Rolleicord III and Fuji Velvia

Vonder · May 22, 2009

I don't shoot many extra-colorful subjects, so my use of Velvia is quite limited, but at a recent local festival it seemed the right choice. I chose the Rolleicord because it has a nice lens and the day was bright and sunny. The following images show how nicely this combination worked... I think

Sadly, although there were dozens and dozens of cameras there, as far as I could tell I was the only film user.

Prest_400 · May 22, 2009

Nice, I love the color and bokeh of the first and last photos.
The third one is nice though too bad of lighting; It looks hard to the eyes.
The girl has a little red cast to my eyes, which sounds normal being velvia.
Let's see if in one of the next years I can get one of these 'cords. They seem a great start for MF. Probably I'd get the IV or V(a/b), for the double exposure prevention and parallax corrector that they seem to have. I would use them for traveling and people events, so double exposures and cut off heads wouldn't be nice; the first one is the problem that mostly concerns me.

Mike Keers · May 22, 2009

I've only recently come to own a IIIb, and have run four rolls of B&W thru it and been very pleased with the results, a very unique look to my eye, love the camera but not so thrilled at the dim viewing screen (looking into replacing that). I have recently shot a few rolls of Velvia in 35mm, and I was blown away by the beautiful blues and greens--almost an artificial look in a way sometimes. I do primarily B&W landscape/outdoor stuff but I'm sold on it for color work. Maybe I'll have to try a roll in the 'cord after looking at your results.

benjiboy · May 23, 2009

M/F can still produce quality that digital can only dream of , they don't know what they are missing.

Prest_400 · May 23, 2009

Mike Keers said:
love the camera but not so thrilled at the dim viewing screen (looking into replacing that).

One day I was looking around Rick Oleson's website and found this: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-175.html
He offers these focusing screens for $30; I've heard many positive feedbacks about this screens, might not be beatties or maxwells as he says, but they seem to improve viewing. If I buy a 'cord; I may get one of these.

Indeed, Film delivers results that digital can't. Many are imitating it using the famous editing program. Of course, it's impossible to get the same results as film. I laughed once at a tutorial that taught how to get '60s film grain look. TriX and HP5 are there anyways.

Jeff Kubach · May 23, 2009

Excellant photos. Digital sure can't match a Rollei!

Jeff

Lightproof · May 23, 2009

I have done a similar thing. Velvia50 & Rolleiflex.

I am not sure about this film yet. The pictures sure look pleasing in most cases, but its a bit too much saturation. Perhaps its THE film for strong sunlight around midday?

Vonder · May 23, 2009

Thanks!

Prest_400 said:
Nice, I love the color and bokeh of the first and last photos.
The third one is nice though too bad of lighting; It looks hard to the eyes.
The girl has a little red cast to my eyes, which sounds normal being velvia.
Let's see if in one of the next years I can get one of these 'cords. They seem a great start for MF. Probably I'd get the IV or V(a/b), for the double exposure prevention and parallax corrector that they seem to have. I would use them for traveling and people events, so double exposures and cut off heads wouldn't be nice; the first one is the problem that mostly concerns me.

I didn't have my meter so all the exposures are a bit dark. Better to guess underexposed with slide film.

With the Rolleicord III you have to set a pattern and stick to it. For me, I advance the film but do not cock the shutter until ready to shoot. It prevents double exposure if you stick to it like glue.

Mike Keers · May 23, 2009

Prest_400, I've had Rick's website for that new focusing screen bookmarked for a month or two, just trying to come up with $30 extra!

Wolfeye, I've tried to religiously follow the 'wind as soon as you take a shot' routine (I don't cock the shutter until ready either) but I usually forget if I've advanced it or not about thirty seconds after taking a shot, and in my concern over double exposures, I find more blank frames than doubles! Hahaha! I've been averaging one blank frame a roll so far. They say the memory is the second thing to go, and I can't remember what the first thing is.

Prest_400 · May 23, 2009

Lightproof said:
I have done a similar thing. Velvia50 & Rolleiflex.

I am not sure about this film yet. The pictures sure look pleasing in most cases, but its a bit too much saturation. Perhaps its THE film for strong sunlight around midday?

Those are wonderful colors; velvia saturation seems to get fine there, though sometimes it might be much.
I've heard that Velvia is great for dusk and sunset lighting; provia is better for midday. Can't prove it, since I've not tried both films.
Let's see if I can take again the camera around; My last roll was shot in April... I'll be soon going to my mountainside village house; lots of nice subjects for expose.

Mike Keers said:
Prest_400, I've had Rick's website for that new focusing screen bookmarked for a month or two, just trying to come up with $30 extra!

Wolfeye, I've tried to religiously follow the 'wind as soon as you take a shot' routine (I don't cock the shutter until ready either) but I usually forget if I've advanced it or not about thirty seconds after taking a shot, and in my concern over double exposures, I find more blank frames than doubles! Hahaha! I've been averaging one blank frame a roll so far. They say the memory is the second thing to go, and I can't remember what the first thing is.

