my first color film in a folding camera

[silverscape]

I took some pictures recently with my Zeiss Ikon 515/16, with Ektar 100. I've shot black and white film in this

camera before, and I was amazed at how sharp it is. So now I finally decided to try using color film. Actually,

this is the first time I've ever used color film in a folding camera. <p>

 

It's a really cool little camera. It's very small and lightweight...you could easily fit it into a pocket (well,

a big coat pocket anyway). It <i>feels</i> like a 35mm camera...very light and easy to hand hold. But you get

the advantage of 120 roll film!<p>

 

<img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/ZeissIkonNettar515small.jpg"><p>

 

<b>(Please excuse the horrible digital snapshot of the camera itself.) </b><p>

 

The weather has been great...what I like to call an "Ektar day." Clear blue skies on a vibrant, sunny California

afternoon...the perfect time for landscape and architectural photos if you want really punchy colors.<p>

 

There's an old, abandoned ranch in the mountains not too far from here. It's near Yucaipa, California if anyone

wants to look it up. The state bought it and made it into a park. It's a great place to go hiking or ride your

bike. The good thing too is that most people have absolutely no idea it's there, and you'd never find it if you

didn't know where to look. I've been going up there a lot lately, when I just want some time to myself. But

it's also one of my favorite places to take landscape photos now.<p>

 

Well, anyway, here we go! Some pictures I took with an antique folding camera, and Kodak Ektar 100 film! <p>

 

<img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/72340001small.jpg"> <p>

 

<img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/72340002small.jpg"><p>

 

<img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/72340008small.jpg"><p>

 

<img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/72340010small.jpg">

[richard_beisigl]

<p>All I can say Chris is wow!!!!!! Great photos taken with a great old camera.<br>

I never tire of seeing pictures taken with these "old out and of date relics."<br>

I have an old welti folder that needs some work, and if and when I get it repaired, I may even try and post some pictures taken with this old camera.<br>

By the way, I have missed your postings; you were much more active on this forum when I started two years ago. I hope we will see more of your work soon.</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>Nice shots, I like the 3rd on in particular. Good composition, nice colour saturation and contrast. Did you use a light meter or just sunny 16?</p>

[silverscape]

Thanks guys :)

 

Henrik, I used a light meter. You definitely don't want to try Sunny 16 with Ektar! It's a great film, but it's very unforgiving with exposure. I tried Sunny 16 with it once...I'll never make that mistake again.

 

I use an antique light meter too...a Weston Master III. But it works great and it's pretty accurate. I can use Sunny 16 with some films (like Kodak Gold 200), but not Ektar.

[gene m]

<p>Beautiful.</p>

[richterjw]

<p>Nicely done. I particularly like the close-up photograph of broken wagon wheel and tree. JR</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Hi Chris,</p>

<p>Nice shots, I especially like #3. I have a pro-pack of Ektar on its way to me as we speak. What have you been exposing Ektar 100 at....50, 64, 80, 100...? I'm thinking bright sun, as I'm off to the four corners area in early April.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Tom</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Nice pictures, Chris. The little Novar does well. Pretty location, too. I like the wagon wheel shot, too.</p>

[JTG1]

<p>Very stunning!! Another camera to put on my list!!</p>

<p>~Jack</p>

<p> </p>

[john carter]

<p>Either you are a great photographer or that is a great lens. Probably both.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Very nice Chris. Is that the camera I fixed for you?</p>

[k5083]

<p>Delightful. Pics 2 and 3 have that unique MF/LF quality of having an object 10 or 15 feet away being sharp while infinity is well out of focus. Very hard to get that 3D effect at normal focal length in the 35mm format, especially on a bright day. </p>

[daniirwan]

<p>Wow Chris, those are really beautiful images! I especially like #2 and 3, for the OOF background. I have 2 rolls of Ektar 120 that I have yet to try, but judging from your results, I have to soon! I have a Nettar 517/16, newer than yours, I love it but the Novar lens on it has severe vignetting. Yours look way cooler though, with the external viewfinder.</p>

<p>Great job!</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Great photographs with a real 3-dimensional quality. Nice work, Chris, with what is obviously a very desirable camera.</p>

[silverscape]

hi guys, thanks again for all the comments.

