Toffle

Jul 12, 2008 #101

I just uploaded a picture of skaters in Nathan Phillips Square to the gallery. One of my favourites.

 

benjiboy

Jul 13, 2008 #102

Toffle . To me one of the advantages of the 6x6 is that it can easily be cropped to portrait, or landscape format, and still leave you enough of a neg.to make a good 20"x16" print without having to make the decision at the time of shooting, although I do try to compose square as much as I can.

 

Mark Antony

Group owner

Jul 13, 2008 #103

Shot some Delta 3200 rated at EI 12,500 last night lots of images at 1/8- 1/15 at F3,5

I kneeled down for this shot of my wife, very slow shutter, very fast film, wide open.
Mark

 

Toffle

Jul 13, 2008 #104

Benji- I often shoot with a crop in mind... especially in situations where "zoom with your feet" doesn't work. For example, you want the boat and the lighthouse, but from the vantage point which puts them in the right perspective, they are too small on your frame. You can't walk on water, so you walk around the harbour, where both subjects fill the frame... but it's not the composition you want. Back around to the other side, choose your composition, and print for that in the darkroom. I know for some folks this is sacrilegious. (but I don't invite those people to my darkroom) That being said, there are times when I like to fill the empty space on a 6x6 with... nothing. It can be really quite effective.

Mark- You're a brave man. I have a dismal record when it comes to shots of people eating. I always seem to catch my subject at the absolute worst moment. As it turns out, a chewing mouth can look quite grotesque at times. (believe me)

 

Toffle

Jul 13, 2008 #105

I just added a picture to the gallery called "Lone Tree and Sky" which employs a lot of empty space. I could have cropped this in any number of ways, but to me it was just right at full 6x6.

 

Mark Antony

Group owner

Jul 13, 2008 #106

Toffle I was just testing my pushing technique at a family gathering, I don't think it's a good shot except for the fact that the room was too dark to read a newspaper. The shots were mostly 1/8 at F3,5 and the film rated at 12,800 EI
That is to me quite miraculous that these came out.
I only shot one film, because I thought the chances of anything coming out were zero.
Rather than post more here's a link to a gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/robert_short_70th
BTW your shot of the sky is great.
Mark

 

Toffle

Jul 13, 2008 #107

I have to say, that 3200 is a really impressive film. Even though I've been told it is technically a 1000 rated film it pushes really well, as your pbase gallery shows.

 

Mark Antony

Group owner

Jul 14, 2008 #108

Toffle I've been using it for a few years, but only in 35mm. This year I decided to have a go with the 120, mainly as for that sort of speed it's the only game in town.
Tone wise and to an extent grain wise the 120 version is to me just like a free lunch. My spot meter gave a reading from faces of 1/4 at F2 @ 6400 anywhere else just gave 'E' normally I meter for emerging detail and stop down 2 stops.
So hence my reason to push and the results are so good I'm going to try 25,000 EI later this week, BTW I develop in Microphen stock for 16 mins for 12,800
Regards
Mark

 

benjiboy

Jul 14, 2008 #109

Toffle, In the case of your "lone tree and sky" I agree with you entirely .

 

Toffle

Jul 14, 2008 #110

Mark;
That's where a good low light meter really comes in handy. The meter on my Rollei is good... within its limits. I've got an old Sekonic Selenium cell meter that I use when I need a little more precision, but even that is no good in even moderately low light. When I'm really up against it, I use my N80 35mm camera as a meter. It's got an amazing built-in meter that gets me down to much lower light levels, but it's a pain to be fussing with two cameras in the dark. One day I will get a really good meter and will venture forth without fear of the dark. (heh heh)

Benjiboy... thanks.

Cheers,
Tom

 

arigram

Jul 14, 2008 #111

Regarding meters, I use a Sekonic L208 for the ballpark and the built-in 2.8FX one for reassurance when I am pointing at something. After all, the lights don't tell you how much over/underexposed you are when they are over a stop.

 

benjiboy

Jul 15, 2008 #112

I have four meters I'm afraid to admit, but never carry more than one at a time, thats the quickest way I know to drive yourself crazy.

 

Mark Antony

Group owner

Jul 15, 2008 #113

I use a Minolta Spotmeter F for critical work, transparencies etc
Most of the everyday stuff I just guess..
I used to have a Weston IV nice and pocketable, but can't say it was any more accurate than my built in version...
Mark

 

Ian Grant

Jul 15, 2008 #114

Yesterday I tested the meter on my Yashicamat 124, and compared it to the exposures I calculated using my Spotmeter & Lunasix Pro, and found it is reasonably accurate. One thing I noticed was the speed and aperture dials work in the opposite directions to my Rolleiflex.