Yes, with the "nice" economical situation it's hard to have some spare money.
I've been thinking about somekind of advance-cock procedure. I might stick to a procedure of advancing and cocking just before taking the shot; If I don't advance or cock after taking a shot, I'm sure that I didn't do anything. I think that doing this would be inconvenient for "fast" subjects, but good for still subjects and ok for portraiture; because something like this can happen: "ok, in focus...[press shutter] uh, how come...sorry, I forgot to prepare the film and shutter settings"- this has happened to me with my OM1 when doing some portraiture, just forgetting to advance the film (it cocks automatically, what a luxury )

Mike Keers · May 23, 2009

Prest_400, perhaps some think of the 'cord as suitable for 'fast' subjects--not me! I reserve the Rollei for composed and studied shots--landscape, posed or still life things primarily, and with a tripod some of the time. I have an OM1 and two old manual Minoltas as well, and they're all fun cameras, but like you say, I've gotten all set and ready to click the shutter--and found I'd forgotten to cock! For 'fast' shooting I like my EOS A2--no winding, no cocking, no focusing, and on full auto, no thinking at all! But it has the ability to be creative as well.

Prest_400 · May 24, 2009

Yes, nowadays these cameras are used for slow subjects; I would use them also as slow shooters. Though this cameras can perfectly do sports shooting; they still got the sports finder than pressmen used back in the 60s. Another thing is how will come the results.

elekm · May 24, 2009

Those are very nice photos. Great tones and sharpness. Even the skin tones aren't as bad you might expect with Velvia.

The thing that you get with film is subtlety, especially in the transition of tones.

And sharpness isn't everything. Just ask a woman who's been photographed and seen a photo that's been sharpened to a razor's edge, seemingly magnifying every tiny flaw.

Vonder · May 24, 2009

Indeed

elekm said:
Those are very nice photos. Great tones and sharpness. Even the skin tones aren't as bad you might expect with Velvia.

I got two rolls of the newly-released "new" Velvia from Fuji just before it was available and I mentioned then that I believe they changed it from the classic, original Velvia formula, which made most skintones look like the ozone layer was already gone.

Rolleijoe · May 25, 2009

Wolfeye said:
I don't shoot many extra-colorful subjects, so my use of Velvia is quite limited, but at a recent local festival it seemed the right choice. I chose the Rolleicord because it has a nice lens and the day was bright and sunny. The following images show how nicely this combination worked... I think

Absolutely smashing!

This one, as stated is a bit reddish with the skin tones, but is indeed expected with the Velvia. But the bokeh is pure Rollei!

Very nice colors, and some tweaking in iPhoto or Aperture is an easy fix.

Sadly, although there were dozens and dozens of cameras there, as far as I could tell I was the only film user.

Ah, know what you mean. At a wedding a few years back, I too was the only film shooter. There were literally dozens of those digital imaging contraptions (they're NOT cameras) around. Made me sick & sad.

These all have that beautiful Rollei bokeh, and it certainly looks like you've got a winner there!

Prest_400 · May 27, 2009

Rolleijoe said:
Ah, know what you mean. At a wedding a few years back, I too was the only film shooter. There were literally dozens of those digital imaging contraptions (they're NOT cameras) around. Made me sick & sad.

Ugh, I can say the same.
If I see these, I think:
A DSLR: "Stay far from these, as they tend to go against film users and telling the wonders of their media, which I don't want to listen"
Compacts: "If they're relatives, it's ok to stay near them; but if they're strangers that smile weird at you, run away"
Cellphone "camera": "An abomination! Camera? That little hole in front of the phone is a camera?!"

While I've never had a true DSLR user criticize film in front of me, I've read lots of words coming from these guys that make me mad, thank god we got APUG, where I can refill my photography happiness with film discussions. Not those that put an expiry date to our media.
The only critic I've had was from a far relative: "What are you doing with that?" (It was a Nikon F401s) in what I consider my first day of real photography; on a family celebration. I said to him that I would get an Olympus di** (of course, that was before I was blown with some of the wonderful prints I could do). The next time I see him I'll remember that I wanted to buy an Olympus; and I did it. with an OM1!

Offtopic: when I finished writing this post FCBarcelona has won Manchester 2-0 in Rome

mudman · May 27, 2009

I had a fellow argue with me for a good long time extolling the virtues of digital over film. Of course his D100 that he paid $2000 for is now worth about $200. My Film cameras are still worth about what I paid for them, and I definitely never spent that much.

mtjade2007 · May 28, 2009

I went to a relative's wedding in Hawaii with my Pentax 67-ii last year. They hired a professional wedding photographer shooting with a digital camera. A few months after the wedding I got to see the photos from that professional photographer. There were about 500 of them. I counted mine and I think I had less than 50. From the economy point of view the guy probably have sold far many more shots out of the 500. If I were to sell mine I would not have many to sell. What a difference it makes between a digicam and a filmcam: in the number of green bills.

Rolleicord III and Fuji Velvia

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency