leicaglow

Anyone know where I can buy a rebuilt rangefinder for my Crown

Graphic? I have a Kalart on it now, but it appears to be missing a few

parts.

 

Also, I've always wondered what lenses work with these rangefinders. TIA!

It's always great to see that people actually shoot photos instead of just buying camera gear.

 

These photos are great. They have a 1960's/1970's look about them. I was imagining that these could have been shots of Ray Charles or The Beatles kicking back before a concert.

 

It has to do with the Rollei's slight edge fall off and short DOF you used. This is definitely a camera you need to keep shooting with!

 

Michael

That does it! I'm going out and buying the 4990. I've been putting it off for too long because I couldn't find real examples of scans from this device.

 

Beautiful shots Bruce. Will all my shots turn out so lovely as yours when I buy the 4990?<g>

 

BTW, Why don't they make simple, inexpensive folder cameras with sharp lenses like this anymore? Fuji's seem the closest, but they're still expensive!

Hi Bob,

 

1. I would go so far as to say Type 55 is slightly low to medium contrast.

 

2. Yes, I would absolutely agree with this. I find a well exposed print will result in an underexposed negative (at least for my printing taste). I give about another stop and a half for the negative (over it's rated speed), and I find I get something I can print with. Otherwise the negative is just too thin. So I would say ISO 40 is just about right on.

 

3. Yes, absolutely! I've done a lot of experimenting with this over the last 6 months to see if I could produce a mini-zone system effect. With a typical zone system scenario, exposure and development are the two main variables. The problem is that 55's add a third dimension of temperature (or rather it's a bigger factor).

 

BTW, I usually dispose of the print portion because I think they look ugly, especially with the coating. I've been using Type 54 lately and blown away by the quality and beautiful tones. Now if we could just get a negative to go with it, that would be great.

 

The attached images are bad examples with a bad scan (it was the only example I have easily available), but you can see the effect of the higher contrast (bottom) acheived by reducing the exposure (I didn't record it, but I believe it was about 20%) and increasing development (by about 40%). I wasn't happy with the original's low contrast, so I used this technique to bump the negative to something that looked more printable.

 

Michael<div></div>

I'd look at the film, but I'd also look at the lens(es). You didn't mention which ones you're using. On the FT2, you should be using Nikkors, preferrably some of the known performers, like the 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm, etc., or good zoom.

 

There were some dogs, including the Series E lenses, and the 43-86mm Nikkor, for examples.

 

Years ago I sold all my Canon and bought Nikon after I shot an airshow with my friend's Nikon and extensive Nikkor collection. The stuff my friends shoot with Canon now makes me believe the quality of good Canon lenses are at least as good as the Nikkors, so you might want to try some newer Canon lenses.

 

Can you borrow some Canon or Nikkor lenses from friends? Does your local pro camera shop rent good quality lenses? This would be a good test with a) professional quality film, and b) professional quality processing. You'll find that a slightly better film and processor won't cost you much more than the "drugstore" variety you're using.

Man, I'm having a real tough time accepting all this talk about the 24mm f/2 as being a DOG. Have you really used the lens?

 

It is one of the best Nikkor's I've ever owned. I wish I had a scanner to show you some of my Kodachromes. The color is amazing. The edge to edge sharpness is incredible--you could cut yourself on the razor sharp lines you see on the emulsion side of the images.

 

Maybe there were bad ones, I don't know. But the two I've owned are in the top 2% for sharpness and color of any lens I've ever owned (and I shoot a lot of Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock, Sinar and Zeiss in 35mm, 120 and 4x5).

 

Axel

Also, I've purchased used equipment that hasn't been operated much and also is sluggish. By cycling the shutter a couple hundred times, it often loosens up those stiff parts. It probably needs CLAing though.

 

Axel

1) I use a 45GN 2.8 all the time for street photography. Unfortunately, the 45GN was the first near-"normal" lens I owned. I eventually would buy, then sell, a 55MM f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/2 because a) they just didn't deliver the sharpness of the 45GN, and b) they were all a lot bulkier. For the record, the second best (IMO) was the f/2. I use the 45GN almost exclusively with B&W now, but color is amazing when using my SB-11 and setting the GN on the lens. You can barely tell it's shot with a flash.

 

2) I've owned (and wished I kept) a Zeiss Contessa with 45mm f/2.8 Tessar Opton. I go back and look at my early work with this camera and wonder what I was thinking by selling it. It was easy to use and the crispness blew away SLRs I opted for in the 70's. I can't imagine the newer Zeiss pancakes would be any less of a lens.

