New pics with Rolleis'

andys93integra · Aug 9, 2011

Here are some pics i took while at a car show at the MN state fair grounds, on July 23-24, 2011. Delta 100 film.

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjvHpnrJ

And Here are some pictures i took at my cousins wedding which was on July 30, 2011. XP2 400.

Tele-Rollei: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjvJMWmj

2.8E3: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjvJMKWL

And a question i have. Is it me or are most of these photos (some of the car show pics and most of the wedding pics) really bright/overexposed? I was using ilford Delta 100 for the car show and XP2 400 for the wedding, and to me most of them are really bright, even with some of them exposed at f16 1/500 (one of the train).

Andy

SafetyBob · Aug 10, 2011

Andy, thank you for posting the photos. The first bunch of photos of the cars looked great, that 100 film maked everything look wonderful. Guess I will be trying more of that stuff soon. I am just getting "back" into the black and white scene.

I agree that the wedding photos probably didn't come out the way you want because the trees in the background were so intensely bright from the sun.....and it looked like some of that came through the trees where everyone was standing too. That's what I see at least.

I am at a loss to give you much of a suggestion to help you even everything out other than fill flash perhaps would have evened things out. I am looking forward to what the experienced among us have to say. I know everyone gets tired of me coming out of the house with a moster potatoe masher flash just to take "casual" pictures.......but like you, I lost an enormous amount of beautiful face detail when I was outside during the day when the sun was out significantly.

I just had around 2 rolls of Illford HP5 handed to the lab today and they were both outside, in sun and shade and as I recall I used the old potatoe masher for fill and to stop the rapid action.......what I am getting at is I don't know how advanced of a camera you have, but it sure it easier to play with fast moving targets (unlike your crowd) with a TTL capable F4 versus the old FA or FE with a manual focus lense......

Good luck and keep taking those photos......looking really good!!

Bob E.

andys93integra · Aug 10, 2011

Both my Rolleiflexes' (the cameras that shot these pics) are totally manual, no meters or anything. I use my D5000 to shoot with and also as a meter for the Rolleis'.

I wonder if i got some kind of filters, if that would help out. Or should i be using slower films like the delta 100 or even slower like the Pan f+ which is ISO 50. Is there any real difference in the speed from 50-100? And i think most of the pictures i have taken with the XP2 400 are not real contrasty, i have to add a little bit when i get them on the computer. I have seen some pictures taken with xp2 400 look really contrasty, and i wonder how they do that. Plus i am no expert in developing film, but i think i will try to start developing my own film soon.

Andy

Jeff Kubach · Aug 10, 2011

Of course you can have your own darkroom!

Jeff

benjiboy · Aug 10, 2011

It just seems to me using a digital camera as a light meter to evaluate the light for a Rolleiflex is like pulling a stagecoach with a space rocket.

Steve Smith · Aug 10, 2011

benjiboy said:
pulling a stagecoach with a space rocket.

I would like to see that!

Steve.

TheFlyingCamera · Aug 10, 2011

Don't use your digicam as a meter for your film cameras. The digital cameras meter has been calibrated for the sensor. It may SAY ISO 100 on the dial, but if you compare the actual reading you get with it set to ISO 100 and a good hand-held meter set to 100, you'll see the readings are not the same. I've seen this on multiple cameras from multiple brands, across a good decade's worth of digital cameras. Digicams seem to tend to require more exposure than film cameras do, so if you use their settings, you'll get blown out highlights on film.

Dan Daniel · Aug 10, 2011

The problems with brightness and excess sparkle are from scanning and other processing that is not to be discussed here, I assume, or could be corrected in such. Like excessive sharpening, and needing to use curves to pull down the tones, not allowed to mention such things, yes?

pgomena · Aug 10, 2011

From what I can tell from scanned images reduced to jpegs, etc., you don't have a problem. In both cases, you were exposing a fairly contrasty film in very contrasty lighting situations. The dynamic range of both scenes was pretty extreme. I think you did very well, considering lighting in both situations. As you become more familiar with using the cameras and start to do your own film processing, you will learn how to handle extreme contrast.

Also, there is a reason wedding photographers use fill flash. It helps control the contrast. Learn to use fill flash if you intend to photograph a lot of scenes with people in harsh lighting conditions.

Peter Gomena

pbromaghin · Aug 10, 2011

I see some of the outdoor pics were shot at f8 for 1/250. On a sunny 16 day that would put you 1 stop overexposed with ISO 100.

To me the wedding was just a difficult condition - shade with infiltrating sunlight (and that falling on the white dress!) and a brightly lit background.

So you stayed at the Holiday Inn... I'd be happy with the exposure in your shots of the old depot and the Mulberry St bridge. Your neighborhood look good.

andys93integra · Aug 10, 2011

pbromaghin said:
I see some of the outdoor pics were shot at f8 for 1/250. On a sunny 16 day that would put you 1 stop overexposed with ISO 100.

To me the wedding was just a difficult condition - shade with infiltrating sunlight (and that falling on the white dress!) and a brightly lit background.

So you stayed at the Holiday Inn... I'd be happy with the exposure in your shots of the old depot and the Mulberry St bridge. Your neighborhood look good.

I thought it was called the City Center Hotel? But now i see on the map it is a Holiday Inn lol. I live north of Minneapolis.

And thanks to everyone to posted, i will try a few things and see how they work out.

Andy

Jeff Kubach · Aug 10, 2011

benjiboy said:
It just seems to me using a digital camera as a light meter to evaluate the light for a Rolleiflex is like pulling a stagecoach with a space rocket.

