robglickman
Member
Yes, I set the film speed manually to 80
Richard G
Veteran
What focal length? Once you get to 28mm the amount of sky influencing exposure calculation by autoexposure Leicas leads to underexposure. At 50mm and usually also with 35mm lens I find it is fine to use autoexposure. Wider lenses I compensate by locking exposure pointing the camera down or I use manual.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
"Extended red" or "hyperpanchromatic", i.e. with extended sensitivity into the red and near infra-red, typical of films designed for silver halide "Gatso" cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Jake Mongey
Well-known
The spectral sensitivity of rollei retro 80s has no effect on the filter factor of a yellow filter
when it is used in daylight. I have been shooting retro 80s for my 365 and the only filter it seems to have an effect on is a red filter where its sensitivity will cause you to overexpose by at least a stop - sometimes far more.
My metering technique for the above yellow filter use is to take an incident reading at the subject at ISO 80 and then to apply the filter factor (1.5) and then shoot.
I believe it must be an issue with the meter in your camera or the technique used. Obviously I could be wrong here also. Retro 80s seems to have a relatively low exposure latitude and it is relatively easy to blow highlights and shadows so metering is important.
Maybe shoot a test roll of the same outdoors scene one with no filter and one with yellow fiilter and maybe a green filter and see if the meter gives consistent readings, then on the same roll repeat the filtered shots with an off camera meter and compensation. That might help point out the prolem
Good luck
when it is used in daylight. I have been shooting retro 80s for my 365 and the only filter it seems to have an effect on is a red filter where its sensitivity will cause you to overexpose by at least a stop - sometimes far more.
My metering technique for the above yellow filter use is to take an incident reading at the subject at ISO 80 and then to apply the filter factor (1.5) and then shoot.
I believe it must be an issue with the meter in your camera or the technique used. Obviously I could be wrong here also. Retro 80s seems to have a relatively low exposure latitude and it is relatively easy to blow highlights and shadows so metering is important.
Maybe shoot a test roll of the same outdoors scene one with no filter and one with yellow fiilter and maybe a green filter and see if the meter gives consistent readings, then on the same roll repeat the filtered shots with an off camera meter and compensation. That might help point out the prolem
Good luck
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jake,
You are of course quite right about the desirability of testing for yourself, but where you are wrong is that with your incident light reading you are NOT reading through the filter.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
If you have to use a lab ask them what films they develop. I would guess Ilford HP5+, Trix or TmaX 400. Like I said I live in bright California and also lived in worst bright Panama. I had to adjust my film speed and development (and agitation). But your lab should be able to compensate for these conditions.
You can shoot a roll with no filter to start. And then use your filter to see the difference. You will get there. Just ask questions on this forum and you will get good answers (these are good people here: no goofies).
Jake Mongey
Well-known
I mentioned I then applied the filter factor to the reading afterwards
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jake,
But you're not reading THROUGH the filter. Depending on the spectral sensitivity of the meter cell, this might make quite a difference.
To take an extreme example of a through-lens meter with very high red sensitivity, a deep red filter might have an 8x factor on film and as little as a 2x factor on the meter reading, resulting in a 2-stop under-exposure.
Cheers,
R.
Jake Mongey
Well-known
Okay, I understand that and I didnt inclide that. However what I was saying is that the spectral sensitivity of the film didnt seem to effect the filter factor when I took the image using that metering method with the default filter factor written on the factor. Obviously the OP`s filter density may vary but my point is that in those circumstances using the external meter the film didnt seem to alter the filter factor. I then suggested that they test to see how their meter reacts to this filter.
Is my point still valid here?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jake,
Only "sort of". Remember, we are looking at TWO filter factors with a TTL meter: the meter cell (as affected by the yellow filter) as well as the film (as affected by the yellow filter). If the two differ too much, then there can be exposure variations.
You were dealing only with the nominal filter factor on your meter, not with the actual filter factor on the meter cell.
I don't want to press this argument too strongly, because it really shouldn't matter. But it might. Even a stop of underexposure can show, and any more can be rather bad news.
Cheers,
R.
Jake Mongey
Well-known
Okay, I just wanted to check if my point still held any validility. With 80s one stop under can be very very bad as It handles underexposure awfully
pepeguitarra
Well-known
One of my favorite films.
One of my favorite films.
It provides a lot of contrast by itself. I try not to use any filter with it. I have gotten some pics like that when in strong sunlight.
Leica M6 + Summicron 50/2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Leica M6 + Summicron 50/2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Here are some that are ok:
6-RolleiRetro80S-Ilfotec024 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
The Night falls upon Berkeley by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Tall Ship in San Diego by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
One of my favorite films.
It provides a lot of contrast by itself. I try not to use any filter with it. I have gotten some pics like that when in strong sunlight.
Leica M6 + Summicron 50/2 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrLeica M6 + Summicron 50/2 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrHere are some that are ok:
6-RolleiRetro80S-Ilfotec024 by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrThe Night falls upon Berkeley by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrTall Ship in San Diego by Palenquero Photography, on FlickrHuss
Veteran
Huss
Veteran
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
What was new, again? Film and lab? Maybe this film was new for this lab as well?
Good suggestion was here to ask the lab to show the scans of negatives from bw films they already developed.
Good suggestion was here to ask the lab to show the scans of negatives from bw films they already developed.
robglickman
Member
Thanks for this ..
robglickman
Member
robglickman
Member
Thanks, this is very helpful ..
Decided to do a quick mock up of what I mean. This is gonna look like trash and a half because I just used the compressed copy of the jpeg you have on the post and made it huge so the marks are viewable - but I think the point comes across.
The red circle indicates where I'm taking the reading from (with my cursor) and the green line under the histogram is where the numerical value is displayed.
Again, there's no reason you have to do things this way - but it's what the image would look like with correctly printed shadows and highlights based on what you have. You could wring a little more range from it if you did a custom scan yourself and/or stacked a few exposures of the frame and/or messed with the midtones in your editing suite.
J enea
Established
if you shot the film at 80 then that also adds to the underexposure. RR80s in most developers is an EI 50 film. the only developer that I shoot it at 80 with is beutler and it gives amazing results. to me it looks under exposed and a little under developed. do you know what developer they use?