 

- Cliff, no this isn't the same camera. I bought this one on eBay a while back, maybe about a year ago. The one you fixed was a Zeiss Ikon Nettar. This one is a Zeiss Ikon 515/16. This is a smaller one, it takes 6x6 images. So now I have two folding cameras!

 

- Tom, I usually expose Ektar at 100 ISO. But sometimes, just to be on the safe side, I'll rate it at 80. Like if my light meter is showing a shutter speed that I don't have with whatever camera I'm using, I'll either go to the next slower shutter speed, or I'll see what it shows for an 80 ISO film. Ektar will handle a little bit of overexposure fine, but you don't want to underexpose it. You should be fine with 100 in most cases though. That's how I exposed it for these pictures.

[tom_harvey3]

<p>OK, thanks Chris. Film should be here Tuesday and I'll load up the Rolleiflex.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>That's right the other Nettar was a 6x9. I forgot. Have you tried any color in it? I think it also is a 6.3 Novar lens.</p>

[silverscape]

Actually, Cliff, no I haven't tried color film in that camera yet either! But I don't know if the lab I go to can make prints or scan from 6x9 negatives.

 

Tom, one other thing...when you get your film developed, get your pictures printed. Ektar really looks best in prints (and preferably on REAL photographic paper, not ink jet!). There's just something about how it looks in a print...the color really pops out and it looks so sharp. Seeing it displayed on a computer screen doesn't do it justice.

[rustys pics]

<p>Excellent work Chris! I really like the photo of the abandoned ranch, and the tree in front of the building. Aren't the Nettar series wonderful? This one is a Nettar too. Zeiss just used a numbering system like "515/16" to distinguish the various models. The Nettars came in 6x6, 6x9, and 6x4.5 sizes. My favorites are the 6x6 such as you've got. The Novar lens came in two versions, an f/6.3 which seems to be what you've got, and an f/4.5 version. Both were excellent, and over the years got a bad reputation from people who probably never used them.<br>

The color on your shots is crisp and beautiful. And you're right that Ektar looks better printed on Chromogenic paper than any other color film out there now. Keep on shooting!</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Wow Chris, those are excellent! I haven't done film in a folding camera (aside from my Retinas) so this is motivating me to try it some time soon. That last shot especially is really beautiful!</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Chris, I almost always enjoy what you post. You're a good photog, but I suspect that would be true whether you used film or digi. BUt more than that, you're young and your enthusiasm comes through loud and clear. Meant as high praise. Keep on keeping on.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Tobar....</p>

<p>You've answered a question often asked about what good is Ektar 100 with its "blues". Uncoated lenses like yours look great with Ektar. The color palette, often called "cold" helps an older, sometimes slightly yellowed uncoated lens give results closer to other Kodak films with modern coatings. The only place that I (with my monitor calibrations, maybe different from other folks) saw any hint of "bluing" was the shaded side of the building to the left of the white cottage. And....that is not the film. the actual color temperature of the light there is probably close to 10,000 rather than the 5600-6000 in sunlight. Color purists often use filters to make the shaded shots a little warmer. Sometimes in real life we do not notice the colder colors in the shade as the brain tells us what we expect to see rather what the information sent from the eye would be. </p>

<p>Your Novar is a three element lens. Some were better than others, especially in the pre CAM days. I usually try to buy my folders with four element lenses. However I do have an old uncoated Kodak six-twenty with three elements. If I used my Fuji GW690III and GW670III as a standard (as their lens is thought to have be pretty high level, but by no means the sharpest medium format lenses) that old Kodak would have about 80% of the resolution and crispness. It also out resolves a fairly typical four element, coated Solinar of the early 1950s. </p>

<p>In any event you have a winner on your hands. It sure beats digital! </p>

<p>ATB</p>

[alexandre_crotti]

<p>Great shots. I need to get some color film in my folder now, I don't know why I haven't yet.<br>

The location is great, I've been there a few times. It's a shame development is encroaching so quickly on the unprotected hills sorrounding this area, but hopefully the preserve will stay protected.</p>

[jacekdrozdowski]

<p>Good photos, I am obliged testing my Maximar 207 (1923) in color film. </p>

[cliffmanley]

Jacek, That Maximar would be 1926 or later. The Dominar lens works quite well with color if you don't enlarge too much. Is that the lens you have? Whatever lens you have, try it out and post it, we would all like to see.