I have done that!
Jeff

hidesert · Aug 10, 2011

I love to see Rolleis being used!

I don't see much shadow detail in the car show pics. I'd suggest overdevelopment. You definitely need to be developing your own film to properly control the results.

andys93integra · Aug 10, 2011

hidesert said:
I love to see Rolleis being used!

Thanks!

hidesert said:
I don't see much shadow detail in the car show pics. I'd suggest over development. You definitely need to be developing your own film to properly control the results.

Does over development mean it would make them darker and not so bright?

Probably because the scans are not high res, but not low res, in the middle. I had a 10x10 print made of one of the cars and i can see detail everywhere on the print.

Andy

hidesert · Aug 10, 2011

Over development would make them lighter, mainly in the highlights and light colors. It has less effect in the shadows.

andys93integra said:
Thanks!

Does over development mean it would make them darker and not so bright?

Probably because the scans are not high res, but not low res, in the middle. I had a 10x10 print made of one of the cars and i can see detail everywhere on the print.

Andy

George Collier · Aug 12, 2011

If these scanned images represent the way the prints look, I would say that the images are too contrasty - many of the light areas are a bit harsh. When shooting white clothing (or any white objects) in bright sunlight, cutting back on development time (maybe 20% less than normal) helps to keep the highlights from blocking up on the neg. As I recall, this was a standard approach for B&W film wedding photogs in past years. You can always step up contrast in the printing.
Read up on the difference between exposure and development, and what each controls. It's the principle of the zone system.

andys93integra · Aug 13, 2011

George Collier said:
If these scanned images represent the way the prints look, I would say that the images are too contrasty - many of the light areas are a bit harsh. When shooting white clothing (or any white objects) in bright sunlight, cutting back on development time (maybe 20% less than normal) helps to keep the highlights from blocking up on the neg. As I recall, this was a standard approach for B&W film wedding photogs in past years. You can always step up contrast in the printing.
Read up on the difference between exposure and development, and what each controls. It's the principle of the zone system.

I am currently working on exposure (by myself). I mean i am only using manual on my Nikon and not using it to meter on the Rolleis'. My thinking is if i only use the little chart as a reference (Exposure value chart on the back of the Rolleis') and try to find exposure only using my head i might have it down in a little while. And i might start using the slower film i have, which is 1 roll of delta 100 and 2 rolls of PanF+, that i bought a few weeks ago.

Andy

George Collier · Aug 13, 2011

It's difficult to expose consistently with any system without measuring in a consistent manner. You have to know what kind of value to which you are "placing" a given area in the subject. I am in the graphic arts business and we have a saying, "You can't manage what you don't measure". Art can be fun with unpredictable results, but only you know if it works for you. If you are unhappy with your results, check out some info on basic exposure and development, and do some controlled testing, it will pay off.
Fred Picker published a great book in the 70's, "The Zone VI Workshop". I used to use it as a text on the college level, for beginners. It is written in a very conversational style, easy to understand, and gives exercises that work. I just did a quick Google search for his name, and within a minute found a number of used ones on Amazon from $4 up. (Ain't the internet grand!!)

andys93integra · Aug 13, 2011

I will go check that out!

Andy

Dan Daniel · Aug 15, 2011

Another helpful approach to setting exposure-
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
As with many things in life, using just one approach to a problem has limits. Zone system, incident metering, spot metering, basic charts on cameras or old film sheets, Fred Parker's approach to 'guessing.

The one thing I would suggest without fail: a small notebook and recording actual exposure info for each shot. Do this for a few weeks or months, go over a sheet of negatives with the notebook data, and things will make sense soon.

andys93integra · Aug 15, 2011

Dan Daniel said:
The one thing I would suggest without fail: a small notebook and recording actual exposure info for each shot. Do this for a few weeks or months, go over a sheet of negatives with the notebook data, and things will make sense soon.

This is what i have been doing for the last few rolls in each camera, and will probably continue it for a while. It has helped a bunch, it is good to know all the settings for each shot, I also write down the date and place of each shot.

Andy

andys93integra · Aug 18, 2011

Here are some recent pics from a local car show on 8-13-2011.

I think this is the most consistent roll of film i have shot. Meaning they are all well exposed and are not over or under.

Rolleiflex 2.8E3, Fuji proo400H film.

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjvUXbYj

Andy

Robert Vigurs · Aug 23, 2011

The clarity is great in your photos. You can adjust the contrast through development times, as described by Ansel Adams in his most informative books. If a little too contrasty, cut back on your development times, and get just what you want by burning in, if necessary. I would suggest getting an old school light meter, like a Gossen Luna pro. They are pretty cheap on ebay. I bought a Pentax analog spotmeter there for $92. Those meters would work well for your camera.

bobt99silver · Aug 24, 2011

I agree with pgomena - very contrasty situations, I don't see the exposures being far off - the color car show on 8-13 that you feel are most consistent, look like they were shot on a partly cloudy day - less contrast.

I'd sugest trying some shots on a shady day, and other lighting conditions and see what that does.

Also in the Twin cities, I've picked up a couple used lightmeters (Gossen Luna Pro, Minolta 4F) at National Camera and you might find using an incident meter helpful. Whatever method you use I'd suggest staying with one and learning how to get results that work for you.

olwick · Aug 24, 2011

Looks like you did some additional (over)sharpening in photoshop afterwards. Looking at the carpet in the car cockpit shot, there's what appears to be definite sharpening artifacts. Personal preference, of course, but there's really no need to do that.

Mark

New pics with Rolleis'

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency