New Bessa R and a question or two. . .

[Bob B]

Hi, I purchased a new Bessa R (and the Skopar 35mm lens) here in NYC last week and have been having big fun taking photos around town. I've only gotten one roll processed so far (B&W takes a while these days), but I'm thrilled that I largely got the exposure and focus correct.

Question please about setting ISO ratings. I used some Kodak 800 color print film, and had to set the ISO dial to just short of 1000 since there is no ISO800 on the dial. Does that sound right?

Also I notice some of you say you rate Ilford XP2 at EI320. Does that mean you DON'T set the ISO to 400, but closer to 300, or does it mean you develop/have it processed diferently?

Today I get back rolls of XP2, TriX400, Kodak B&W C41, Neopan 1600, and some Color 800. I get one print and an CD with a scan of the print, though the quality is poor on the CD. I have to research photoscanners I suppose, if I stay in the rangefinder world. It certainly seems more freeing for shooting on the street than my Canon SLR. Of course if my shots are all junk it might slow me down a bit.

That's all for the moment, gotta go price a 50mm lens.

-Bob B

 

[Bob B]

Thanks ManGo for the ISO800 info but I'm still dense re EI320: Are people shooting XP2 at 320, in effect "overexposing" the film? That would agree with a friend of mine who used to like to shoot B&W at 0<+, on his manual camera, rather than get the exposure meter to a perfect zero.

Bob B

 

[childers-jk]

Bob,

Congrats on a great camera. If you are looking for a 50mm, I would suggest the Jupiter 8. I loved the way it handled, and the pics were awsome. As for exposure, I haven't shot B&W thru my R yet, but I did over expose all the color film I used. I would set the ISO to the film speed, but then in when metering, I would always overexose by 1/2 stop, which is really easy on the Bessa R. Anyway, I hoped this helped, and good luck.

 

[Bob B]

I just got 4 rolls of film developed and can see I got some experimenting to do. It's alot harder with film to figure out your settings and such while going through prints. While too dark is no good, shots with XP2 that are a bit overexposed gave a birthday party an especially stark look. It was an interesting treatment, but I don't know if the host will like them alot.

-Bob B


P.S. Yes, the camera is a lot fo fun, but see my other post on my new lens for a surprise I got when I went ot use it.

 

[Doug]

While too dark is no good, shots with XP2 that are a bit overexposed gave a birthday party an especially stark look. It was an interesting treatment, but I don't know if the host will like them alot.

Hard to assess the true nature of the negs when someone else is doing the printing! If you scan or print yourself, or find a more careful commercial printer, you'll better appreciate the richer results.

This "overexposure" suggestion is strictly for C-41 (color) process films; that is, any regular color print film and any "chromogenic" Black & White film. That latter includes Ilford XP2 Super, Fuji Neopan 400CN, and Kodak 400CN. Some users set their meters to 200 for these, some 320 or 400, and I use 'em at EI 250.

I expect the superior method would actually be to set the meter for the film's advertised "box" speed, then meter only the important shadows and close down 2 or 3 stops (according to experiment/experience). This way you will guarantee excellent printable shadows, and let the highlights fall where they may. It's nearly impossible to block up highlights in C41 negs anyway! ... BUT the printer sure can blow the highlights when making/messing-up your prints!

 

[Bob B]

Doug,
Maybe I'll experiment with metering the shadows and then stopping down. My two years of shooting with a digital SLR has me very careful not to blow the highlights. I guess the film world is different.
The XP2 and C41 Kodak stuff I got back seems like I did blow the highlights, but it made for an interesting effect. Still, it seemed like everything was black or white -- there were almost no greys.

http://www.pbase.com/plasma/inbox
In there are some of the phots I'm talking about.

Thanks for your feedback.

[I expect the superior method would actually be to set the meter for the film's advertised "box" speed, then meter only the important shadows and close down 2 or 3 stops (according to experiment/experience). This way you will guarantee excellent printable shadows, and let the highlights fall where they may. It's nearly impossible to block up highlights in C41 negs anyway! ... BUT the printer sure can blow the highlights when making/messing-up your prints![/QUOTE]

 

[peter_n]

Some great shots there Bob. Of the B&W I really like The Winter Garden if you did that with your new cam you don't have too much to worry about! I see the somewhat overexposed-looking B&W stuff at the end of that page. Maybe if you scanned those yourself they would probably be fine. I rate XP2 at 320 and get it developed at 400 and it's fine, BTW.

 

[Bob B]

Peter, thanks for looking, but only the B&W stuff was with the new Bessa and 35mm lens. I just put my new photos in my Pbase inbox and didn't have time to make a seperate Bessa gallery yet.
My "scans" are from the CD that the photolab returns to me with my prints. Down the road maybe I'll get a film scanner.

