Makina 67 - first roll

[eddy1123]

Hi guys

In short I am extremely happy with the purchase. It sure looks sharp to me even wide open. Below are couple examples.

I do have one question though. If you look at my daughters photo, half of her face is way over exposed and irrecoverable in post. I ran across couple YouTube videos saying that color neg can overexpose for 5 stops and still retain highlight so I tend to protect the shallow when I meter a shot.

So perhaps it is over 5 stops over exposed or is it the lab who scanned the photo that made the highlight not recoverable ? It was scanned using Epson v800 (I think or 850) and in TIFF but only 8 bit.

What should I request of lab when I do my next scan to ensure max latitude for post ?

Thanks so much.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eddy1123]

And one more question. Is it the general consensus that superposed image focusing (makina 67) is much easier than the split which my rolleiflex 2.8fx is using? Because I find it much harder to nail the focus on my rollei. For makina I nailed 100 percent a where rollei only about 60 percent. Not sure if there is a problem with the rollei


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[keytarjunkie]

Great first images!

Sure, there is probably information in the highlights that’s been clipped in this scan. Labs want to deliver a good looking final result but probably aren’t taking the time on each image that you would if you scanned it yourself. Maybe you could ask for flatter files, which would save more information in the highlights and shadows. It’s possible your lab won’t be flexible on this though.

 

[Highway 61]

16 bits are mandatory if you want headroom enough to recover highlights on the Tiff files. Also it all depends on the scanner presets. They, at the lab, must apply a linear histogram so that you can do whatever you want in post, as the previous poster said. As a result they would deliver flat, dull images, which is something they won't want to, because most of their customers will want to get some popping colors to just look at their photos on a mobile device screen.

Besides, the scans show quite an unpleasant brown-pink (dare I say, muddy) tint.

Having the films developed and delivered then scanning them yourself at home will be more satisfying in all cases. Were the color films either C41 or E6.

For using the split image screen of the Rolleiflex focusing screen at its best : the trick is to use the folding loupe to focus but to look through it at a distance, so that the split image circle is magnified, then to quickly fold the loupe back and take the photo.

If you are into 40% focusing problems with the Rolleiflex focusing screen, which sounds odd, you might want to check whether the screen is installed properly, and not installed upside down. The two etched half-prisms of the split image center circle must face the mirror not your eyes ; and the even, flat side of the screen must be up, not facing the mirror.

 

[eddy1123]

Great first images!

Sure, there is probably information in the highlights that's been clipped in this scan. Labs want to deliver a good looking final result but probably aren't taking the time on each image that you would if you scanned it yourself. Maybe you could ask for flatter files, which would save more information in the highlights and shadows. It's possible your lab won't be flexible on this though.

Thanks will request for that for my next roll.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Hi guys

In short I am extremely happy with the purchase. It sure looks sharp to me even wide open. Below are couple examples.

I do have one question though. If you look at my daughters photo, half of her face is way over exposed and irrecoverable in post. I ran across couple YouTube videos saying that color neg can overexpose for 5 stops and still retain highlight so I tend to protect the shallow when I meter a shot.

So perhaps it is over 5 stops over exposed or is it the lab who scanned the photo that made the highlight not recoverable? It was scanned using Epson v800 (I think or 850) and in TIFF but only 8 bit.

What should I request of lab when I do my next scan to ensure max latitude for post?

Thanks so much.

Firstly: don't believe everything you read on the internet. "Five stops of overexposure" sounds to me like a mantra preached to hipsters who can't, or won't, learn how to meter accurately. Even if that were true, why would one not want to get best possible results by accurately setting exposure? My suggestion is to use a decent light meter, preferably an incident type, and to shoot a bit of transparency. Achieving competence in exposing transparencies properly will make exposing C-41 films easy. As a bonus you can project it, too.

The Epsons are able to write 16 bit tiff files. If you're getting tiffs, they may as well be 16 bit depth, it's just a different option from the same Epson Scan menu.

All that said, I think Nikolas makes a good point. Yes there are some overexposed highlights in those pics, but for the most part not badly enough that they could not be improved in e.g. Photoshop--given some decent files, with which to work.

If Epson Scan was being used its auto adjustments may do a reasonable job of converting the frame to positive, but will by default tend to clip highlights and shadows, and often inconsistently across the RGB channels. To get decent results it's necessary to manually adjust white, black and midtone sliders to get more dynamic range from a frame. If this is not done then the result is of course "baked in". The frame may have a lot more highlight detail available but if the scan process clipped it, the only way to access it is to re-scan properly.

