joachim_larsen

September 17, 2012

I think VueScan is trying to "over correct" the orange film base, because its not one complete picture but several pictures surrounded by nothing but orange on the film strip. Its an average colour correction made by VueScan based on the film base and the pictures combined. If you want realistic colours, you need to scan the frames one by one. You can use a photo-editing program to correct the blue tint.

August 16, 2012

I had one Vitessa 'T' in 1999 (I think). I did not keep it, because the film advance was unreliable. I had to push the plunger 10-15 every time to advance the film - sometimes a lot more. The lens is great. I shot 2-3 rolls with my Vitessa, before I gave up.

At the front of the 'T' there was a small switch. I think it was to discharge the flash manually, but I cant remember. Sometimes it would make the film advance work better if I moved the switch from side to side a few times. I dont know if it was conneted to the shutter or the advance at all. Well, it worked for me!

The plunger itself was fairly easy to keep in its down position, if I pushed it VERY slow and only about 90% down.

June 27, 2012

Excellent! If its only a metering issue, I am not going to complain. I use sunny-16 all the time. I feared it was lack of auto stop-down during the exposure.

June 27, 2012

I like to thank everybody for your suggestions. I suppose, I will have to find more than one lens!

I have one question about Nikon to Fred C. My Nikkormat is a FTn. Why do I need a FT3 for the E-series? Although I have read many great articles in this forum, I have never paid much attention to Nikon. That is unfair, because Nikons are fine. They are just not part of my basic interest in classic cameras.

I have found a Nikkor-P 105/2.5 on Ebay. Will this work on my Nikkormat?

At the moment I think the Nikon 105/2.5 is my first choice. I am sure I will have to get the Takumar 105/2.8 also. And the Orestor. My dSLR is a Canon, and its easy to fit a M42 on a EOS. Thats why I thought about M42 and not Nikon in the first place

To Jeff Adler: I like to make close-focus (0.5-1.0m). I often use an old Industar-61 in M42. Its fairly sharp but low in contrast. For general photography I dont feel the gap between 50mm and 135mm is a huge problem for me. I am beginning to realize I need to bridge this gap at closer range (within 5-10 meters) in order to get a little closer and keep the background blurred. I also like to let one flower stand out in focus within a group of flowers. With a 135mm I get to much compression.

Its difficult for me to explain what I am looking for (especially in English, because I am Danish). I just have the feeling, its a point of no return once I have discovered the world of portrait lenses. I will never use a 50mm again!

June 26, 2012

I don't think I need a portrait lens. Most of my pictures are captured with a 50mm lens or a 135mm lens. I have different systems: M42, Minolta MD, Nikon (Nikkormat) and Zorki. Quite often I take two different systems with me, because I dont have a full set of lenses for all systems. That's part of the fun.

Zoom lenses can be useful, but I prefer to work with fixed focal lengths. Sometimes a 135mm can be to "strong" at close range (10-20 meters). Until now I have trained my eyes to observe in either 29/35mm, 50mm or 135/200mm, and have not considered a "portrait lens" necessary. I don't make many portraits, but I realize I can use a 85-105mm for many other purposes: Buildings, cars and plants. Maybe macro photography with extension tubes?

The question is: What lens? First of all I have to decide what lens mount I need. I prefer M42, because I have both Praktica and Zenit. On the other hand I like my Minolta SR-7 and my Nikkormat.

I dont want a cheap (poor) lens, but I dont want to spend a fortune either. I am sure it is possible to find a cheap - but excellent - zoom for my purpose, but I am not looking for a zoom. Sharpness and/or resolution is not important. I like to shoot with a large aperture even with my old Rolleicord in order to get soft dreamy pictures. I prefer colours/character over sharpness. I am a daylight photographer; I don't need a fast lens.

I suppose there are many great lenses. I don't mind mouting a Super Takumar 2.8/100 on my Praktica, but a German Orestor 2.8/100 would be more logic. The old 100mm Trioplan seems to be sought after, and I have read nice comments about the 2.8/90 Schacht Travenar. How about the Russian Jupiter 2.0/85?

Any advice would be welcomed. I am not asking anyone to tell me what lens I should buy, but I would find it very interesting to hear some of your experience with lenses in the range of 80 to 110mm. Oh, and maybe also what lenses to avoid.

June 4, 2012

I think Precisa 100 is a fine film. My opinion is only based on two test-rolls. Its not a "bad" film! I have not made a lot of slides in the last 2-3 years, but I think I prefer Kodak Elite Chrome (warmer colours). Precisa is a good substitute for Elite Chrome.

I would not recommend Agfa Digibase CR200. It has a strong yellow cast, which I find impossible to correct in scanning / Photoshop. Its also grainy and low in contrast. If you process it in C-41 it becomes even worse - purple and very grainy.

January 3, 2012

I think the picture is a little out of focus. I often use my Helios-44 at f/4 or f/2.0, and at least the center of the picture is sharp. In fact, I think the Helios is a very fine lens. Maybe not as sharp as my Minolta Rokkor-X or other lenses, but for a cheap lens its great! You picture has a general out-of-focus'ness to it (sorry, my English is not perfect). The focus is off in the cornes, but that is what you have to expect at f/4 at a fairly close distance from your point of focus (portrait) H.P.'s suggestions are spot on, in my opinion. Its almost like there is no visible grains, and that indicates your scanner does not focus correct at your negative. Without any other examples its hard to say anything about the development, but this specific negative seems to be slightly over-developed (high contrast in the shadows/background - solid black). You have to compare all of the negatives on you film with a magnifying glass. If most of them are sharp/in focus...that is good. Please look at the density of the negatives. If they look very dense and dark, the film was over developed, and sometimes an over developed film can be difficult to scan. I have only used a few developers. I like Rodinal. Its sharp and suitable for stand-development. If you like to shoot high contrast scenes like this examples, stand development can be used to soften the contrast a little.

December 26, 2011

The frames in my 1-d are slightly angled too. I think the lens is sharp, but contrast is a little low. The lens is very sensitive to sunlight coming directly towards the front element. With B&W that is not a huge problem, but with colour films, it often results in strange colours (muddy or just "glowing"). In general I find the colour balance sliding towards the green/cyan side. I think the lens performs best in reduced sunlight - I like to call it "white sunlight", if the sunlight is a bit hazy in the winter season here in Scandinavia. Sometimes it helps to overexpose 1 stop. Otherwise I just have to compose my pictures with the sun behind me.

December 23, 2011

Thank you. Now I understand...well...just a little better. It sounds like a very sensitive work flow. Just one small fault, and the whole film is ruined. This was done with technology of the 1930s without computers. I am impressed.

December 23, 2011

I am sorry I didnt make my question clear, Erik. I am aware its possible to develope Kodakchrome into B&W negatives. I have seen the results. I was just thinking, if it is possible to skip some of the reversal steps in order to keep the process more simple. Just develope each B&W layer and dye it without re-exposure or bleach.

Color negatives are supposed to fade over the years. I would be clever to invent a colour negative film with the same basic silver layers like Kodachrome. If its possible to reversal process a traditional B&W negative film into B&W slides, why not do the "opposite" to Kodachrome.

One last thought. Is it easier to invent a home processing technique for some of the older Kodachrome types like K-II? Quite often they turn up on Ebay in shape of 16mm films.

December 22, 2011

One simple question: Kodachrome is a three layer B&W film. The silver particles are dyed during processing, and because its silver, it will last "for ever". Was this technology ever used in color negative films? Is it possible to process Kodachrome into a negative "silver" film?

I think the idea of processing Kodachrome at home is a wonderful challange.

November 21, 2011

I like the pictures! The last one (close-focus) has a wonderful bokeh. Why not use a lens wide open? If this lens looks better at F8, it will also loose its "personality" and perform like any other lens. Character is more important than sharpness. At least sometimes.

October 2, 2011

How about sheet film instead of paper? If you use ortho-chromatic film, you can still work under red safe light. Its easy to contact print.

September 29, 2011

I have the first version. I dont use it very often, because the shutter and the mirror sometimes get out of sync leaving a bright area in the top half of the picture. Its not a light leak. At shutter speeds below 1/15, the shutter sometimes stays open, but at faster speeds I just have to press the release fast enough to avoid extreme sync problemes.

