Rolleiflex 3.5F First Film Advice

Hi

 

I've been searching for a Rolleiflex for a long time and have benefitted from lots of good advice from this forum. A few weeks back I purchased a 2.8F which was offered locally for a great price. I noticed it had lens coating issues. I ran a film through it but returned it for a refund before receiving the results.

 

At the same time I got an offer for a late issue 3.5F. I received it, ran a roll of film through it and sent it off for a CLA.

 

The 2.8F light meter wasn't accurate so I used the iPhone app Pocket Light Meter. The 3.5F light meter was accurate and I double checked settings with the app. Today I received scans of the films and have the following questions :

 

• The company that developed the films said both had a tendency towards underexposure, 1-2 stops. They mentioned that originally the pictures had an extreme green tint. I wrote back to them mentioning that the films were shot with two different cameras and wanted to double check that both had exactly the same problem (which seems unlikely) and they confirmed they did. Could this be due to reading from the light meter app ? Or could this be due to the fact that neither camera had been serviced ?
  

• The film from the 2.8F included some stunning shots. The 3.5F I was a bit disappointed with. Ok the light was better when I shot with the 2.8F but there are some shots from the 3.5F roll that I think are no better than a good mobile phone shot ! I'm sure this is due to my technique rather than the camera so I'll post some examples below and perhaps you could suggest what I might have done wrong. Both were shot with Pro 400h. Most of the 3.5F shots at f/22.
  

Edited March 5, 2020 by jimnorwood

This looks rather grainy ?

 

Here the tree on the right seems to be in focus rather than the bench.

 

Ok and here one that I am happy with. I wanted to check the focus was accurate. I was focused on the chain basket.

The 3.5F has a tiny tiny mark on the taking lens. So small that it's impossible to photograph. I'm probably worrying too much but I just noticed that the above picture has a white mark on the scan which is not visible at the same position on any of the other photos. It was lightly snowing that day so perhaps this is just water ?

said both had a tendency towards underexposure, 1-2 stops ...

1. Could this be due to reading from the light meter app ?
    
   
2. Or could this be due to the fact that neither camera had been serviced ?
   

I'd lean towards blaming the app (and of course it's operator too). - No offense meant! But look:

• If the closed phone system declares to shoot at ISO 1.5 f-stops higher than it is for real, that is a "wow!"-feature of the phone.
   
  
• If you overexpose your phone, highlights are washed out and lost. If you overexpose film they will get a little bit dense but information remains kind of recoverable. So I 'd declare the 1.5 stops exposure difference between both devices the no man's land of "better safe than sorry".
  
• A camera with a lack of recentish service tends to overexpose. I had shutters set to 1sec that took 7-8sec to run that speed with their sticky decades old grease. - Especially out in the cold.
  

This looks rather grainy ?

If it was underexposed, what do you expect? - I think I learned: "Overexposure of color negative film reduces grain"?

Dear Jochen,

 

Thanks for the reply. No offence taken but please remember what's obvious to you may not be as obvious to someone new to this like me.

 

If the closed phone system declares to shoot at ISO 1.5 f-stops higher than it is for real, that is a "wow!"-feature of the phone.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean you're impressed that the app can be that accurate ? You mean don't use an App but a more accurate light meter ?

 

If you overexpose your phone, highlights are washed out and lost. If you overexpose film they will get a little bit dense but information remains kind of recoverable. So I 'd declare the 1.5 stops exposure difference between both devices the no man's land of "better safe than sorry".

I'm confused. The phone was suggesting a setting that resulted in underexposure rather than overexposure ?

 

If it was underexposed, what do you expect? - I think I learned: "Overexposure of color negative film reduces grain"?

 

Ok so the underexposure increases film grain and would explain the scans. So conclusion to avoid this would be buy a light meter ?

Edited March 5, 2020 by jimnorwood

The 3.5F has a tiny tiny mark on the taking lens. So small that it's impossible to photograph.

