You can develop a little longer to increase contrast in the negatives next time
You’re welcome.thanks you for your attention throughout this whole thread Bill.
Yeah of thought about doing the same. But trying to get a better contrast during the development, in this case, feels like "I will fix it in Photoshop". It means that I accept that the Biotar cannot give me a proper dynamic range. It means that I have to make peace with the idea that anytime I shoot with this lens, I will start with an handicap.
I presume that once you have set the aperture it does not change as the exposure is taken. Assuming that, I would measure the apparent aperture at the taking setting and do the math to check the F number, just in case it is F'd up.
I think we’re talking about using the lens pre-set at f/16 or 22 giving it full free range but only dialing in like a cinema lens...
You know … when idiots take out the ball bearing so they can open and close the aperture without clicks. A pre-set lens “set” at the smallest aperture swings freely, say from f/2 to f/16.What do you mean by this? I mean "full free range" and "cinema lens".
Thank you for your answer.
So you agree too that there is a problem. Some said that I just have to much expectation on this lens, but I don't think so. Of course I would accept the idea that the Biotar is a low contrast lens if this appeared to be what the truth is. But as long as someone else other than me think that some thing is weird, then I will keep trying investigating to get the most out of my lens. Having a wide dynamic range during a fully sunny day I don't think is asking too much of my lens
OK let me be frank, I think the problem is not fully understanding the operation of your equipment.
I'm not saying that the Kentmere is the issue.thank you for your reply. I understand what you say. Uising the same film of course would get my investigation more accurate. But I consider the evidence of my problem quite above the differences that two films can have. I shot with the Biotar on many different films and the lack of contrast (and the previous underexposure) was well recognaizable despite the different character of the film.
The Kantmere I uploaded was shot in a very sunny day, light and shadow were very strong, aperture was always around 16: Kentemere or not, those negatives deserve to have a wider dynamic range.
Yes, I am just suggesting to measure the aperture of the lens once to be sure it is performing as expected. ( given the continued troubles)ersambuca has an AE-1 which acts like a large sweep match needle (with the battery check.. f/5.6 being the null spot to aim for) in stop-down mode.
I think we’re talking about using the lens pre-set at f/16 or 22 giving it full free range but only dialing in like a cinema lens until the needle is in the middle.
I am sure the engineers were pleased to see the center of the swing was the right meter point for stop-down mode… and they probably made the battery check be at that mark on purpose too.
Well, as long as the film was underexposed I would have agreed with you. But now that the exposure is correct, why do you say that the problem is me not understanding my equipment?
Except if lens is clear, only it’s mechanicals can cause a problem, not optics. I cannot see a need for tests if aperture blades close as they are suppose to. Not like one can alter lens’ internals to get say f 8 when f 4 is pointed to on the ring. It’s a simple swing of a ring from wide open to fully closed and watching the blades move. We are looking at serious underxposure, not a small variance.There is always variation in mechanical gear. If the variation is great enough to cause a problem a set of controlled tests are needed. It seems to me that a set of controlled manual exposure tests with a suitable test target and the smallest number of variables (same film stock/development, etc) would go a long way towards solving this mystery. The OP would end up with a set of negatives with under, CORRECT and overexposed frames. If the settings are recoded you’ll have all the information you need to evaluate the lens in question.
Yes! Because maybe they are not, or are miscalibrated. This is very old gear here, likely made in the ‘50’s (mine was)- it’s history is unknown AFAIKExcept if lens is clear, only it’s mechanicals can cause a problem, not optics. I cannot see a need for tests if aperture blades close as they are suppose to.
I'm not saying that the Kentmere is the issue.
I'm saying that the development of the Kentmere is the issue - the Kentmere has been developed to a lower contrast, so the results are lower in contrast.
If you want the same contrast as the Tri-X, then just develop the Kentmere to obtain that contrast.
Although, as I mentioned, the Kentmere looks right as it is, and the Tri-X looks overly contrasty to me.
If you have it available and can get an adapter I would try the lens on a digital camera and see what happens.
Because all I've seen is several negatives where none of the skies go to fully dense black,
Unless I misunderstood OP showed shots taken with an FD lens + suspect lenses on same roll, which rules out processing issues
So to me bottom line is make sure mechanicals deliver set values.
I will shoot another roll of Kentmere and I will try do develop it with more agitation than the previous one... :'-)
This is true for only the first test, when the OP was using the wrong method for applying a meter reading with the Zeiss lens on the camera, thus leading to under-exposure.3. Unless I misunderstood OP showed shots taken with an FD lens + suspect lenses on same roll, which rules out processing issues
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?