Its an old but very well constructed camera. I try to shoot one roll a year in August or September. The lens is sharp and excellent for colour photography.

In this example you can see a bright area in the top stone near the camera.

A CLA would be nice, but I didnt pay very much for this camera, and I can live with the limitations and minor faults. Its fun to use, and at least 50% of my pictures are fine. From a technical point of view of course!

Retina Reflex (I), Kodak Farbwelt 200, Nikon Coolscan V

September 9, 2011

Today I finally decided to buy VueScan after testing the trial version again. I cant remember what kind of film I used for the previous test, but its very likely that it was an "easy film", and the results were not different from my original scanning technique. I did not see any obvious reason to upgrade at the time.

With this Fuji Reala I can see a significant difference. I still think the film was damaged a bit during development. The highlights are kind of hazy, almost like some sort of base fog on the film. Its not easy to explain in English. In poor weather you get pictures with low contrast, but its still possible to boost the contrast with any type of photo software. If I compare this Reala to the Superia I like to think, the Reala is more sensitive to expired chemicals. Some of the Reala pictures were over exposed, and they were better than the rest but not perfect - still grainy. I dont see this "base fog" / "milky haze" with the Superia. That has nothing to do with poor weather.

I need to pay more attention to my scanning technique in the future, continue to use two cameras, use different films. No problem. I have a dSLR, but Im not going to give up film. I can accept to loose a film from time to time. This film was not important. Film is fun. If I really need the pictures, I can use a digital camera. I like to thank everybody for helping me to understand this problem.

Thank you!

Reala, Vuescan: Better colours and contrast.

Reala, Vuescan.

September 8, 2011

JDM von Weinberg: You have a good point. I am sorry, I did not make it clear enough, my examples were deliberate examples of un-corrected images. Daniel D asked for some examples, and I though he wanted to see the unedited pictures. I would never expect the pictures to look correct straigth out of the scanner. I can get most of the images to look good (often just with 'auto balance' in Photoshop like you mention), but still this film is far from being perfect. Even without Vuescan I can get better results with cheaper film.

If the film was damaged by heat or radiation before I got it, there is noting to do about it. I still have one roll left, and I intend to use it. I prefer to assume it was damaged by almost expired chemicals.

An example of my previous attempt to use Fuji Reala. (May 2011, Zenit 12CD). Processed at the same shop. Scanned with Nikon Coolscan V. This is what I expect from Reala.

September 8, 2011

Thank you for the quick respons.

The scanning is performed with Nikons software. All parameters are set to neutral. I scan in full resolution and save to TIF with only ICE selected. All files are edited in Photoshop. That means, I never scan with film profiles. I know it would save me a lot of time. I have tried a trial version of viewscan, but at the moment I prefer my simple working methode. Its slow, yes. I know. Im certainly not an expert in scanning, but I have scanned many negatives and slides this way and got fine results.

Im not saying this film was a total disaster. Half of it was exposed in bright sunlight, and the rest on a hazy/misty day in late August. I live in Denmark, and the weather can change dramatically within a few hours. Its not fair to judge a film in poor lighting condition, but in fact I thought I could "cut through the haze" with a high quality film like Reala instead of Fuji Superia. Maybe I was wrong. I admit some pictures was underexposured, and maybe Reala is better suited to bright sunny weather and not for an overcast day. I have made good pictures in poor weather before, but not with Reala. I had a similar experience with Fuji Pro 400H. Just like this film, the shadows were floating between cyan and green. I did not even care to shoot the last of the five rolls. This time not even the sunny pictures came out the way I expected. Poor weather or not. It dosnt explain the odd colors or lack of contrast.

According to the labels, my films went into the same chemicals: '3785' (Superia) and '3784' (Reala).

And now some examples. No color/contrast correction. I hope all the links are working. Warning: Some images are quite large to download.

REALA_01: A sunny day in July.

LINK TO TIF http://www.h783.dk/REALA/REALA_01X.TIF

REALA_05: Water

LINK TO TIF http://www.h783.dk/REALA/REALA_05X.TIF

REALA_24: August 2011, hazy sunlight

LINK TO TIF http://www.h783.dk/REALA/REALA_24X.TIF

REALA_25: Strange colours

http://www.h783.dk/REALA/REALA_25X.TIF

Same location: Zorki-4 with Jupiter-8, Fuji Superia 200

Link to TIF http://www.h783.dk/REALA/ZORKI_04X.TIF

I have no software to read the "raw"-coolscan-files. THEY ARE LARGE! Please download with that in mind. Feel free to play with the files.

http://www.h783.dk/REALA/REALA_01NEF.nef

http://www.h783.dk/REALA/REALA_25NEF.nef

Maybe Reala just isnt my kind of film. A Kodak-man? Agfa is gone, unfortunately. Portrait 160 was a great film. I find Kodak Gold (Farbwelt in Germany) an idiot-proof film - ideal in all kinds of weather, summer or winter. I suppose its my kind of film...

September 8, 2011

Last week I had two rolls of film processed at my local photo store. Apart from finger prints the results are fine most of the time.

The first roll was a Fuji Superia 200. It was my first ”test” colour film with my Zorki-4. The second roll was a Fuji Superia Reala 100 shot with my favorite Minolta SR-7. Both films went into the same processing chemicals. The Superia was fine, but the Reala came out very low in contrast, and with a greenish cast. This is based on the negatives and my Nikon Coolscan V.

Its a small local shop, but the employees are routined people. When I came to pick up my films, I was ask, if the Reala was expired. It wasn't (10/2012). I bought three rolls of Reala (format 135) from a excellent online photoshop in Germany along with some other films. The first Reala was exposed and processed in May and came out as expected – a bit over saturated but bright and clear. I told the person at the store, I keep my unexposed films in the refridgeator at 5C. To my surprise he said, its fine to store the film cold, but once you take it out, you should expose and process it within a short periode and not leave it in your camera. This film was processed within a week.

After using only ordinary films like Kodak Gold, Superia and Agfa for more than ten years, I shot my first roll of Reala in 2003 and loved the results. Later in 2008 I tried two rolls of Reala, but they came out flat and greenish; almost like the recent Reala. Then I gave up Reala, because its not cheap and the results unrealiable.

Most of my films are in date, and when I shoot expired film, I over-expose them slightly to compensate for grain and lower contrast. I often take two cameras with me, one of them acting as a backup or test camera. I some cases my test film stays in the camera for 2-3 months, because they only serve as a backup. I know its not recommended to leave film unprocessed for a long time, but I have never experienced any major faults. Its better to have some grainy pictures than no pictures at all.

The question is: Why did my Reala turn ”bad”? If the chemicals were old, maybe pro films like Reala are more sensitive than Superia. Is there any good reason to store film in the frigde? I have used frozen slide films without troubles! I never shoot anything above ISO 400. Not even B/W. Most of the time its ISO 100 or 200.

Any comments are welcome.

August 10, 2011

I have a few uncoated lenses (pre war Rolleicord, Zeiss Ikon etc). I like the low contrast images I get from them. With b/w-film you can always get more contrast during development or use a harder paper in printing. If you scan the negatives, its very easy to enhance contrast. I think its more difficult to lower contrast from a hard contrast image. A low contrast negative is like a digital RAW-file. You can do whatever you like.

I never use HP5, because I prefer low speed films like APX100, FP4, Pan F and Efke 25, 50 or 100. Efke 25 in stand development gives a very fine greyscale.

Working with color in an uncoated lens can give color cast. Recently I shot some colour slide films through my 'cord 35, 'flex 34 and 'baby Ikonta' (6x4½) and was very surpriced. Even though all films were slightly expired (Ekta64, Velvia), colours from the vintage lenses were great - or at least how I like them to be. Spot on, clear and reduced in contrast.

Its difficult to suggest any specific film. I dont want pictures from a vintage camera/lens to look "modern". If its low in contrast, it stays that way. Of course it all depends on the situation. I think Gold 100/200 or Superia 100/200 are great films, because its fairly easy to correct any faults generated from uncoated lenses, which were never design to colors films. If you want to preserve this vintage look, I think Astia or Portra is an excellent way to do it.