 

If its very tiny, and on the front element, theres almost zero chance of it being visible on film. If on the rear element, a very small chance it might have some minimal effect. More likely it was the snow as you suspect.

Much as I love playing around with old gear, the one thing I would not be without is a modern digital exposure meter. And shooting at F/22 seems unnecessary.

Much as I love playing around with old gear, the one thing I would not be without is a modern digital exposure meter. And shooting at F/22 seems unnecessary.

Thanks John. Do you have a recommendation for me ? In fact I just spoke to the technician who is carrying out the CLA of my camera and the good news is it hasn't been butchered in previous services and all parts are original. Good news is the lens mark was hard to shift dirt and could be removed. It turns out that the focus was not accurate, the shutter speeds were off as well as the light meter reading. He wasn't at all surprised to hear about the results I had. Everything can be fixed and I'm looking forward to picking up the camera next weekend

I'd strongly encourage you to secure a good light meter rather than rely on a phone app, and learn proper metering techniques to improve your results. Likewise, make sure the diopter in your close focus swing-down is appropriate for your eyesight. I had to modify mine with my first TLR. Enjoy your new camera.

Much as I love playing around with old gear, the one thing I would not be without is a modern digital exposure meter. And shooting at F/22 seems unnecessary.

My budget is limited. Would the Sekonik L208 be suitable ?

Jim, for the price of the Sekonic, which is an older style analogue meter, I would think you could get a much more versatile digital meter which would measure flash as well as incident and reflected ambient light. I had good use out of an Aspen Polaris meter, I think they are still available. Or Sekonic make something similar.

 

ASPEN corporation | POLARIS | POLARIS2| FLASHMETER | Products

If mostly shooting outdoors in available daylight, a meter is a meter is a meter. The old Sekonic Studio Deluxe, L28cII, L398, etc selenium models have proven remarkably durable and accurate: second hand prices can be very reasonable, if you don't mind analog trap-needle displays this type of meter is sometimes a great bargain.

 

The Sekonic L208 is perhaps the most popular compact battery-powered analog meter ever marketed and would expand usability to lower light than selenium can handle. But being a much-recommended "cult" meter (Rolleiflex owners are esp fond of it), used L208 asking prices tend to match or exceed the new retail price, which is nuts. The main attraction of the L208 is tiny size, if that isn't important the price is a bit much. A used modern multi-purpose digital meter (like the Polaris John Seaman mentioned) is better value for that money.

 

Best value per dollar is arguably the classic Gossen Luna Pro SBC, THE non-flash pro meter of the '70s/'80s. Easily available clean used examples for around $55 average, modern silicon cell, reads accurately down to "available darkness", uses standard 9v radio battery available at any gas station or dollar store. The spot meter module and other accessories are gimmicky and clumsy, but useful if included in the deal.

 

As with anything second-hand photographic, eBay is notably more expensive than what you might stumble on at a garage sale, Goodwill outlet or other personal scavenging. My own collection of a half dozen meters were all acquired as ride-alongs with cheap camera deals (mostly via eBay). Loads of $30 random camera packages come with a really nice pristine meter like Sekonic, Weston, or Gossen thrown in: keep an eye peeled on listing pics and you can acquire several nice meters this way for a fraction of what meters alone sell for.

Edited March 12, 2020 by orsetto

Any one of the Sekonic L-308 models would be nice. Gossen Sixtomat Digital also offers modern convenience (I think it has another name in the US). Both are compact, fast and easy to use.

Jim, for the price of the Sekonic, which is an older style analogue meter, I would think you could get a much more versatile digital meter which would measure flash as well as incident and reflected ambient light. I had good use out of an Aspen Polaris meter, I think they are still available. Or Sekonic make something similar.

 

ASPEN corporation | POLARIS | POLARIS2| FLASHMETER | Products

Thanks for the advice John,

I now have an Aspen Polaris and I wondered about two things. Sorry these are newbie questions :

 

1. Should I be using incident or reflected readings with my Rolleiflex ?

2. I'm a bit confused as to what I should do with the 10th of a stop increments on the light meter.

 

I'm interested to know how others have used this and had the best results.

I always use reflected readings apart from when I've done studio portraits. I think most photographers are the same. There's plenty of stuff online about the pro's and cons. For example an old thread here on photo.net - the early responses by Ellis Vener and Ed Ingold pretty much sum things up, although the thread does go off at a tangent along the way:

 

LINK: Incident Vs Reflected light readings?

 

As far as the tenth stop readings are concerned, well, just set the camera to the nearest stop available. If there's a choice to make, for example where the reading is half way between available settings, decide whether the scene would benefit from slight over or under exposure. It is of course possible to set the aperture part way between stops, but I doubt that the accuracy of the shutter speeds is sufficient to justify this.

Thanks for the advice John,

I now have an Aspen Polaris and I wondered about two things. Sorry these are newbie questions :

 

1. Should I be using incident or reflected readings with my Rolleiflex ?

2. I'm a bit confused as to what I should do with the 10th of a stop increments on the light meter.

 

I'm interested to know how others have used this and had the best results.

 

The reflected readings are useful, especially when the scene is evenly lit; i.e. no extremely light or dark areas. Incident measures total light falling on the scene; the dome needs to be exposed to the light source; again for evenly lit scenes. A spot meter, or spot meter setting is valuable, especially for exposure in one particular area of the scene; Spot metering is used for reflected only.

 

There are a number of books out there for using hand held meters.

I always use reflected readings apart from when I've done studio portraits. I think most photographers are the same. There's plenty of stuff online about the pro's and cons. For example an old thread here on photo.net - the early responses by Ellis Vener and Ed Ingold pretty much sum things up, although the thread does go off at a tangent along the way:

 

LINK: Incident Vs Reflected light readings?

 

As far as the tenth stop readings are concerned, well, just set the camera to the nearest stop available. If there's a choice to make, for example where the reading is half way between available settings, decide whether the scene would benefit from slight over or under exposure. It is of course possible to set the aperture part way between stops, but I doubt that the accuracy of the shutter speeds is sufficient to justify this.

 

Thanks a lot John. Can I make sure I have understood correctly ? I must be stupid because I'm still getting quite confused !

 

If I take a meter reading at F16 125 and the 10ths meter shows 2/3rds. Is it correct that I have two choices :

 

I set the f-stop to F22 125 as this is the nearest setting on the Rolleiflex

Or I set the f-stop halfway between F16 and F22.

 

What I don't understand is sometimes I take a reading and as I scroll through the different Fstops on the light meter all ten of the tenths readings are illuminated. Why and how should I interpret this reading ?

I don't have your meter, but I do have two Sekonic meters that have similar readouts. f/16 plus 5 hash marks is half way between f/16 and f/22--f/19, in other words. With the Rolleiflex you can interpolate between f/stop settings and that is what I would do if I were you. Bear in mind that mechanical shutters, especially old ones, are generally not accurate to 1% or anything close to that, so obsessing over accurate settings on the camera probably won't be as helpful as you might want. If you are using negative film you should be well within tolerances for a decent exposure.

If I take a meter reading at F16 125 and the 10ths meter shows 2/3rds. Is it correct that I have two choices :

 

I set the f-stop to F22 125 as this is the nearest setting on the Rolleiflex

Or I set the f-stop halfway between F16 and F22.

 

It's a math thing, and depends on what you like.

If the meter says f/16 and 2/3rds, you can set f/22 and be 1/3 stop off on the too-dark side.

Or you can set the stop halfway between f/16 and f/22 (is there an indent, so you can reliably set that?) and be just 1/6 stop off on the too-light side.

The last is more accurate, closer to the correct exposure (according to the meter). But maybe you prefer the result being a bit too dark rather than a smaller bit too light?