andy m.

The answer is that they are both sufficiently good that no photographer could reasonably claim to be limited by either lens. Far more significant is trying to find a good example..

 

I would also like to mention that Tessar-lensed Rolleis make fantastic images and can be every bit a sharp as either of the above, once stopped down, and not particularly soft fully open.

Another great post. Thanks for sharing :-)

Okay, as Al mentioned, if the edges of the film are black the whole film has seen light- extensively. How could this happen 'in camera'? Is there any other explanation?

 

If the lower film were exposed to a strong developer (300ml of) before dilution, there may be a differential effect between the two films but I agree that this will not explain the film edge exposure and is therefore not the cause.

Do you think that this could be a camera issue? I suspect not since you would need to be many stops over on all images, right? An experienced photographer like yourself would likely notice the significantly incorrect shutter speed.

 

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you added 300 mls of diluted developer, then further diluted with water, right? I'm thinking you differentially exposed the films to developer. Not 100% sure though.

Just to eliminate possiblities, did you prepare the diluted developer in the tank with the film in-situ?

 

Probably not, but that's the first possibility.

Mark,<p>

 

With good technique it should be possible to make reasonable scans with a flatbed scanner, especially from larger negatives. What do you mean by 'running a curve through it'? <p>

 

FWIW, my personal URL on my photo.net homepage links to some Rollei Automat images that I scanned with a flatbed.</i> I am happy with the image quality.

 

I also do some darkroom work but it takes a lot of effort to generate images using the wet process (with dodging and burning etc.) that can take a matter of minutes on computer.<p>

 

Prints can then be generated by FTP to a good lab and they come in the post within a day or two. <p>

 

Cheers, A

I've never had any problem passing films through X-ray machines in Europe and the USA. On some trips my films have gone though over 12 times with no X ray bags. I seriously doubt whether an X-ray-opaque bag would be allowed through, regardless of whether the machine can be turned up or not.

Brilliant. These posts are a photo.net highlight for me.

Thanks Bob. I most often used Tri-X with Kodak HC110 (Dilution B, 6 minutes at 20deg C) but I'm also using Ilford HC5 with HC110 (5 minutes at 20 deg C) and finding that also reliably gives very nice negatives.

 

I really like the Rollei TLRs- such a compact, quiet camera for the large, high quaity negatives.

 

Cheers, A

Kerkko, there are several sources that come to mind.

 

In the UK, you could try ffordes.com, mwclassic.com, www.collectablecameras.com amongst others. Ebay may be another good source, although I have no personal experience of that approach.

 

The Real Camera Company in Manchester, UK often has Automats of the vintage you mention.

 

Good luck.

 

FWIW, my 'personal URL' on my photo.net homepage links to a selection of images taken with Automat Type 4, with a coated Opton Tessar lens.

 

Good luck,

 

A

I think that sounds like a reasonable deal, <i>assuming the camera has been properly serviced recently and is in nice condition</i>.<p>

 

I purchased a well used but nice Automat with an Opton Tessar a couple of years ago for the equivalent of 170USD. I then had it serviced (for c. 120USD).<p>

 

This should give you an approximate idea of costs. Mine has quite a dim screen but I get on well with it.

 

FWIW, my 'personal URL' on my photo.net homepage links to a selection of images taken with the camera.

<p>

Cheers, A

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4610729-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4610720-lg.jpg">

Harry, you are lucky that CRR are close by. They sorted out my M2 and actually added double light seals to it like on the M6. I have had no problem since- and his servicing is second to none.

It's a 50 year old camera. Maybe time for a service.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, Harry, but have communicated with those who are.<p>

 

<i>If</i> light is bouncing around your shutter (I <i>presume</i> ths occurs mainly when the shutter is closed), then the aperture/shutterspeeds will not matter. What will is the angle/intensity of the light entering your lens.<p>

 

The problem that I had was caused during a previous CLA/service where the shutter light seals were apparently left hanging off :-( <p>

 

Even in that that state, the symptom was only apparent on randon frames (one or two per roll) whilst photographing a wedding in very intense Spanish sun. Since I only used one lens on the camera it was not linked to lens changes.<p>

 

It could have a different cause because I think the later Ms have seals both in front of and behind the shutter.

 

Good luck, A.

My guess is problem with the velvet shutter light seal(s). I had one myself on an M2.

Nice images Paul.

 

Some of Robert Doisneaus' wonderful early images were taken with an Old Standard and they look pretty good to me in the hard back book "Doisneau Paris".

 

I have held and fired one myself but the focus screen was very dim (may have benefited from a clean) and the shutter release, being a lever type, as on the Rolleicord was not to my liking. I think the later Automats are the best value Rolleiflex for shooters.

 

BTW, I often wonder when I read that Tessars are soft at wide apertures. I suppose it is all relative but I have a 10x10 darkroom print taken at F3.5 (1/25 sec) on my old MX that looks plenty sharp to me; and I have owned and used a nice 3.5F Planar for comparison.

 

Cheers, A.

<i>"My guess is that the impression has nothing to do with lenses, but simply the fact that there is more space on the 6x6 negative to record small variations in tone"</i><p>

 

Sounds sensible to me. <p>plus<p>As a photographer I'm much more interested in how my prints and scans look than whether a 35mm lens is better than a medium format lens etc.

I'm guessing the bottom image was traken with film (marginal grain apparent in the sky?????), but I find it difficult to tell on this occasion.

 

I often seem to prefer the look of digital for screen images. The qualities of film sometimes get lost in translation.

 

Unless I have also missed something, which is which?

It was a visit of a Lee Miller exhibition three or four years ago that finally made me realise the practical difference between medium format (Rollei TLR) and 35mm (of any manufacturer). <i>For the type of photography I do</i> the Rollei wins out.

Hardly, the GX and FX are considerably more expensive, even used.

Sorry for taking your post literally.

 

If, as I assume, you are referring to build quality then I will defer to those who have owned both cameras. I have only owned the F and now use a couple of 1950s Automats. The image quality, even with my old cameras is remarkable.

Great stuff. I love the bag shot and associated caption :-)

<i>"How could one get that depth of field and still capture the moving feet under night or twilight conditions, using film?" </i><p>

 

Slow shutter speed, stop down, maybe a bit of tripod support and away you go. Not too difficult really. Maybe the 5D high iso capability enabled this to be taken handheld, but so what?

<i>"One couldn't take these on a film Leica, and you didn't" </i><p>

 

Please explain why. I have taken shots like this with a Rolleiflex TLR.

I daren't post them here it seems, 'cause they are not Leica style.