October 26, 2010

This year I have shot a few rolls of Portra 160NC, and I find it quite good for landscapes in high contrast situations. Sometimes it's difficult to get the color balance right (greens/blues). I get more predictable results with Gold/Farbwelt or Superia 200.

#1: Nikon Coolscan V, Minolta SR-7, Tele Rokkor 4.5/200

#2: SR-7, Rokkor-X 1.7/50

#3: Kodak Retina Reflex

May 22, 2010

If it was/is a light leak, your negative would have a very dark spot/area. To me, your negative is fine, just a bit under-exposed.

May 22, 2010

About 10 years ago, I shoot several rolls of Agfa HDC 200 because it was cheap. The colours were quite good - a little bit to the warm side ('brownish' just like JDM von Weinberg says). At that time I prefered Fuji Superia.

Later I moved on to Agfa Optima Prestige II 100, and that film became my favorite for a short time. The colours were heavy saturated and well suited for landscape photography ('greens' were very good). For a 100 speed film it was grainy! Difficult to find the right colour balance for some labs.

My favorite Agfa was 'Portrait 160'. I was looking for a film with a 'vintage' look; low saturation and low contrast. It did not look like Kodak Portra - it was unique, and I wish I bought more of it at the time.

Now I shoot some expired 'Agfacolor 200' (12/2007) I found in a German Internet shop. They are excellent. Most of the time I shoot Kodak Farbwelt 100, because I like warm colours.

Agfacolor 200 (expired 12/2007), exposed 03/2010

May 12, 2010

When you expose a film, you will get an unique image. You cant print or scan it without loosing some details. For me its not a matter of resolution, dynamic range or sharpness. I shoot film, because its fun and I get unique images every time i press the shutter (small variables in film and processing). I dont like predictable results.

I have used film for 20 years, and its hard to accept my pictures are getting a different look, when I shoot dSLR (Canon 400D). Its a great camera, but it does not give me the same pleasure compared to a vintage SLR. You cant suppress that feeling just by thinking about photography as a way of making your images fast, easy and with the best results. Its a hobby. I dont have to explain or excuse it. Its fun to use a simple vintage camera in order to master the basic photographic work.

Can I make better pictures with film? No. I dont think so - not from a technical point of view. But I am more creative with film, and I know how my camera is going to react in a specific situation, and I know which situations to avoid. My photographic knowledge is based on film, but slowly I am trying to convert that into "my digital mind". Sure, if I want to document a situation with 1000 pictures in one hour, I will shoot digital. In general I dont shoot more pictures just because its digital and inexpensive.

When I bought my dSLR in 2007 I thougt I would never use colour-negativefilm again. I still shoot about 15 rolls/year. I love to use BW film and make prints in my darkroom, and I am still amazed by the results from this simple process. There is no magic in computers. I think I could live without colour-negatives, but I like to shoot BW on silver coated films - there is no substitute. Not for me, thank you.

Because film is different? Certainly not. Film came first.

April 29, 2010

I think it's an excellent idea. I like Kodachrome, although I dont shoot many slides at the moment (but a lot of B&W and Cneg). I think its logic to devide the challenge into 10 or 12 sub categories related to the subject/motive. Each member can submit (only) one picture in each categorie.

Im not sure about the technical part of the challenge. I only use classic manual cameras, but this challenge is all about Kodachrome and not the equipment. On the other hand, the original Kodachrome-look relates to the cameras and lenses from the late 1930s, and maybe we are talking about TWO different challenges.

I cant say I have done very much to keep Kodachrome alive, but I really like to participate in this tribute to Kodachrome.

April 16, 2010

You can use any film speed you like, but the Zenit is limited to 1/500s. If you use a 100 ISO film in bright sun 1/125s = f16. With a 400 ISO film you have to use 1/500s and f16. Im sure you can find a f22-lens, but if you want to shoot pictures with greater depth of field, you will have to go below f16 (more like f5.6 for portraits). That means you need a shutter speed faster than 1/500 or ND-filters to prevent over exposure.

In bright sun you dont need anything faster than 100 ISO in my opinion, unless you are shooting fast moving object with a camera capable of shutter speeds beyond 1/500s. On an overcast day you loose at least 3 or 4 f-stops, and a 400 ISO film is a logic choise.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by joachim_larsen