cjm
Well-known
Unfortunately I no longer have my Summar but here are some pictures from when I did, all taken with a cheap CVS 400 color film:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
As promised, I carried my II and its
old uncoated Summar with us to Tulum
in Mexico last week and ran a roll of
color film through it. I decided color
wants to be unfocused so I shot with
the aperture open and the lens racked
out to focus at 1m. See below.
The film is Superia 400, grossly overexposed.
old uncoated Summar with us to Tulum
in Mexico last week and ran a roll of
color film through it. I decided color
wants to be unfocused so I shot with
the aperture open and the lens racked
out to focus at 1m. See below.
The film is Superia 400, grossly overexposed.
Bingley
Veteran
Sanders, you are brilliant! That is wonderful!
Artorius
Caribbean Traveler
color wants to be underexposed?
color wants to be underexposed?
Sanders,
I don't understand, OOF for color? What is the point for this? What does this photo have to do with color and the Summar?
OOF, is this a new rule for poor shooting, or am I missing something.
Not trolling, I have this lense, but I don't understand the reasoning.
Many years ago, I didn't understand the Campbell's tomato can either.
Re-inform me if I am out of place.
color wants to be underexposed?
Sanders,
I don't understand, OOF for color? What is the point for this? What does this photo have to do with color and the Summar?
OOF, is this a new rule for poor shooting, or am I missing something.
Not trolling, I have this lense, but I don't understand the reasoning.
Many years ago, I didn't understand the Campbell's tomato can either.
Re-inform me if I am out of place.
hans voralberg
Veteran
Matter of taste I guess, I sometimes want to shoot OOF as well, for the "painting" / "impressionism" look.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Sanders,
Yet again you astound me! Like Artorius, I used to struggle with "modern" art concepts, but I like this idea - something 1930's about it for me - almost Bauhaus deconstructionism (OK, that's too pretentious, I know).
The only thing I wondered about, would be a liitle selective focus, just to throw slightly tighter focus onto Melanie (possibly difficult with a RF). But, hey, it's your art and I like it!
Yet again you astound me! Like Artorius, I used to struggle with "modern" art concepts, but I like this idea - something 1930's about it for me - almost Bauhaus deconstructionism (OK, that's too pretentious, I know).
The only thing I wondered about, would be a liitle selective focus, just to throw slightly tighter focus onto Melanie (possibly difficult with a RF). But, hey, it's your art and I like it!
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I'm not sure I can explain myself. But I will try.
I shoot almost everything in B+W, in medium or
large format. My B+W work is all about focus and
contrast and composition and it pretty much goes
by the rulebook in those respects. See
www.flickr.com/sandersnyc
for plenty of examples, including these photographs
shot the day after the one I posted here (NSFW):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3464856892/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3464852688/
There is something abstract about B+W work. The
addition of color, to my eye, makes a photograph more
literal, more representational. So my instinct was to
find a way to reintroduce some element of abstraction
into the negative. I thought that if I could do away with
a slavish adherence to some of my other rules, like focus,
the result might be a less literal, more impressionistic
image. If color wants to dominate the image (as to my
eye it does), then I thought it would be interesting to let
color carry the entire weight of the photograph.
Whether this image succeeds at that, I don't know. I
feel out of my element in color (in part because I am a
bit colorblind) and this was just an effort to push against
convention and my own self-imposed limits and try
something new for myself. And I suppose I was aiming
at an image that one might see more in a memory, with
the mind's eye, or else in an unfocused sidelong glance.
Sanders
I shoot almost everything in B+W, in medium or
large format. My B+W work is all about focus and
contrast and composition and it pretty much goes
by the rulebook in those respects. See
www.flickr.com/sandersnyc
for plenty of examples, including these photographs
shot the day after the one I posted here (NSFW):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3464856892/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3464852688/
There is something abstract about B+W work. The
addition of color, to my eye, makes a photograph more
literal, more representational. So my instinct was to
find a way to reintroduce some element of abstraction
into the negative. I thought that if I could do away with
a slavish adherence to some of my other rules, like focus,
the result might be a less literal, more impressionistic
image. If color wants to dominate the image (as to my
eye it does), then I thought it would be interesting to let
color carry the entire weight of the photograph.
Whether this image succeeds at that, I don't know. I
feel out of my element in color (in part because I am a
bit colorblind) and this was just an effort to push against
convention and my own self-imposed limits and try
something new for myself. And I suppose I was aiming
at an image that one might see more in a memory, with
the mind's eye, or else in an unfocused sidelong glance.