 

[Doug]

The XP2 and C41 Kodak stuff I got back seems like I did blow the highlights, but it made for an interesting effect. Still, it seemed like everything was black or white -- there were almost no greys.

http://www.pbase.com/plasma/inbox
In there are some of the phots I'm talking about.

Hi Bob -- The B&W shots all seem to be on an overcast day with even lighting... This could lead to a rather dull look to the scans, so I'll guess that the lab boosted contrast in scanning to liven them up! And in several instances scanned them too light as well. I think #13A and "Summertime II" for instance are not scanned too light, just a little too contrasty.

Better to have somewhat "dull" lower-contrast scans, as then there's at least plenty of tonal data recorded and you can tweak them yourself to your taste! You might discuss this issue with your lab supervisor and see what might be done.

 

[Bob B]

Doug,

It actually was a very sunny day, and the prints also have a very harsh, overly-contrasty way to them. I suppose it could be the lab.
I'm curious to see how the rolls of Tri-X look when they come back.
The color stuff all looks pretty "normal", like regular snapshots -- not art, but at least I generally got the exposure/focus correct. Maybe I lay off the slight overexposure, that I was going for for a while.

(With a wife and two young kids, I'm not ready to set up my own darkroom yet, but in a few years, if they still make film then, who knows. . . )

 

[MCTuomey]

I'm far more the RF newbie around here than most, Bob, but I'd thought I share a different view. My Bessa's metering sometimes shows a tendency to overexpose, so I run even C-41 films as rated. This works well for me with XP2 and Delta Pro. At times, I'll even compensate a stop if I feel I've harsh light.

Regarding a scanner, my path led me to buy an inexpensive dedicated 35mm scanner after listening to Doug and others' suggestions. MUCH more satisfying than the lab scans. My whole scanner kit cost less than $200 and runs on my old Win98SE wheezer.

 

[Richard Black]

Bob B,
Hi, and welcome to RFF. I find that it is helpful when assessing a new film to use a notebook to record some date on each frame. I set the meter to the rated ASA, old guy aren't I, and use it for several rolls. Since I live in a small city I get to know the labs here well and which ones do C41 B&W best. There are 4 labs and one does exceptional C41 B&W. Use some different labs and talk with the staff. You might get some good ideas and find one that will work with you on the scans. It is worth a try.

 

[Bob B]

Hi Mc and Richard,

Thanks for the welcome and the thoughts. Yeah, I think I need to keep a small pad handy to make exposure notes. I am also trying to test how slow I can hand-hold.

I am now exposing plain vanilla -- seting ISO to film speed, and shooting as the camera meter says to, except sometimes I'll meter off the shadows.

I probably get a cheap film scanner in a few weeks, if I ever take any photos that are any good. They're largely in focus, just boring. I wonder what lens fixes that <g>.

 

[ray_g]

Welcome, Bob. Have you tried comparing the Bessa's meter reading to your DSLR's?

 

[Bob B]

Ray,

What a thought! Too bad I'm going away for a few days and just don't have the room for the Bessa too. Of course some metering depends which mode I put the Canon 20D in. I think "partial" is the closest it has to spot. I believe the Bessa is either CWA (center weighted average, or spot with some extra metering for the area "north" of the spot. I'll have to check.

I'd just as soon take my Bessa and two lenses, but I don't have enough confidence with it yet and I know I can get some good shots (of kids and fireworks) with the Canon. I have learned something about focusing (hyper-focal, zone) since getting a rangefinder, and some of that will help me with the Canon.

Of course, some of this is all academic -- I mean I need to learn how the Bessa metering works with various films and then compensate accordingly depending on how I want the shot exposed. (That's why I got a RF camera -- to learn stuff that I don't think about much with an SLR. With an SLR I set the aperture and fire away.)

Welcome, Bob. Have you tried comparing the Bessa's meter reading to your DSLR's?

 

[Theo-Prof]

Doug,
Maybe I'll experiment with metering the shadows and then stopping down. My two years of shooting with a digital SLR has me very careful not to blow the highlights. I guess the film world is different.

[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the forum Bob. Digital is a lot like shooting slide film. With slide film you have to guard against overexposure unless you want blank film where the highlights should be. All C-41 process films (color and B&W) are designed to curtail development in the highlights, thus keeping the highlights in check. Overexposure (within reason) ensures good shadow detail while the design of the film keeps the highlights in a managable range.

With traditional process B&W films there is an old saying that you have to "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Ansel Adams' book "The Negative" is a very technical, though helpful explanation of this concept. You could also check out various other "zone system" books out there. It is difficult to do the "Zone System" with 35mm cameras (it was designed for sheet film, or cameras with interchangable backs where the entire roll could be developed for a particular contrast range). However, if you understand how the whole process of exposire and development effects the contrast of the negs, you could do experiments, varying exposure and development, until you found film ratings and processing techniques that work for you.

Kevin