Wanting higher contrast from old "low end" lens

[www.wesleyalmond.com]

As I Christmas gift I received tons of Tmax 100 and 400 film (120

format)

 

Now I'm looking at all my vintage cameras and wanting to use them.

 

I have a few Agfa Sure shot box cameras (1/60 shutter speed) f-11?

Lubitel Tlr etc..

 

The main thing I've noticed from these type cameras is the lack of

contrast.

I have never been I big fan of soft low contrast negs.

 

I'm wondering what recipes are out there i.e. Exposure and developing

techniques.

The only chemical I have at home are D-76 and Dektol.

 

What can I do to give these negs a grand punch?

Red filter and Dektol? Or underexpose and overdevelop? both?

[akov]

To improve contrast of camera use:<BR>

o Good UV or filter skylight filter with appropriate coating<BR>

o Sunblind can also add to contrast<BR><BR>

 

When developing:<BR>

o Underexposure and overdevelope (push)<BR>

o Hard developer (I use Agfa Rodinal Special with TMAX 100, I suspect you will not be able to get as Agfa has been stopped its BW business). As far as I know, such a developer contains more hidrochinon.<BR>

o Vario contrast paper to achive highest possible contrast when enlarging<BR>

[akov]

Just some addition:<br>

o Explanation for low contrast: this is because of the non appropriate anti-reflection multicoating (MC) of your lens (probably old ones). Very old lens can reflect 10-20% (or even more) of the light falling onto the front lens. As a consequence, a lot less light falls to the film resulting in low contrast. Today's modern lens only reflects 3-4% of incoming light.<br>

o A sunblind can also be very helpful in order to decrease reflection at the front lens.<br>

o Red filter is a good idea, but cannot be used with all subjects.<br>

[dave_s]

I don't agree with Mr Kovacs about the UV filter. At best this will have no effect on contrast. An uncoated UV filter will add air-glass interfaces which will diminish contrast.

 

A yellow or orange filter may improve the performance of your lenses by eliminating some aberrations. It will certainly darken shadows.

 

The most important thing you can do when making exposures is to shade your lens well. As said before, these lenses are probably uncoated or don't have the greatest coatings (I don't know, I don't know the cameras). Old uncoated lenses can perform well if they're shaded.

[akov]

I meant an UV filter with coating, which is suitable for BW photography. They are probably more expensive, but will worth.

[lex_jenkins]

If you're using simple cameras like a Holga, Lubitel, etc., there's really no point in complicating matters by trying to fit filters, lens shades and other doodads that weren't designed to be used on these cameras. You can take reasonable precautions such as using your hand or a hat to shade the lens but otherwise I'd suggest keeping it simple.

 

One of my favorite cameras is a 6x6cm Agfa folder. The lens is uncoated and I don't use a lens shade or take any special precautions during shooting to enhance contrast. But I generally develop a bit longer than usual to punch up negs from this camera.

 

You can punch up your negatives by giving a bit more development. TMX (ISO 100) is already a fairly contrasty film and produces different results with different developers (compared with, say, Tri-X, which behaves pretty much the same with most developers). Try developing 10%-25% longer in D-76 stock solution or 1+1. If that's not punchy enough, sure, try Dektol. Paper developers can sometimes yield interesting effects on film.

 

TMY (400) is also a fairly punchy film, tho' not merely a faster version of TMX. If you like the coarse, salt-'n'-pepper grain and want some contrast try it in Rodinal.

[ronald_moravec1]

If you have an uncoated lens, it can not the get the contrast and tonal separation of a coated one. By it`s nature, there will be less contrast in the shadows and less separation in the highlights.

 

No filtering, exposure change or development change will change this.

 

Use a good lens shade and keep sun off the front.

 

Also shine a small penlight thru the lens both ways. If it is anything but perfectly clear, you will get foggy low contrast pics lacking in tone separation. The lens must be cleaned internally.

 

I work with nearly identical 3.5 Elmars on Leicas, one single coated (last version from 1955) and one uncoated. Both have been profesionally cleaned. I have experimented with shats on the same roll at same time and both lenses and those are the conclusions I made. I also have other uncoated Leica glass and while they make nice pictures under the proper conditions, you can not make them look like modern lenses

[mike ortega]

Use Microdol-X film developer for your negatives and Dectol for printing. Also T-max developer or the other suggestions listed. Increase processing will increase the your negative density. Good luck.

