First Roll of film on Rolleiflex

[alex_fan1]

I am very pleased with the usage of this camera and the characteristics of the

lens. It is very different from the Hassy 80 Planar and much more suitable for

street snaps.<p>

<img src="http://www.hellofan.com/myphotos/Street/120/slides/200606-rollex-np-

01.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.hellofan.com/myphotos/Street/120/slides/200606-rollex-np-

03.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.hellofan.com/myphotos/Street/120/slides/200606-rollex-np-

04.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.hellofan.com/myphotos/Street/120/slides/200606-rollex-np-

05.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://www.hellofan.com/myphotos/Street/120/slides/200606-rollex-np-

06.jpg"><p>

[simonpg]

Nice work Alex. Yes you have every reason to be pleased.

 

So, some more info please - which model Rolleiflex are you using; What film did you load; What aperture was the lens set to?

 

It's easier to respond and attribute some context to your happy experience if we have a bit mre info.

 

I ave a 1956 3.5F which I just love to bits despite its small amount of separation at the rear element -has no affected one image yet!

 

But day to day my MF shooter is my Hassy 501cm/503/cw kit. In the street I usually go out with the 50mm FLE Distagon and 120mm Makro-Planar. Sure the Rolleiflex is "snappier" but I have no difficulty with the Hassy.

 

Your images have lovely colour tones and OOF. Well done. Enjoy.<div></div>

[simonpg]

and my wider street lens<div></div>

[simonpg]

and some "interesting" people.<div></div>

[simonpg]

ooops - this is the "interesting people shot" same lens.<div></div>

[alex_fan1]

Hi Simon, it is a 2.8F with Fuji RHP 400, Aperture is 5.6 and shutter at 125 for most of the photos. What I love about this hardware is that, it is very quiet and less vibration than my 500C which I think more suitable for snaps.

[Ed_Ingold]

You might find it more flattering to your subjects to use the camera at eye level (sports finder) - not that it matters to the ego-centric world of photographic sniping.

[patrick t]

Beautiful stuff Alex.

[tito sobrinho]

"...which model Rolleiflex are you using; What film did you load; What aperture was the lens set to?"

 

Why all these questions? Are you taking Photography 101?

 

Like the late Fred Picker used to tell us- "It is as bad as to ask... what kind of brush was used to paint the Mona Lisa? What kind of typewriter did Hemingway use to write his novels.

 

And Alex...excellent pictures! But, next time, I would follow Edward's advice.

 

Cheers>

[andrewlamb]

"It is as bad as to ask... what kind of brush was used to paint the Mona Lisa"

 

Just to nit pick, it is relevant to ask what kind was used. It is well documented that it took

Da Vinci many, many years to paint the Mona Lisa.

 

My little understanding is that the painting has a very fine, smooth, sheen to it that even

today baffles experts as to how it was achieved. Recent speculation has it that the effect

was achieved by a painstaking process using thousands of small brush strokes with a

particularly thin bristled brush, amongst other weird and wonderful things that only Dan

Brown knows about. However, it is only conjecture and this new research has been greeted

with some scepticism.

 

No harm in finding out what brush Leonardo used as long we keep things in perspective.

 

As for Hemingway's typewriter, everyones knows it was a Jack Daniels ;-)

[arthuryeo]

Tito,

 

>Like the late Fred Picker used to tell us- "It is as bad as to ask... what kind of brush was used to paint the Mona Lisa? What kind of typewriter did Hemingway use to write his novels.

 

That's a highly unconvincing argument/comparison. You're comparing 2 arts that's hardly dependent on the technologies of their tools, although even the art of writing now is also dependent on an editor on a computer.

 

Photography, on the hand, is dependent on technologies. If not, why doesn't Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Mary Ellen Mark, Robert Capa, David Muench, etc... use a Holga.

[BrianS1664879711]

Heck... what I really want to know is: what's the stuff in the red tub? Nice shots! Would it be too inquisitive to ask where these pictures were taken?

[sandeep_singh_brar]

Great work. I have the 2.8F too. Your work shows that this senior citizen of a camera is no slouch and can go head to head with any modern MF. Which scanner did you use to digitize the images, it looks very clean.

[bob_the_builder1]

Great images. They really show the Hasselblad pics up - nice as they are. Great to have the

info about shutter speed and f stop, etc. Information about technique is always great for

learning. I often shot my 2.8f (xenotar) at 5.6 also, especially for portraits.

[paul_neuthaler]

Lovely, Alex. Loved my 2.8F; but love my Hassie w/50, 80 & 150 a little more.

[david chau]

i was thinking what film u were using, because these are gorgeous scans, i could never get these colors with negative film, but slide film is ok

 

i see u were using provia 400, what scanner did u use? and also was the colors fixed in photoshop?

[alex_fan1]

Thx folks,

 

The scanner I use is just a flatbed Canon 9950F, I use if with the original Scangear software which I found it doing better for 120 compare to Vuescan I am using with 135mm film scanner. Since this photos were resized, it looks good on web but if look at 100% crop, it is not as good as film scanner.

 

The stuff in the red bucket is kind of seasoned vegatable, like "Kimchi"

 

cheers

Alex

[OCULUS New York]

Wonderful dof portraits and that basket is 3-D. Yes, it is different from a Hassy...actually, I'd say better.

 

Cheers, and have fun,

Ray Hull

[simonpg]

Thanks Alex - yes the Rolleiflex is a marvel IMHO in all of its itterations. Thanks for sharing. You remind me that I really should get out and use my olf 3.5F more.

 

Tito, on the otherhand, maybe you'd do better to keep your cynical views to yourself. And, not that I need to explain myself to you on what is a dedicated photography forum where people are likely to ask questions (and it's never bothered me to answer any questions newbies or very experienced shooters might ask), but for the record only, I asked Alex those questions simply because I was INTERTESTED!

 

Thanks Andrew, Arthur and Bob.

 

What I liked about Alex's post was that we see so little of street photography with ANY MF gear. Lately I've been doing a lot of it with early folders. Of course they don't have quite (IMHO) the excellent imaging of the Rolleiflex, but are very good to use in the street anyway.

 

But increasingly these days I find using a Hassey with a PM45 very handy in the street. I think that despite its bulk, it is funnily enough (locally anyway) not all that threatening in public unlike some of the problems 35mm SLR shooters have found in recent years.

 

Maybe something that looks OLD or clsssic captures a happier attitude from people in the street.

 

Yes David a good point - the film scanned well. Like Alex has said that little Zeiss lens on the Rolleiflex has remarkable performance especially in good hands.

[arthuryeo]

BTW, Alex,

 

Those are, indeed, fabulous scans from very nicely composed and nicely developed films. I, particularly, liked frame # 1 - 3.

 

What did u use to scan with? The details are very nicely picked up.

[david chau]

hey alex is there any scanning techniques/settings u use to get these results?

[alex_fan1]

David and Arthur,

 

I think the scan quality various on film.

The 9950F works quite well with RHP and 160NC (I just use the curve on PS to reduce blue and increase green a bit) however the result is no good with RVP base on my limited experience with this scanner.

[prashanteju]

nice work!

[bacsa]

Tito: Nope...It's as bad as asking what brand of saxophone are you playing.

 

Musicians gan go on and on about their instruments, and pay big bucks for them. They tend to talk about Mark Six saxophones and such even to people who are not interested in MAKING the music, only listening to it. I suppose photographers should be allowed to do the same.

[bacsa]

Alex, great shots. I see nothing wrong with a somewhat lower viewpoint. Like a child would see things.