End result different between SLR and Rangefinder in B&W ?

[Jan Cornelius]

Just wondering in my attemptes to get more knoweledge on rangefinders in general.
I currently shoot with a 30 year old nikkormat and eaually old 50mm nikkor lens.

The films I shoot are Tri-x 400, APX 100, HP5 and FP4 and then some Efkes. The four first films I develop in either D-76, rodinal or X-Tol and the negatives come out ok.

I just cant' seem to find the right (perfect) combination, might this have somehting to do with the camera and lens I use (SLR) Will/can the results be different between the combination using a rangefinder?

Do you have any suggestion, or rather absolutes do's in terms of camera type, film and developer ...

 

[Allen Gilman]

Dpends on what the "right (perfect) combination" is for you. But rather than look at it as a difference in SLR/rangefinder lens/cameras, I'd bet that it has more to do with smaller factors.

BTW, how would you describe the kinda "look" you're after? How are the negs coming out now?

 

[FrankS]

Do you have any suggestion, or rather absolutes do's in terms of camera type, film and developer ...


There are no absolutes. You just have to find what works for you. In terms of equipment, photographers can get most anything to work, including pinholes, Holgas, FSU rangefinders, folders, and Brownie box cameras for instance. Your equipment is certainly not what's holding you back. It is much better gear in fact than what was used to produce masterful works from the early days of photography. Certainly switching your SLR gear to RF gear isn't going to automatically give you better results. RF gear may be more suited to carrying around all day long doing street photography but in the olden days some photogs used TLRs for sports photography, clearly a mismatch of gear-type to a specific job. You say that your negs come out okay but you can't find the perfect combination? Can you post a picture to illustrate what you are dissatisfied with?

 

[Justin Low]

I don't think there is a drastic difference in terms of technical quality of the photographs from a RF vs. SLR camera. However, your aesthetic choices might be influenced by the handling of the two types of camera.

Nikon lenses have not let me down; I've used their 50/1.8 Series E lens, and I find that it performs very well, and especially at that price (I paid $30 for it).

The films you shoot are really good films, and would respond reasonably well in those developers you mention.

Perhaps what you could do is to narrow down your choices of equipment and film, so that you can focus on the 'seeing' instead. If you believe that a RF camera could help your photography, CameraQuest lists a Bessa R with a 35/2.5 lens for $425; the lens is great and the kit would make a good starting point.

EDIT: Well, yea, what FrankS said. 🙂

 

[Jan Cornelius]

They come out pretty good now in all combinations, what I'me after is not teh "greyish" tonality one aften can see, which is nice and sharp but to flat, dull for me. I like deep blacks and white whites .... I rather would print to dark than to light, maybe a bit of an old fashioned look.
What strikes me is whenever I see an imge I like on the web, they don't mention the combo they used, or only mention the fact that they use a rangefinder tape camera, hence my though process that it might have something to do with camera/lens combination.

But then again it dooms upon me that probably 99% of all B&W images to be found on the web are digitally manipulated, a thing I really don't want to get into, I like self printed prints , I like the result and I like the hobby as such but I would love to be able to focus further on my printing skills based on my "dream combo"

I realize the choice is very personal, but a starter here and there can be helpfull.

 

[Justin Low]

Jan, I suppose you could just print darker, with a higher contrast filter (or paper). That would be much cheaper than buying a new camera. 😉

 

[FrankS]

what I'me after is not teh "greyish" tonality one aften can see, which is nice and sharp but to flat, dull for me. I like deep blacks and white whites .... I rather would print to dark than to light, maybe a bit of an old fashioned look

Simple solution would be to increase your development time, temperature, and/or agitation.

 

[Jan Cornelius]

Justin,

I am not buying a rangefinder to obtain better results, and it really isn't that I am dissatisfied with them, I like them but they don't have the "ooooooooeeeee" effect on me yet, it's gotten better, but still not there.

The results which have satisfied me most are Tri-x and D76 for 135, efke 25 in rodinal for 135 also, and APX in XTol for 120, and for my LF it's still to early to judge since I'me still testing (just got it a few weeks ago)

Maybe I want too much in to short a time ...

Off Topic: Frank is your avatar your picture ?

 

[RML]

They come out pretty good now in all combinations, what I'me after is not teh "greyish" tonality one aften can see, which is nice and sharp but to flat, dull for me. I like deep blacks and white whites .... I rather would print to dark than to light, maybe a bit of an old fashioned look.
What strikes me is whenever I see an imge I like on the web, they don't mention the combo they used, or only mention the fact that they use a rangefinder tape camera, hence my though process that it might have something to do with camera/lens combination.