I have a 67 Makina here I have been asked to sell. Odd piece of kit. Once I have had a chance to replace the light seals I'll have to shoot a test roll through it. Its Nikkor lens is said to be quite good. It was interesting to see your images.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[eddy1123]

16 bits are mandatory if you want headroom enough to recover highlights on the Tiff files. Also it all depends on the scanner presets. They, at the lab, must apply a linear histogram so that you can do whatever you want in post, as the previous poster said. As a result they would deliver flat, dull images, which is something they won't want to, because most of their customers will want to get some popping colors to just look at their photos on a mobile device screen.

Besides, the scans show quite an unpleasant brown-pink (dare I say, muddy) tint.

Having the films developed and delivered then scanning them yourself at home will be more satisfying in all cases. Were the color films either C41 or E6.

For using the split image screen of the Rolleiflex focusing screen at its best : the trick is to use the folding lupe to focus but to look through it at a distance, so that the split image circle is magnified, then to quickly fold the lupe back and take the photo.

If you are into 40% focusing problems with the Rolleiflex focusing screen, which sounds odd, you might want to check whether the screen is installed properly, and not installed upside down. The two etched half-prisms of the split image center circle must face the mirror not your eyes ; and the even, flat side of the screen must be up, not facing the mirror.

The lab that I went is for the mass so yes it is probably applying some sort of preset to make it more pleasant.

Thanks for the Rollei tip. I will check if the screen is installed correctly. But that aside, I find it difficult to focus because I focus a lot on the split screen, and at the same time just recently, I figured out that I cannot only rely on that because that is only one spot and sometimes it is hard to tell to be honest, and the whole prism gives some indication on if the photo is in focus. I have had wide open and in focus and sometimes at f4 I don't get the focus. The technique you mentioned is new to me but I'll try. Thanks.

Below is an example at wide open or maybe 3.2 or 3.5 which is in focus I think.

 

[eddy1123]

Firstly: don't believe everything you read on the internet. "Five stops of overexposure" sounds to me like a mantra preached to hipsters who can't, or won't, learn how to meter accurately. Even if that were true, why would one not want to get best possible results by accurately setting exposure? My suggestion is to use a decent light meter, preferably an incident type, and to shoot a bit of transparency. Achieving competence in exposing transparencies properly will make exposing C-41 films easy. As a bonus you can project it, too.

The Epsons are able to write 16 bit tiff files. If you're getting tiffs, they may as well be 16 bit depth, it's just a different option from the same Epson Scan menu.

All that said, I think Nikolas makes a good point. Yes there are some overexposed highlights in those pics, but for the most part not badly enough that they could not be improved in e.g. Photoshop--given some decent files, with which to work.

If Epson Scan was being used its auto adjustments may do a reasonable job of converting the frame to positive, but will by default tend to clip highlights and shadows, and often inconsistently across the RGB channels. To get decent results it's necessary to manually adjust white, black and midtone sliders to get more dynamic range from a frame. If this is not done then the result is of course "baked in". The frame may have a lot more highlight detail available but if the scan process clipped it, the only way to access it is to re-scan properly.

I have a 67 Makina here I have been asked to sell. Odd piece of kit. Once I have had a chance to replace the light seals I'll have to shoot a test roll through it. Its Nikkor lens is said to be quite good. It was interesting to see your images.
Cheers,
Brett

In my opinion you should definitely give it a run. Although I don't have much film experience, so far I think it is an excellent purchase. Focusing is easy and spot on and for those who said the sharpness is not comparable to Mamiya 7 I do not know because I do not own one but for sure it is sharp enough for me even wide open. I know sharpness is not everything but so far the rendering is more pleasing than my Rolleiflex FX. Think it is worth a run.

 

[ka7197]

... those who said the sharpness is not comparable to Mamiya 7 ...

... should probably look up the word 'comparable' in an English dictionary.

The Nikkor 80 mm 1:2.8 and the Mamiya N 80 mm 1:4 L sure are comparable. Unfortunately I am not aware of any direct comparisons (except the one at 35mmc.com but that compares the cameras more than the lenses, and highly subjectively so). I cannot compare them myself because I only have the Mamiya ... which I am happy with. Judging from hearsay, it seems the Mamiya N 80 L is sharper but by a very small margin only. On the other hand, the Nikkor 80 is said to have the smoother, nicer, more harmonious rendition.

I don't know if any of these allegations are true. In any case, both 80 mm lenses are very good and their performance differences, if any, are minuscule. The differences in the cameras are much more significant from a real-world user's point of view — the Makina 67 is slimmer and faster; the Mamiya 7 offers exchangeable lenses (from 43 mm to 210 mm).

