How did this happen? M7, Yellow Filter, Rollei 80s

[robglickman]

From bhphoto:

"Rollei's Retro 80S is a slow-speed panchromatic black and white negative film with extended near-infrared sensitivity to 775nm. This additional red sensitivity helps to cut through haze or fog and also smooth skin tones and blemishes, making it ideal for portraiture. It has a nominal sensitivity of ISO 80/20° and is characterized by a fine grain structure and broad tonal range."

Also- did u set the film speed correctly on your M7? I don't think this film has DX coding (I may be wrong) and so if u did not set it manually, the default setting would have resulted in underexposure.

Yes, I set the film speed manually to 80

 

[Richard G]

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]

Thanks Roger, but what is "traffic film" ?

"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]

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

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

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]

Thanks for your reply .. What film would you suggest for Israel or any bright, desert type of environment?

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]

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.

I mentioned I then applied the filter factor to the reading afterwards

 

[Roger Hicks]

I mentioned I then applied the filter factor to the reading afterwards

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]

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.

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]

. . . Is my point still valid here?

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Huss]

Nice write up using the film:

https://mrleica.com/2015/06/01/rollei-retro-80s-film/

 

[Huss]

Also this provides some nice dev information with samples:

http://filmdev.org/film/show/1071?page=1

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

 

[robglickman]

Thanks for this ..

 

[robglickman]

Here are some other shots from last year in Colorado ..
Same film, same filter, same lens - but a Leica MP.
Also, used a different lab ..
Completely different results ..

 

[robglickman]

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]

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?

 

[robglickman]

a few more ..