" >Nettar samples</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now