Sanders
Last edited:
nome_alice
Established
My best color sample with the Summar, so far. This is an early lens, perfect glass, SN puts it at 1933.
On the Leica IIIa.
Totally amazing rendering! I just love the soft colours and contrast and waxy/dreamy feel of it. I don't believe in the "Leica Glow" but there's definitely something in using a 70+ year old lens
I just saw the post directed at me! Sorry:
I will check the film, probably Fujicolor 200.
I will check the film, probably Fujicolor 200.
Fujicilor 200...
At F4
Wide-Open
F4:
Add a Little Flare...
At F4
Wide-Open
F4:
Add a Little Flare...
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Sanders,
I just got back from a quick trip to London & Paris. While away, I git the chance to go to Tate Britain & look at the JMW Turner collection. I think your pic strongly resembles some of his later work - take a look at "Three Seascapes" or "Two figures on a beach with boat". Having seen these paintings and many others at first hand, i now totally get what he was about towards the end of his life. He started as a figurative archtectural artist, but moved towards impressionism over 30 or so years.
My summation of what he was trying to say is "OK, there may be a building here, or some people over there, but LOOK AT THE LIGHT!! Look at it's quality, colour, how it flows and caresses everything it touches."
For me your pic has that - my renewed congratulations
Last edited:
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Sanders,
I just got back from a quick trip to London & Paris. While away, I git the chance to go to Tate Britain & look at the JMW Turner collection. I think your pic strongly resembles some of his later work - take a look at "Three Seascapes" or "Two figures on a beach with boat". Having seen these paintings and many others at first hand, i now totally get what he was about towards the end of his life. He started as a figurative archtectural artist, but moved towards impressionism over 30 or so years.
My summation of what he was trying to say is "OK, there may be a building here, or some people over there, but LOOK AT THE LIGHT!! Look at it's quality, colour, how it flows and caresses everything it touches."
For me your pic has that - my renewed congratulations
John, thanks for the reply. It seems a common progression
among artists, to work in less representational forms as they
age. I always figured it was boredom with being a slave to
things as they are, and growing interest in fundamentals of
light and color, as you suggest. But I gather, also, that some
believe it is due to physical changes as well -- how the eye
ages, and how that affects what one sees. Monet is said to
have had suffered from cataracts when painting the last of his
Water Lillies series. I don't have cataracts so I'm going with
the boredom rationale.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Sold my Summar three weeks back to a fellow RFF-er, so he'll be doing the honours I guess.
Not that smart a move, when revisiting this thread and seeing the shots I put up from it...
Must...resist...purchase...AAAAHHHHGGH!!!
Not that smart a move, when revisiting this thread and seeing the shots I put up from it...
Must...resist...purchase...AAAAHHHHGGH!!!
MauroSc
Newbie
My new Bolex movie camera 16 mm reflex, with a "strange" lens : a 50 summar
Fantastic dreaming possibilities of taking moving images
Fantastic dreaming possibilities of taking moving images
Simon Bruxelles
Established
Summar Vs. Velvia
Summar Vs. Velvia
All taken with a Leica II and an uncoated 5cm Summar on Velvia 100 then scanned on an Epson v500.
Simon
Bath buns
Cascade of blossom
Moss
Bluebell wood
Bluebell wood
Butcher's window
Summar Vs. Velvia
All taken with a Leica II and an uncoated 5cm Summar on Velvia 100 then scanned on an Epson v500.
Simon
Bath buns
Cascade of blossom
Moss
Bluebell wood
Bluebell wood
Butcher's window
issa918
Established
Summar, uncoated, on Kodak 160NC
Mudman
Well-known
Coated Summar. F3.2ish, Kodak Gold 200 or 100.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
"A cold day in Hell" sounds like a good title for that one, Mudman.
(Okay, so it's probably a Pan instead of the Devil )
As luck would have it I'm currently running some color film through one of my IIIc cameras with a Summar attached. Should have something to add to this topic in a week or so.
(Okay, so it's probably a Pan instead of the Devil
)As luck would have it I'm currently running some color film through one of my IIIc cameras with a Summar attached. Should have something to add to this topic in a week or so.
Mudman
Well-known
Sounds about right, though it is a faun, not the devil For reference - same statue, year earlier with my Elmar.
