KRB

Jump

0002_feeding_birds

I was out of chemicals for color, so I took it to my local (very good) lab. The owner advised to push the film so I took his advise. The results are pretty good. Chiefs Rally - Kelly Burkhart Chiefs Rally - Kelly Burkhart Chiefs Rally - Kelly Burkhart Edit: am I not allowed to link to smug mug? You should be able to right click and see the images... How can I make them show up inline?

Thank you all for this information. I'll let you know how it goes.

I realized this evening that I loaded portra 160 35mm film thinking I loaded portra 400. So I consequently under exposed the whole roll. Should it be developed differently? Or should I just send it in and hope for the best? All shots were outside during an overcast day.

What do you wipe with?

I've only done long exposures on digital. I cranked up the ISO very high set a wide aperture and shot test shots with relatively short shutter speeds to discover an EV. From there I calculated the exposure time based on the difference with the aperture and ISO I wanted to use for the real shot. -K

Interesting thread... I don't have much to offer practically as I'm *very* new to film and don't do any printing. But I'm within 5 years of your age so from that perspective my advice is do what makes you happy. If this is a hobby for you and you have the means and the time and wet printing really jazzes you and the space enables you, then do go big! Have fun.

I just started a similar odyssey and purchased a GL690 (after purchasing a very old Rolleiflex). I'm a 35mm rangefinder shooter, so the Fuji feels more natural to me than the TLR. I've gotten nice results handholding as well as on a tripod. Attached is handheld at (I think), f4, 1/125. -K

While walking around the West Bottoms area of KC this guy noticed my (huge) Fujica GL690. We talked cameras a bit; years ago he had a Rolleiflex. Delta 100, DD-X 1:4.

Not a great image... but here it is. Focus is off somewhat. Later in the roll I have several rangefinder test shots from a tripod showing clearly that the focusing error is mine, not the cameras. BTW, This is from a Fujica GL690. I was not too careful re the focusing, thinking that f5.6 would be pretty generous. It's still pretty thin at this distance!

Just finished developing my second roll of film. Its easy. This is a revelation to me. It’s less difficult than baking brownies. From a box. Now I realize there are intricacies... this developer, that developer, this temperature, that method of agitation. But there are intricacies in brownies too. And almost all of them are good. I’ve spent my whole life thinking that anyone can bake brownies, but you take film somewhere to get it developed.

I have two Voigtlander lenses, 28 f2 and 35 f1.2 and have no complaints. (other than size/weight of 35 relative to the Leica 35 lux). -K

Make the picture you want to make, not the picture you think people want you to make. People will like it. Or they won't. But it will be your picture. -K

B&W =?= old... You're probably substantially correct. However... I watched Casablanca with my (then) high school daughter several years ago and discussed the lighting and contrast and how it related to plot and character evolution. She really enjoyed the movie and (I think) appreciated comments on contrast and shadows and brightness and good and evil... While I'm no expert in these things, I do recognize that filmmakers in the B&W era were not just haphazardly shooting color stuff in black & white, they were using the medium that they had to great effect. Converting it to color breaks it! -K

IMO, the key in photography is contrast. Color contrast and luminance contrast are completely different things which is why many times a color photo looks completely different in black and white. Bill's photos in post #15 illustrate nicely (at least for me). In the color version my eyes are drawn initially to the red. In the B&W version, my attention is drawn initially to the faces. In many cases color photos have color contrasts that pull eyes away from what is important. My most effective color photos are ones with few colors (although photos in which you're bombarded with colors can be striking as well!). B&W allows showing contrast that may be hidden by a multitude of colors in the real world. Interestingly (to me) I shoot primarily with three cameras: a Leica M10, M246 Monochrom and a new-old Rolleiflex into which to-date I've only inserted B&W film. I believe that when I have a B&W camera, I take different shots than when I have my color camera. -K

Another report. I have two rolls back, two more I'm waiting to see. I'm very satisfied with the quality of the images and the camera itself. I'm pretty convinced that the shutter speeds are accurate. At small apertures the quality is very good. I believe the back focusing at large apertures mentioned above was mostly my fault (although it may not be perfect). The only issue I have is ergonomic/age related (me age, not camera age). The little window above the viewing lens that shows the aperture and shutter speed has very fine print and is difficult for me to read. I was out tonight shooting in light about ISO1600, f4.0, 1/50th (not *super* dark) and had to find a street light to read the settings. Larger bolder print would make this camera a joy! Are there other models that are easier to read? Has anyone had similar issues? -K

First decent image...

Nothing is wrong with the lens hood. The filter adapter is interesting, it unscrews to hold a threadless filter. The diameter of the filter looks small relative to the lens opening. And I don't have any of those size filters. However I do have a number of 46mm filters; I'm looking for a lens hood with M46 threads that can screw on to the filter. -K

Today I just took possession of a 1950-something Rolleiflex type K4A. I've been shooting digital for quite some time, but have not shot film since high school (back in the '80's). I've been intrigued by these for quite a long time and decided to jump in. Purchased via Ebay, as-is, so there's a chance it's worth nothing. However, the lenses look clean, and everything seems to work. I loaded and shot a roll of film this evening without issue. We'll see if it focuses accurately and if shutter times are reasonable. If it's close I'll play with it for a while before sending somewhere for a CLA. If not I'll send it immediately for a CLA... Either way it requires a CLA, things seem to work but not as smoothly as I imagine they should. The camera came with a lens hood which fits on the outside of the shooting lens, and a Tiffen #522 Series #5 filter adapter that mounts on the inside. And a filter full of haze which is in the trash. But the size of that #5 filter looks way too small for the lens. Has anyone used such a thing? Does it block the corners? Before understanding that the filter adapter was coming, I preemtively ordered a bay 1 to 46mm filter adapter (why is there no bay 1 to 39mm? I have a bunch of those!). Do any of you use such a thing? What about hood? This looks promising: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116976-REG/General_Brand_46mm_Screw_In_Rubber_Lens.html/?ap=y&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4qvlBRDiARIsAHme6ou4WBk7mN2pfMQMHleLMyI80X1nUs3iVGvaWoqnS73hWuJoheOYkYYaAjd6EALw_wcB&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=Y I enjoyed walking around the back yard this evening experimenting with an iPhone light meter app, comparing shutter speeds with what my digital leica comes up with and shooting with the Rollei. I knew to expect the horizontal reversal through the finder, but I did not expect the extent to which it would discombobulate me! Yow! It seemed to take for ever to get things right! And I kept screwing up the horizon. Fascinating how this tricks my brain; hopefully with some practice it won't be so alien. I'm excited to figure this thing out! -K