 

I've included a few pix of my Nikkor 45GN (it's been AId). The photos are pretty bad, and I almost always use it on my FE or FM because it IS pocketable. The lens hood is very similar to the newest P version, and is better than the rubber hood you speak of. It is an exceptional lens, and is rivalled only by my 24mm f/2 Nikkor.

 

Axel<div></div>

The color is not uncommon in film developers. Rodinol is the same way. If it's not transparent after it's fully mixed, then I might question it.

 

Axel

Not bad with DD-X also, if you don't over expose it. Then it's very hard to print IMO.<div></div>

I use DD-X all the time with Acros. You won't see a lot of grain. In fact, it's very hard to see the grain through my micro-sight focuser at times because it's so fine (120). I prefer to live with a little more grain, but more contrast and range with Rodinal though.

 

My friend uses D-76 and it looks fantastic too. That's my next step.

 

BTW, I find with Acros that it prints much better if you under expose and over develop (even if you just under expose by a stop it seems easier to print). Otherwise it seems awfully flat to me.<div></div>

That's an awfully tough, subjective question. I use two primary developers: Ilford's DD-X and Rodinal. Both delivery the results I like, but look very different from one another.

 

I don't know how much film you have, but what helped me was to take a bunch of rolls with each type, of the same subject, then develop them in different developers. Print them. See which ones yield a print that you like, as well as which ones make your printing process easier. For 35mm film, this is made easier because you can cut up the film into smaller stips you can process.

 

As for liquid or powder, I prefer working with liquid developers, but keep in mind they can go bad pretty fast if you don't use them up fast enough. Half-opened containers are not good for the chemicals. Since most developer is one-shot, I like to mix it fresh (from liquid) just before use. I hate waiting for powder to a) dissolve, and b) cool down to a usable range.

 

On a final note: While I don't use t-max, I've seen some really nice results from T-Max when developed in the special Kodak T-Max developer.

Jaselyn, It depends on what your definition of "robust" is. Pushing film is not my idea of robust, but if you like the grittier street look it produces, then it might be your idea of it.

 

Push processing is used for film that is underexposed, usually by tricking the light meter into thinking the film is faster than it is. For example, 400 film is shot at 1600. To compensate for the lack of light striking the film, you "push" the film by developing it longer than normal to bring out the underexposed parts of the image.

 

This usually increases grain (often objectionably), but also tends to increase contrast depending on the film / developer / speed combo that you're using. I see no reason to "push" film unless you like these characteristics, or simply don't have enough speed to hand-hold the camera or something.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find as wide of an angle lens as good as the 90, just because of light and resolution falloff on the edges. I love Schneider optics, but it is my opinion the Grandagon is a tad better in the area of edge sharpness, though not by much.

 

Also, I can't recall using the Nikkors in the 65/75mm range, but it might be interesting to see how they perform. On the slighly wider side, the 72mm Super Angulon has a bit more coverage than the others, but I haven't used one yet to know how it performs.

Yeah, my guess is you could go up a grade or grade and a half and get a little more punch out of it. I think if you worked out the exposure for the watch face, the rest of the image would suitably follow. I can see in the tones in the arms and background wood that there is some tone there, but it needs to be just a bit punchier I would say.

 

As a test, I spent about 10 seconds making a contrast correction in Photoshop, but the monitor I use for reading forums isn't a very good one, so hopefully what I see will come through okay.<div></div>

Oddly, I only recently purchased an 80mm for my Hasselblads because I wanted to be able to sling my EL/M around my shoulder for street photos (Hey, I needed the workout<g>). I am continually impressed by both the focal length and quality of my old C T*. I wish I could focus a bit closer though.

Nice work Jonathan! Can I ask how you scanned your 4x5 transparencies (what equipment?).

They do NOT wear out very fast. I've used my Crown Graphic in the field for 20 years and it's still a workforce.

 

Where I run into limitations is:

 

a) close up images with a normal lens. There's just so much bellows.

 

b) using my "nice" view camera in the studio, I miss the rotating back. Instead you have to either remount the camera on the tripod for the thread on the bottom or left side, or have a strong enough tripod to be able to tilt the entire camera.

 

c) not as much travel in the ground glass to put in a thick film holder (like a roll film holder).

 

d) more finicky focus control (there's only so much focus, so you have to get good at calculating how much bellows extension to initially use)

 

e) not much in the way of movement for architectural shots. There is no rear "standard" movement.

 

But those things aside, I wouldn't sell my Crown Graphic for any price.

I like the Tiltall too, but I broke mine when using it in the field with a Crown Graphic. I would use a bit sturdier tripod. I like the Bogen 3021 with the heavier duty quick release head (3047).

It's been awhile, but I think all Kodak film from decades ago (like around the 60's and 70's (maybe even before), used to have this designation. I think Plus-X and Tri-X both had this marked on the negative edges.