Rainy days and an old Olympus

<p>I took my old Olympus 35 RC and put some slide film in it.The little guy was begging to be taken out in one cold <br>

day,before I left for work .Few shots from the two rolls I've taken .</p><div></div>

<p>And my boy </p><div></div>

<p>My girl </p><div></div>

<p>A wall</p><div></div>

<p>A window</p><div></div>

<p>A ballerina </p><div></div>

<p>An old lock .</p><div></div>

<p>Last one </p><div></div>

<p>Very nice set. I like the "old lock." The last one is interesting too. It almost looks like the bottom end of a broom. The OOF is very smooth. Perhaps some camera porn is in order?</p>

<p>I must admit I don't know how you managed to get so close as in "ballerina" or the "old lock". AFAIK minimal focusing distance is 3 feet, or am I wrong?<br>

BTW the shots are really nice and your kids look just lovely.</p>

<p>The lock was painted blue!I did not do anything in post processing as I don't know how .And this is the camera,a small rangefinder with a great little lens </p><div></div>

<p>Sorry, but I'm with <em><strong>Stefan T</strong></em>.<br /> DOF and tight close-ups, along with no post processing<strong>?</strong> Just doesn't add up to this lens & camera type.</p>

<p>They are shot at 2.8 ,some angled and cropped/straightened in Picassa.I just meant I did not used Photoshop or other things to changed the colors or exposure ...</p>

<p>where did you get the lilacs in bloom?</p>

<p>"They are shot at 2.8 ,some angled and cropped/straightened in Picassa.I just meant I did not used Photoshop or other things to changed the colors or exposure .."</p>

<p>That makes sense. Really nice shots. The results look a lot better than those of the XA. Sharper and less vigneting.</p>

<p>I have been in Argentina for the last few months ,these were taken two weeks ago.I have an XA also but I have to repair it ,never had the time ,the shutter seems to be stuck at one setting,1/60 or so </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"where did you get the lilacs in bloom?" <em><strong>Harvey S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing gets by us here in the Pnet web...</p>

<p>Well, cute kids and I like the other images too. (Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth)<br>

<br /> Even the camera is cute. Go for it.</p>

<p>Great work, those blues are really intense...thanks for the post.</p>

<p>Great-looking family you have there, <strong>MM</strong>. A nice series of pics, unexpected renditions in light of the camera's features. Thanks for posting.</p>

<p>Nice job. I've had an RC for several years. I wanted one when the carmea originally hit the market, but I was in high school and couldn't afford it. My family opened a camera shop a few years later, but didn't add Olympus until the late 70's. </p>

<p>That must be a very special camera, because I never got any shots that looked anything like yours using a 42mm 2.8 lens.</p>

<p>I think some people here are having a hard time beleiving your image posts. (Including me)<br>

It is not the quality of the images, but the image qualities. <br>

The 35RC focusses only to 3 feet. So the image in view at that range is about 2 feet across. In the case of the balerina, that would require a pretty big flower to fill the frame. If you cropped the frame the grain would begin to show.<br>

Also, in the case of the sticks, that is a very narrow depth of field. I would not think at f2.8 there would be that much separation. </p>

<p>Perhaps if you explained in detail your techniques, the settings you used on the camera, film, scanner, etc, that would put our mind at ease. And, if these really were taken with an Olympus 35RC, we will all benefit from the information you provide.</p>