Adventures in Lo-Fi (photo-centric)

[blee1996]

Nice photos from @Adam W , familiar SF Bay area scenes!

I also like both Agfa Click (super compact 6x6) and Clack (curved film plane 6x9), super easy to adapt for pinhole.

 

[loccdor]

were you able to find one in the US? I wouldn't say they are rare in the USA, but definitely fewer buying opportunities on our side of the Atlantic. Apparently, the Clack was imported into the US and sold under the name of Agfa Weekender, but I've never seen a used one for sale under that name. When you move the lever on yours to the "sunny" position do you get a yellow filter or a smaller aperture?

Yes, I did find a very good condition one for $70, a lot more than they were going for years ago I guess. It has the yellow filter. I tried it out yesterday, it made a "fat roll", so I've tried bending the metal piece by the take up spool a bit and hope it fixes it.

30mm push-on, good to know.

Look at the difference between these two cameras: same negative size, almost same focal length. And that's not even mentioning the weight difference of around 5 pounds!

 

[runswithsizzers]

First roll through my Zeiss Icon Nettar 517/2. Mine has the 105/6.3 Novar-Anastigmat, which I believe is a triplet design(?) First photo at f9.5 and minimum focusing distance, which is a little less than 7ft. Second photo at f8.0.



Mine has a Vario shutter with speeds of 1/25th, 1/75th, and 1/200th second, plus B. When shooting this test roll, I was hoping to use the widest aperture (f6.3), but with Kodak Tri-X metered at EI 250, even on this cloudy day, and using the top shutter speed of 1/200 I still had to stop down some. Next time, I will try a slower film. And now I have a push-on filter holder for my Series V filters, so I can use yellow-orange-red filters and larger apertures due to the filter factors. This lens takes a 31.8mm or 32mm push on filter.

Still not sure how I am going to get on with scale focusing. And I think I am going to regret not being able to focus closer than 6-7 ft. Other than that, it is a jewel of a camera, and folded, very easy to carry. I believe the viewfinder is going to be much more useful than the one on the Agfa Clack, although I still have not tested just how accurately the Zeiss Nettar is showing the edges of the frame.

 

[bernard_L]

First roll through my Zeiss Icon Nettar 517/2

You have left lo-fi camera territory.

I was hoping to use the widest aperture (f6.3), but with Kodak Tri-X metered at EI 250, even on this cloudy day, and using the top shutter speed of 1/200 I still had to stop down some.

A couple stops overexposure does not hurt. Certainly less than a couple stops underexposure, should you get caught in mediocre light with 100ISO film.

although I still have not tested just how accurately the Zeiss Nettar is showing the edges of the frame.

IMO not as bad as I initially thought. Get your eye close to the v/f lens, but do not try to "peek into corners". If you want to gain some assurance, tape some tracing paper over the film gate, dark cloth, determine actual FOV; compare with what the v/f is showing.

 

[runswithsizzers]

You have left lo-fi camera territory.

Yes, when stopped down, the negatives from the 105/6.3 Novar-Anastigmat look very good. But perhaps a little more "character" will show at f6.3?

As I mentioned in the opening post, "I am interested in exploring the boundary between low tech and more modern lens designs, so expect some photos made with better cameras." Maybe I should not have used the term, "lo-fi" in my title?

Honestly, I don't really know exactly what I am looking for, or what to call it, but I am having fun seeing what kind of images these cameras can produce.

tape some tracing paper over the film gate, dark cloth, determine actual FOV; compare with what the v/f is showing.

Good idea, I plan to try that with this camera and the Agfa Clack, too. Thanks for your reply.

 

[bernard_L]

Yes, when stopped down, the negatives from the 105/6.3 Novar-Anastigmat look very good. But perhaps a little more "character" will show at f6.3?

Nothing spectacular, I bet. 6.3 may not be quite the optimum for sharpness, but quite conservative.

I have a Franka Solida with a 80/2.9 Radionar. That is pushing the limits of a triplet. At 2.9 the images are definitely, shall we say, dreamy.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Nothing spectacular, I bet. 6.3 may not be quite the optimum for sharpness, but quite conservative.

I have a Franka Solida with a 80/2.9 Radionar. That is pushing the limits of a triplet. At 2.9 the images are definitely, shall we say, dreamy.

Right now, I think my goal is less "spectacular" and more "subtle"...? Still trying to decide.

The Franka Solida cameras look good, but a quick search is not turning up any 6x9 or 6x4.5? I have a Rolleicord, and I like it just fine for square, but at the present, I am more interested in pursuing something less square.

 

[bernard_L]

Just to give you an idea what to expect from a triplet. I found my previous tests of the 80/2.9 Radionar. Full frame. Picture of a hedge with leaves and twigs. the "best" pic, at f/8. See next post.

 

[bernard_L]

Four crops at 100% 1600dpi. f/2.9, f/4, f/5.6, f/8

 

[runswithsizzers]

@bernard_L, I am having trouble telling which area of the frame your crops were extracted from.

Once a photo has a certain level of fuzziness across the whole frame, I start to loose interest (many smaller format pinhole photos, for example). But I am willing to accept a fairly high degree of unsharpness at the edges of the frame if the center is noticeably sharper in comparison.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that my choices in subject matter, subject distance, and aperture may be far more significant in getting to the look I want, than my choice of lens? (Working theory; still evaluating)

 

[Kino]

Perversely, I am always disappointed when I buy a supposedly cheap, crappy camera and discover it makes fine images.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Perversely, I am always disappointed when I buy a supposedly cheap, crappy camera and discover it makes fine images.

Yes, with one exception, that has been my experience, as well.

But "fine images" are good, too!

I regret using the phrase "lo-fi" in the title of this thread, because I think I am discovering my real interest is not lo-fi to any great degree, but rather the boundary between fine images and lo-fi.