But then again it dooms upon me that probably 99% of all B&W images to be found on the web are digitally manipulated, a thing I really don't want to get into, I like self printed prints , I like the result and I like the hobby as such but I would love to be able to focus further on my printing skills based on my "dream combo"

I realize the choice is very personal, but a starter here and there can be helpfull.

Maybe I'm stating the obvious but underexposing will give you deep shadows. Deep shadows have nothing to do with the camera you use but everything with how and what you meter, the combo of shutter time and aperture, how you develop your film and how you print it.

You'll have to find a different excuse to justify buying that new rangefinder. 😛

 

[FrankS]

Servus, Jan! That's my father, but I'm beginning to look more and more like him.

 

[titrisol]

Wld you sacrifice a roll of film?
Bracket the exposures of something you think it has blacks and whites start exposing -2,-1,0,+1+2 stops and repeat (you should have 7 tests in a 36 exp). Then you can develop snipets of film (8-10 exp) as you do normally and see which of those exposures give you the results you want. After that is just a matter to adjust the ISO setting on your camera (override the DX).

In my case I shoot APX100 and Efke 100 as such but FP4 as 80 and Neopan Across as 80 [all these in Rodinal 1+50 or 1+100] JandC pro 100 as 64-80. [Rodinal 1+100+VitC]
Neopan 400 and TriX as 400. Hp5 as 320 [DDX 1+4/Clayton F76+ 1+9]

Otherwise try increasing your development tmes by 10% to increase the contrast or pop a #3.5-4 filter in your enlarger

They come out pretty good now in all combinations, what I'me after is not teh "greyish" tonality one aften can see, which is nice and sharp but to flat, dull for me. I like deep blacks and white whites .... I rather would print to dark than to light, maybe a bit of an old fashioned look.
What strikes me is whenever I see an imge I like on the web, they don't mention the combo they used, or only mention the fact that they use a rangefinder tape camera, hence my though process that it might have something to do with camera/lens combination.

But then again it dooms upon me that probably 99% of all B&W images to be found on the web are digitally manipulated, a thing I really don't want to get into, I like self printed prints , I like the result and I like the hobby as such but I would love to be able to focus further on my printing skills based on my "dream combo"

I realize the choice is very personal, but a starter here and there can be helpfull.

 

[Jan Cornelius]

Servus Frank

well apart from the fact that your father has a really interesting head, (reminds me of ernest hemmingway somehow, the expression, the wisdom and probably the stubborness)

I like that tonality, its not "arty farty" (pardon the expression) but its sort of harsh, it has body, it's rough but still a very gentle total view ... if you know what I mean .... hmmmm 🙂

 

[phototone]

Technically, you will not be able to tell the difference (with equal quality lenses) between a good 35mm SLR and a good 35mm RFDR camera in b/w prints or scanned images.

The difference is in how easy or how difficult it is to get the type of images you choose to shoot with each camera style (SLR or RFDR).

A modern interchangeable lens RFDR camera will be easier to focus (with the RFDR patch) in very low lighting conditions. Will be quieter (as a rule) than the typical digital or film SLR, and will be smaller and less conspicuous in street and candid photography.

You can pack a whole RFDR kit of Camera and many lenses in far less space than equivalent in SLR. The typical auto-focus zoom lens choices available to SLR shooters are inferior in several ways to even the modestly priced new RFDR lenses, not to mention the high-end Leica RFDR lenses, which are at the top of their field. Of course there are good prime lenses available in almost all SLR mounts (many in the used lens market), but fewer and fewer choices available new, as the general public gravitates towards the ubiquious zoom.

So...if you wish to excel at low-light, candid photography, not drawing undue attention to yourself. If you wish to shoot pictures right in the middle of the action, rather than from afar, then the RFDR style (either the digital or film), is the best choice.

 

[Jan Cornelius]

... another thing, I think I like uncoated lenses more than coated ones ....

 

[FrankS]

Jan, click on my Gallery link. All the photos I have posted are made with HP5+ developed in Ilfosol S or D76, an printed on Ilford MC RC paper.

 

[FrankS]

Jan, this would be the ticket, if you want a RF:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=86133#post86133

 

[kbg32]

I agree that it is not a rangefinder versus SLR situation, and with FrankS - there are no absolutes. I think what you're after has more to do with printing/darkroom technique. Many photographers I know develop their film quite normally, but each has a different paper/developer combination that they like, that gives them the results that they are after.

Keith

 

[Jan Cornelius]

Frank, thanks for the link, but the camera body is a 1960 (97xx number) Leica M2 in almost perfect condition. I bought that last monday.
The lens however I am still researching, I will eventually get a 50 and a 35 or 28 later, I dont know yet which type or model. Tryinf to find the right lens is somewhat more difficult as the possibilities are many.

 

[Jan Cornelius]

Frank, nice pictures nice tonation too, did you shoot HP5 at 400 ?