 

[Prest_400]

Firstly: don't believe everything you read on the internet. "Five stops of overexposure" sounds to me like a mantra preached to hipsters who can't, or won't, learn how to meter accurately. Even if that were true, why would one not want to get best possible results by accurately setting exposure? My suggestion is to use a decent light meter, preferably an incident type, and to shoot a bit of transparency. Achieving competence in exposing transparencies properly will make exposing C-41 films easy. As a bonus you can project it, too.
Cheers,
Brett

It's something that greatly amuses me. For some reason, density correction and Frontier+Noritsu scanners are able to bring beautiful results from overexposed Portra, but when I tried with an Epson V600 it seemed to suffer in highly dense (highlight) areas. I'd say caveat, because many of the airy overexposed results are from lab machines that make that much more doable.

I'd second shooting transparency. There's a simple beauty on medium format slide. A bit impractical (no darkroom printing pipeline) but always has something to it. People say it's hard to shoot because, d'oh, you have to meter properly.

As of lens sharpness, there's an old (2004) series of tests in which many cameras have been tested. Amongst the top performers are Mamiya 7, Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. Makina scores quite highly. However, there's much more than mere lp/mm resolution in photography.

 

[jawarden]

As of Lens Sharpness, there's an old (2004) series of tests in which many cameras have been tested. Amongst the top performers are Mamiya 7, Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. Makina scores quite highly. However, there's much more than mere lp/mm resolution in photography.

Yes I think if a photographer is having sharpness issues with any of the top tier cameras (assuming good technique and a properly serviced camera) it's more of an issue of needing a larger format rather than another medium format camera. All those cameras mentioned are excellent.

 

[Skiff]

Firstly: don't believe everything you read on the internet. "Five stops of overexposure" sounds to me like a mantra preached to hipsters who can't, or won't, learn how to meter accurately. Even if that were true, why would one not want to get best possible results by accurately setting exposure? My suggestion is to use a decent light meter, preferably an incident type, and to shoot a bit of transparency. Achieving competence in exposing transparencies properly will make exposing C-41 films easy. As a bonus you can project it, too.

Cheers,
Brett

Exactly, Brett. You're spot on.

Overexposing color negative film by 5 stops results in
- less highlight detail compared to normal correct exposure
- color shifts
- much less sharpness and resolution (because of diffusion/halation effects)
- and you are losing horribly much speed, of course.

And yes, a good light meter and correct exposure is the best practice.
And transparency film the best learning tool for correct exposure. And furthermore with transparency film you get this unique 3-dimensional effect by viewing with a good slide loupe and in projection. And the unsurpassed color brilliance. And better sharpness, resolution and finer grain compared to negative film. And lower costs per shot, because you don't need any scans or prints (which are a must with negative film).
A friend of mine is shooting almost exclusively Provia 100F and Velvia 50 with a Makina 67. The slides are absolutely outstanding!

 

[Skiff]

I'd second shooting transparency. There's a simple beauty on medium format slide. A bit impractical (no darkroom printing pipeline) but always has something to it.

It is just the other way round. It is more practical:
- no darkroom needed
- no scanner needed
- no additional costs after developing

Just put it on the light table and view with a good slide loupe or project it and you have perfect results! 1000x better than any picture (digital or scanned film) on a computer monitor (which generally deliver the worst quality of all photographic viewing mediums).

People say it's hard to shoot because, d'oh, you have to meter properly.

People who are too stupid to use a light meter say that 😛.

 

[Dan Daniel]

And one more question. Is it the general consensus that superposed image focusing (makina 67) is much easier than the split which my rolleiflex 2.8fx is using? Because I find it much harder to nail the focus on my rollei. For makina I nailed 100 percent a where rollei only about 60 percent. Not sure if there is a problem with the rollei


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could be that the Rollei lenses are not aligned so that the viewing lens focus matches the taking lens focus.

Another issue is the way that a TLR is held and what happens after you focus on the split circle. It is typical that after focusing with the desired subject in the center of the screen, you will re-frame the shot. With a camera held up to your eye, this is often just a minor movement of the camera body. With a TLR, held away from the face as it is, there is more tendency to move the camera in space enough to change focus if you are dealing with close objects.

When I was buying a Maxwell screen, Bill Maxwell made a point of finding out how I shot. He discourages the split circle focus aid on people who work at closer distances and wider apertures because of this issue. Not that it can't be done, but you need to be aware of it.

I would say that if the focus is off at close distances, it might be the re-framing issue. If it is off at farther distances, it might be an alignment/sync issue between the two lenses.

'Might' in both cases. Careful tests on a tripod mounted camera, or collimation of both lenses.

 

[eddy1123]

Could be that the Rollei lenses are not aligned so that the viewing lens focus matches the taking lens focus.

Another issue is the way that a TLR is held and what happens after you focus on the split circle. It is typical that after focusing with the desired subject in the center of the screen, you will re-frame the shot. With a camera held up to your eye, this is often just a minor movement of the camera body. With a TLR, held away from the face as it is, there is more tendency to move the camera in space enough to change focus if you are dealing with close objects.