It'll be a change to shoot square format again, after 5x4, 10x8 and 6x17, but I always find it easy to shoot to fit the format, seems second nature.
Ian

 

Jack Lusted

Jul 15, 2008 #115

It amazes me just how accurate the 'sunny 16' rule is for most out-door photography. My meter is a Lunasix 3s which is a fine piece of kit, but generally I don't bother to use it - it's just one more thing to fiddle with and get in the way. But if I'm doing something in doors, or the lighting is problematic I would reach for the meter every time - and still bracket 2 stops each side!

 

dpurdy

Jul 15, 2008 #116

I once traveled to Canada to shoot a wedding and accidentally packed my Pentax spot meter so the trigger was pushed in and when I went to use it the battery was dead. I was using my Rollei 2.8F with a meter that checks out when I test it against the spot meter aiming at a large plain surface. I decided Ok I will use the Rollei meter but the situation was a huge open sky with brilliant sunshine (wedding photographer hell)and the Rollei meter was nearly useless. It was so affected by the overhead sun and the adjustments to line up the needle were not nearly fine enough so that I could be off by a half stop or more and it still seemed to look right on the meter.

The FX meter is a million times better but I hate the leds.
Dennis

 

Toffle

Jul 15, 2008 #117

I've just added an IR shot from this spring to the album. Shot with Ilford SFX, metered at ISO-6. Exposure was something like1/4@f16. I really like this film.
Tom

 

Mark Antony

Group owner

Jul 16, 2008 #118

Hi Tom I really like that IR shot, suits the subject really well. The foliage looks a tad light on my screen, but it could be that I'm viewing on a laptop.
Did you use a deep red filter or the Ilford one? I haven't done any IR for years and then it was mainly HIE in 35mm and a few Portraits on colour slides
Regards
Mark

 

benjiboy

Jul 16, 2008 #119

Lovely shot Toffle keep up the good work.

 

Toffle

Jul 16, 2008 #120

Benjiboy, thanks.

Mark;
I used the Ilford gel, which is pretty much the same as an R-72. I just hold the filter in front of the taking lens while I press on my cable release. As for the light foliage, that's probably:
a) my propensity for gleaming highlights.
b) being afraid of the dark, I tend to overexpose a tad from time to time.
or
c) the quality of the scan, which I never spend enough time on... really, you can see detail on the print. :rolleyes:

This was a split-grade print, with just enough soft exposure to give tone in the lightest areas. The added hard exposure really gives a smooth tone in the mid-shadows.

Cheers,
Tom

 

Toffle

Jul 16, 2008 #121

I've just uploaded a print to the gallery called "The old pier at Point Pelee". I took this on a chilly January day this past winter.

One of my favorite darkroom processes is to develop my prints in Caffenol, (instant coffee and washing soda) I've heard countless times that it can't be done, even after I've shown my prints to someone. My oldest print is about a year and a half old, so I can't vouch for the longevity of the process, but I really like the effect.

 

Mark Antony

Group owner

Jul 17, 2008 #122

Tom I've developed quite a bit of film in Coffee, can't see why paper won't work, and your photo certainly proves it does. Does it give the paper an ivory base like Agfa Portriga ?
Meanwhile I've been using and playing with the Rolleinars that many here recommended thank you all for you help (especially Dennis)
I've made a blog entry:
Rolleinar Close up lenses

If anyone can see if I've missed anything obvious, or should add anything their advice will be welcome.
Mark

 

Toffle

Jul 17, 2008 #123

Depending on the paper, the blend of coffee, (and the wind direction, it seems ) a Caffenol print can have anywhere from light to heavy staining, even tones to wild, surreal splotches. The effect is quite unpredictable. I will have some nights where nothing seems to work, and others where it feels like magic. I've got an article on the process here: http://tomoverton.images.googlepages.com/caffenol. Most of the pictures were taken with my Rollei, but a few were with my N80.

Note: many people will say that coffee is not a proper developer, or that it is a staining developer, rather than a toning developer. It does, however convert the silver in the latent image, so in my opinion it is a viable alternative process.

Mark, your Rolleinar blog is spot on. They really did it right when they manufactured these lenses. I use the Hoya close up kit on my SLRs and they are really limited in what they can do. The Rolleinars are sharp, sharp, sharp.

Great work.
Tom

 

dpurdy

Jul 17, 2008 #124

Nice article Mark and obviously your T is no slouch. That eye close up is very impressive. Good photography all round and I really like that picture of your daughter.

I am glad I alreay own all the Rolleinars I need because if your article gets around the prices are only going to go up more on ebay. I have often thought I might be getting sharper images with the Rolleinars than without.. but I think it is just because you are closer to the smaller details like eyelashes.
Dennis

 

Mattjcuk

Jul 17, 2008 #125

Hi,

Mark, interesting article I think I will definitely try and get some, may I ask where you bought yours from please?

With regards to the developing, its something I haven't done yet but from the shots I've seen here, especially the coffee (I'm a huge fan of coffee - my only real vice) I think I will get into this very soon.

Thanks

Matt