[stephen hazelton]

Last photos I shot with a Shur-Flash, I used Tmax developer on Plus X and negatives were almost too contrasty to print well. This was shooting at whatever exposure is built in, and developing at the "recommended" starting time. It doesn't take a lot to change it.

[michael_briggs2]

You've received contradictory advice, so I will try to repeat the advice that I agree with.

 

The lower contrast is from the lens being uncoated or single coated, depending on age. The air-glass surfaces will reflect light, which will fill in the shadows, reducing both shadow contrast and overall contrast. You can recover the overall contrast by increasing the development time.

 

Using a lens shade will help.

 

I wouldn't underexpose.

 

Using a yellow (or yellow-green) / orange / red filter will cut blue light, making shadows darker and clouds stand out against a darker sky. But first decide whether you want this effect.

 

As Ronald says, sometimes old lenses get a haze, probably from oils from grease or paint evaporating and condensing on the lens. Even a little of this will really kill the contrast. Look through the lens at a light to look for this problem. If the glass has a haze, you won't get good results until you have the lens cleaned.

[don_mckeith]

OK, here comes the amateur advice-

 

 

uncoated single element(miniscus),Rapid Rectilinear(and Aplanats)Dagors (dopple anastigmats)and probably doublets,of which I don't own one are all capable of excellent contrast if you follow the old rules.

 

The problem arises with 3 -4 element uncoated lenses do to the aforementioned air to glass surfaces. Using contrasty film helps. i like Plus-X and Pan-F- not a T-max user, but if it's more contrasty it'll help. Extended development helps, but I usually get the highs too crispy to print without breaking my azz. Normal development in dektol helps, but I wouldn't recommend it for 35mm. A lens shade will definately help. imo following the old rules will be the biggest help-

 

if you're not old enough to remember the old rules-

 

10-2----Ten to two--- ten o'clock to 2 o'clock, bright sun over your shoulder

[kelly_flanigan1]

The older classical Kodak texts have modifications one did for ones:<BR><BR>(1) equipment (coated or uncoated lens)<BR><BR>(2)Type of lighting (studio with low flare, medium flare, or high flare direct sunlight)<BR><BR>(3)Enlarger type (diffusion or condensor).<BR><BR>(4)Contrast range of the subject; ie number of stops range from shadow to highlight.<BR><BR><BR>Overdeveloping is often NOT warranted for inside and low flares scenes when using an uncoated lens. Unless ones type of lighting is known, the enlarger type is known, I sure would NOT recommend always overdeveloping when using an uncoated lens. Do some tests! There is no reason to suffer from poor blocked up highlights.:) <BR><BR><BR><BR>Older uncoated lenses can give a look of "filling the shadows" with some scenes. Here the flare adds some density into the deep shadows. An UN coated lens might actually require more exposure. <BR><BR><BR><BR>With our old process camera, the controlled lighting with studio conditions makes the difference in contrast not even noticeable between coated and uncoated lenses, when shooting grey scale negatives and scenes. <BR><BR>With my ancient Rollieflex Standard I tend to develop somewhat more when using it outdoors under high flare conditions.<BR><BR>In technical terms the transfer function of an uncoated lens is different than a coated one under high flare conditions; and a closer to being the same under studio conditions with less/no flare.

[conrad_hoffman]

The flaws of older lenses can give an image a certain charm. Actually, the situation isn't so bad with regards to coating. Older uncoated lenses tend to be simple designs like the Tessar, and have fewer air to glass surfaces than modern lenses, especially zooms. Do the penlight test because haze will kill contrast. Shoot at the smaller apertures, because those old lenses don't usually perform their best wide open. Make a simple lens shade from black paper, rubber, an old aluminum funnel cut to the right size and painted flat black, or whatever. Don't use filters unless for specific purposes, and make sure your focus is spot on. So many old cameras perform worse than they should because the focus is a bit off. Check it with a ground glass- cut and grind one. A piece of finely sanded Plexiglas is ok too, but tape and other flimsy stuff won't do. If you can get access to an autocollimator (or simulate one), that's the gold standard.