When I was buying a Maxwell screen, Bill Maxwell made a point of finding out how I shot. He discourages the split circle focus aid on people who work at closer distances and wider apertures because of this issue. Not that it can't be done, but you need to be aware of it.

I would say that if the focus is off at close distances, it might be the re-framing issue. If it is off at farther distances, it might be an alignment/sync issue between the two lenses.

'Might' in both cases. Careful tests on a tripod mounted camera, or collimation of both lenses.

Thanks.

When I first got the Rollei in 2010, the two rolls that I shot, the first was sharp in every frame, and second it was a pure mistake that I used 1/30 in shade that most were not in focus due to camera movement. And after these many years, I shot with it again and found my focus is off about 40 percent of the time. But I also figured out that the way I was focusing was not quite right - I relied 100 percent on the center split focus to confirm my focus. In theory it should work but the fact for me is that sometimes it is hard to tell if the split is actually aligned especially if in a dimmer environment - not sure what prism my Rollie came with but for sure it is not too bright.

I have recently conducted a test where I relied purely on the split center focus and when I think the subject is in focus, I actually measure the distance from the camera to the object and sometimes it is obviously that I am off. Then I realized if I confirm the focus using the area outside the center split focus (when it appears in focus), and then only use the center to reconfirm if my focus needs any fine tuning, then measure the distance, the distance is consistent with what it says on the camera. I just recently discovered this and will try a roll with this technique.

I find the split focus can appear confusing when your view angel is a bit off, that it may look in focus but it's actually not and if you adjust your viewing angle through the magnifier, it gives a different result. So for anyone who has experience, please let me know if focusing using the outer area then only to reconfirm with the center split is the right way.

 

[eddy1123]

... should probably look up the word 'comparable' in an English dictionary.

The Nikkor 80 mm 1:2.8 and the Mamiya N 80 mm 1:4 L sure are comparable. Unfortunately I am not aware of any direct comparisons (except the one at 35mmc.com but that compares the cameras more than the lenses, and highly subjectively so). I cannot compare them myself because I only have the Mamiya ... which I am happy with. Judging from hearsay, it seems the Mamiya N 80 L is sharper but by a very small margin only. On the other hand, the Nikkor 80 is said to have the smoother, nicer, more harmonious rendition.

I don't know if any of these allegations are true. In any case, both 80 mm lenses are very good and their performance differences, if any, are minuscule. The differences in the cameras are much more significant from a real-world user's point of view — the Makina 67 is slimmer and faster; the Mamiya 7 offers exchangeable lenses (from 43 mm to 210 mm).

Thanks.

I am not really too crazy about the whole sharpness thing, and so far I like what I see from the Makina.

One should take it as a grain of salt that the link below (I don't know how creditable it is nor do I know the person) provides a resolution test, that my friend shared with me when I was deciding if I should go for the Makina. Just for reference, I am not trying to justify either way. Plus I am happy with the Makina.

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

 

[jawarden]

Thanks.


One should take it as a grain of salt that the link below (I don't know how creditable it is nor do I know the person) provides a resolution test, that my friend shared with me when I was deciding if I should go for the Makina. Just for reference, I am not trying to justify either way. Plus I am happy with the Makina.

Looks like the tester could tell there was something mechanically wrong with the Makina being tested, like the lens wasn't parallel with the film? Perhaps a dropped camera or something.

 

[ka7197]

... and so far I like what I see from the Makina.

That's all what counts.

One should take it as a grain of salt that the link below [...] provides a resolution test ...

Grain of salt indeed! It seems to provide another point of evidence for the narrative of the Mamiya N 80 mm L being sharper than the Nikkor 80 mm (which as a Mamiya 7 user makes me smile) ... but then, on the other hand, the actual numbers must not be taken too seriously. For example, those test results suggest the N 80 mm L was even better than the N 50 mm L while other sources report the opposite (i. e. "N 80 L very good, N 50 L even better"). Also, even if the N 80 mm L really was sharper than the Nikkor 80 mm, the difference cannot possibly be that huge as these lp/mm numbers suggest.

So — if you enjoy using the Plaubel Makina 67 and like the results from the Nikkor 80 mm lens then there is absolutely no reason to drool over Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads, or Mamiyas. (Now, if only I could listen to my own advice and stop drooling over the Makina 67 ... 🙄 )

 

[yossi]

@eddy1123,

I reckon that your images could be enhanced thru post processing. Out of curiosity, I tried adjusting one of them in Lightroom (my apology if you are offended.)

Attached below just for comparison:

yossi

 

[Mooshoepork]

What kind of lab scans with a v800? There’s your problem. That’s a home scanner.