Kodak Retina IIIc: First Roll (TMAX)

<p>I bought a Retina IIIc for $60 from a guy whose father had purchased it while stationed in Europe in the 1950s. He was very happy to know it was going to a guy who would shoot with it.</p>

<p>The camera was very clean. I touched up the glass, dusted, and checked the shutter timing by ear. Slapped a roll of TMAX 400 in there, and put it into rotation as my daily shooter for a few weeks. </p>

<p>Here is the camera:<br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11904748_10203627445681679_7070371276800390082_n.jpg?oh=89491c5501612000e565a9a2f347dce3&oe=565D7E06" alt="" width="960" height="540" /><br>

Here are the results:</p>

<p> The Enlistee:<br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/t31.0-8/s960x960/11953569_10203629658657002_3806948475733733610_o.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="960" /></p>

<p>The Niece:</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12004768_10203629657056962_8497146708867416042_n.jpg?oh=ef01cca386bd71b57b8297dfb2771b93&oe=565FC122" alt="" width="636" height="960" /></p>

<p>Cones:<br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11872219_10203629658737004_5114289271611169735_o.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1358" /></p>

<p>Lights:<br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/11947755_10203629659377020_5597704996112885808_o.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1281" /></p>

<p>Flare:</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/t31.0-8/11224846_10203629658617001_6516297723789189461_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Photoshoot:<br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12006273_10203629659657027_3574978244415782669_n.jpg?oh=51c08f7d526d11ce0a447cd89d8fa0ec&oe=56687CC1" alt="" width="655" height="960" /></p>

<p>Alternator:</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/12006652_10203629656896958_145251968975935515_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Your thoughts are appreciated. I'm new to B&W, and I'm thrilled with this roll....</p>

 

<p>P.S. - All shots were taken using the Sunny 16 rule. I've never done that before. I'm happy with the exposures. </p>

<p>The first two were at 1/60th and f/4.0 or so. The others were mainly at 1/250th and f/11. </p>

<p>Now here's a man with an eye for a picture... Nice work, <strong>Brad,</strong> I can sense that you'll be doing a lot more B&W. The "Flare" image is beautifully atmospheric, the people pics are charming and the alternator photograph certainly demonstrates the quality of the lens. I'd be thrilled with the roll, too. Thanks for posting.</p>

<p>Rick:</p>

<p>Thanks very much. </p>

<p>I left "Flare" in there as a warning to anyone who thinks this late 1950s Schneider coated lens can handle the sun. The flare works as atmospherics, but you have to know you're going to get it with the sun within (oh maybe) 45 degrees of the shot.</p>

<p>I feel that the commercial (NCPS) treatment of the TMAX approached your usual effort in my "Lights" shot. Very smooth, good tonal gradations, and simple; "Drawbridge-esque" if you will. Thanks for the inspiration.</p>

<p>Well done Brad, and welcome to the B&W club. Great effort with the Retina, nice little cameras, as are all the Nagel built Kodaks. You are correct about the flare with the Xenon, and all those early single coated multi element lenses are prone to flare if you are not careful.<br>

That said,it can work well at times, and I like your "sunburst" picture, and as Rick has said, you do have an eye for B&W. The last pic also demonstrates how sharp the Xenon can be. TMax film can be really good, but does respond well to correct exposure and development.<br>

Keep it up!</p>

<p>Thanks, Tony. If I may ask a question:</p>

<p>It seems as though the negatives were really exposed differently than the scans. It is as if I truly messed up the original exposure, leaving the negatives sometimes with blown highlights or blocked shadow. </p>

<p>Is it possible that such substantial errors are being overcome by scanner software and post-processing at the lab so that my really poor exposures are rectified? Or, is B&W picky enough that such resurrection is not likely occurring? Can you tell by looking at the shots whether the lab fixed my issues with software?</p>

<p>I just got a Gossen Digisix2 from Adorama yesterday. That should improve on my Sunny 16 guesses. I wonder just how badly I exposed.</p>

<p>The latitude of most black & white film is generous enough that except in low light or tricky lighting sunny 16 usually works fine. The original version of TMAX 400 was a bit finicky for some, but the current version seems to be easier for most to work with. Good job with the images and please continue to post more. </p>

<p><strong>Brad</strong>, the only real way to see what happened between the camera and these images is to take a close look at your negatives. The same rules apply to colour and B&W in terms of exposure issues, and I'm sure you'll be able to see which ones required adjustment in the scanning. I found TMAX 400 a little too contrasty in it's native state and and it took careful processing to get optimum results. Good ol' Tri-X 400 is a little more forgiving and I prefer the overall "look" of that film.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Brad - these are great images. I especially like the flare picture - wonderfully atmpspheric!<br>

I just bought myself a few cameras, including a Zeiss Contessa, Kodak Retina IIa and a Mamiya Six folder - I've run a roll through the Contessa, and it was a joy to use (waiting for the processing). Having seen your work, I'm energized to put a few rolls through the others as well!!</p>

Great job! I enjoy estimating

exposures...it makes me feel

connected.

<p>Just picked up a IIc and loaded a roll of ektar. Will see how good the shutter is with rule of 16. Really nice B&W, I hope to take some and get a comfort level with it.</p>

<p>Good tones and gradation <strong>Brad</strong>! I enjoy B&W more than colour. I think it affords more opportunities for experimentation. Keep them coming! SP.</p>

<p>Grea tJob...  Iliked what you said about post war coated lenses still falring.. so true!  I too have recently bought a similar model. I haven'T developed my film yet. Like Rick mentioned I find TX400 a much more forgving film TMax was way too contrast ...or rather as Rick mentioned my sloppiness produced inconisitent results. any way, jump right in with B&W.. You got the eye ! <br>

 </p>

<p>Did you try the meter? I use a III (small) c. It works well enough got color reversal film. </p>

<p>Art:</p>

<p>The meter on my III (small) c is dead dead dead. :-) As I mentioned above, these were all shot using Sunny 16, which really kinda freaked me out. I have no confidence.</p>

<p>I bought the Gossen Digisix2, and it's in my bag for the first time. I don't know how that will work out. Without the TTL metering of at least a Pentax K1000, I'm going to have to get confident again with a new exposure setting routine.</p>

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I hope you don't mind a question along a related theme: I have the opportunity to purchase Retina IIIc with a complete set of 50/35/80 lenses, case and accessory finder in good condition. I have a IIa, and really like it. The reason the IIIc set appeals to me is that the lenses are all Rodenstock Heligons rather than the more common Schneider Xenons. However, having read some reviews about the difficulty of use of the IIIc with the different lenses (no RF coupling, necessitating focusing with the RF, and transferring the distance to the lens focusing scale), I'm in two minds.<br>

Do any of you have experience with using lenses other than the standard on the IIIc (or other Retina folders)? Is it a pain that likely trumps my lust for the Heligon lenses? <br>

Thanks in advance for your help!</p>