[www.wesleyalmond.com]

That's why I like this site, tons of info fast.

I collect Vintage cameras and I usually purchase them broken or "jammed"

The one thing I always adjust is the infinity focus with ground glass or sanded plastic.

Which this is a very easy task unless you have a complicated Rangefinder mechanism like the Moskva 5, that camera was pain to adjust.

 

The one piece of advise I've seen repeated is a lens shade,

Can't disagree with that one.

 

The one problem I've had with home-brew lens shades is knowing the correct height VS focal length.

Is there a easy formula for this? Most of my MF cameras have a 80-105mm lens

I would check with the ground glass but the corners are usually darkened already and therefor I can't tell what the shade would be affecting.

 

So you guys have any info on this one?

[conrad_hoffman]

Sure- it comes from view camera practice. Open the back and open the lens and open the shutter. If you can see the shade intruding on the aperture of the lens, when viewed from the corner of the frame, it's too small! You can do ray traces and the like, but that test is easy and absolute. Cut a hole in a piece of card to simulate what you intend to buy or build.

[ronald_moravec1]

The easiest way to tell if a shade is vignetting is to watch the corner of the g glass and move an object in from the opposite corner. When it starts to intrude, it is easily seen.

 

Start with a shallow shade and move your hand in from a corner effectively deepening the shade. When you see the darkness, you went too far and you will have an idea how much bigger it can be made.

 

A shade for a normal lens can be a cylinder the same diameter as the filter threads and as deep as the lens is wide. Commercial ones are usually far smaller than they can be made to be most effective.

Make a tube from thin cardboard and slip it over the lens or tape it to a screw in filter. The inside can be painted dull black and outside covered with black electrical tape.

 

I use some shades on normal lenses so deep that I can be 45 deg off the lens axis and still not see the glass. The most effective shade shape is not round, but either square or rectangular matching the film format used.

[patrick j dempsey]

Hey man, I think the deep yellow filter is probably the best one to use for contrast because sunlight is predominantly yellow and shadows are made up mostly of blue light reflected from the sky. With the red filter you might be going too dark and the box camera with 100 speed at least may not get suitable results, even in bright daylight.... having said that though, you could make a note to make sure to push those cases to get more contrast. As well as the red filter doing funny things with grass and other green colored objects... our eyes natually see greenish yellow as being the brightest part of the spectrum, so red filters effectively are cutting out some of the brightest part of our vision while artificially enhancing a part of the spectrum we usually see as darker... although in wintertime that probably doesnt make for a hill of beans, its something to think about come spring. If you use the 400 in the Sure Shot, you will likely have to push process just to get a decent image at all anyway. I had pretty satisfactory results usuing a deep yellow filter on the old polaroids... I just hung it off the end of the lens.... added 2 stops to my exposure, and shaded with my hand. I found Tmax to be rather poor contrast in the polaroids and much prefered the preformance of FP-4, although I know you like me are in the situation of using what materials others have been kind enough to gift us with.

 

I cant remember... do you own a lens shade for your 35mm? If you have one that will screw onto your yellow filter that would be ideal... then you could just electrical tape the thing onto the front of your box-camera and be fine. In that situation you could even use your 35 lenscap while walking about. A lens shade for standard 50mm 35 lens should not give you any problem with 80mm or longer medium format lens, as it is a similar coverage angle and the box-camera lenses are so much smaller anyway.

[patrick j dempsey]

"If you use the 400 in the Sure Shot, you will likely have to push process just to get a decent image at all anyway."

 

Yeah... apparently the crack ive been smoking is working pretty good. With the 400 you should be able to use a dark yellow or orange filter and get a good exposure in bright daylight with the box camera. These cameras were usually designed for 50 speed film I think, so thats 3 stops difference. Maybe in low light at the end of the day, a light yellow filter would be enough... probably need to play around with metering through those filters to determine how many stops they darken the exposure. But for high contrast a couple of stops undersposed with the 100 film using a dark filter and then push proccessed on top... yeah man, that should be pretty cool.

[patrick_gainer]

Flare also changes the shape of the characteristic curve, making a short toe into a long one, so don't use films with long sweeping toe or you'll get a loooong sweeping toe.