Photos taken with the Argus C4

[raid]

I took some photos of one of my daughters with a nice looking Argus C4 using the normal lens. My goal was getting vintage looking images. I used a roll of Fuji800, rated at 400. Light was provided by the window. I must have used slow exposures since several images came out [nicely] blurred, even though the film is fast.

Here are 24 images from the roll:
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=784097

I like the resulting effect. The lens is not too sharp but gives pleasing images. At least, this is what I think.

 

[burninfilm]

Raid, I've gotta be honest with you here, but the results look very soft. In fact, you'd likely get equal or better results from a low-end disposable camera. At least, that is if you are wanting some very interesting "vintage" type photos. For some reasion, it seems that the term "vintage" is being used to refer to images low in contrast, high in distortion, lacking in sharpness, and susceptible to vignetting (or any combination of these factors). You could get this same effect with low quality modern cameras.

 

[raid]

Raid, I've gotta be honest with you here, but the results look very soft. In fact, you'd likely get equal or better results from a low-end disposable camera. At least, that is if you are wanting some very interesting "vintage" type photos. For some reasion, it seems that the term "vintage" is being used to refer to images low in contrast, high in distortion, lacking in sharpness, and susceptible to vignetting (or any combination of these factors). You could get this same effect with low quality modern cameras.

Honesty in a critique is what helps a photographer better understand the results. I also saw the softness and I was surprised. I wanted a different look, but this is the first roll of film through this camera, and the shutter speeds chosen were quite slow. :bang:

Still, I wanted to share with you the results.
Thanks for being honest.

 

[aad]

2 and 4 are fine, but 1 and 3 are beautiful, and would do any photographer/camera proud even if he wasn't the model's father. I doubt they would be improved in a meaningful way by any camera.

 

[burninfilm]

Raid, it was no problem at all to be honest. I'm just glad you didn't take my post in a negative way, as it wasn't meant that way at all. I have always liked the fact that you get out and actually use the equipment you find. It's just that in this particular case, the uniform softness, to me at least, doesn't necessarily lend itself to a "vintage" look. And, in fact, I know for certain that the lens on the C4 is capable of better results, even wide open.

Also you stated that you had used the standard lens for this series. Do you have a Geiss modified C4 with the other lenses?

 

[raid]

Raid, it was no problem at all to be honest. I'm just glad you didn't take my post in a negative way, as it wasn't meant that way at all. I have always liked the fact that you get out and actually use the equipment you find. It's just that in this particular case, the uniform softness, to me at least, doesn't necessarily lend itself to a "vintage" look. And, in fact, I know for certain that the lens on the C4 is capable of better results, even wide open.

Also you stated that you had used the standard lens for this series. Do you have a Geiss modified C4 with the other lenses?

I don't recall whether I used the 100mm/4.5 or the 50mm/3.5 on the Geis modified C-4, but I think that it was the normal lens. I will follow up on this camera and the two lenses with a carefully executed photo session.
The relaxed mood came across quite well in some of the images. I would not totally write off the taken photos.
I frequently experiment in photography, with the goal to achieve something that looks different from what I get from a Summicron or Zeiss lens.

Sometimes, one excellent image is worth the entire roll of film. I like the first and the third posted images a lot. You may not view them as good images, but we may have different tastes in photography. This is perfectly fine. I enjoy getting feedback of any sort. Cheerleading is not fun after a while.

 

[radiocemetery]

Raid,

I like the pix. I took some shots with my C4 and have been very pleased with the results. Soft is good sometimes too. The Cintar lens is quite capable in my opinion. I have gotten some sharp images with mine. With the C4 it is possible that the focus ring that you adjust, (the ring that surrounds the viewfinder window and indexes to the lens body) has gone out of register with the lens. This happened to me. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Steve

 

[raid]

Raid,

I like the pix. I took some shots with my C4 and have been very pleased with the results. Soft is good sometimes too. The Cintar lens is quite capable in my opinion. I have gotten some sharp images with mine. With the C4 it is possible that the focus ring that you adjust, (the ring that surrounds the viewfinder window and indexes to the lens body) has gone out of register with the lens. This happened to me. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Steve

Hello Steve,
You may have hit on the point of possible error; I am still not used to correctly mount the lens on the camera such that the RF works correctly. It may have been one of the reasons why the images are soft. Thanks!

 

[vdonovan]

I think images 1 and 3 illustrate nicely how a good photograph is about much more than the equipment that took it. Raid has such a dramatic sense of composition that I bet he could shoot a keeper if he went out with roll of tri-x and a pocket magnifying glass.

 

[raid]

Donovan,
Thank you for these kind words. I just talk to her, and let her do what she wants to do. All I do is take photos.

 

[burninfilm]

Raid, I believe what radiocemetery was referring to is somewhat different than mounting or un-mounting Geiss C4 lenses properly. The C4 uses a rangefinder assembly that screws down onto the die-cast chassis, and if these screws loosen, the whole rangefinder unit (including the knurled adjustment wheel that meshes with the focusing ring around the lens) can acquire some "slop". The result of this is that the knurled wheel and the focus ring can skip teeth, causing the rangefinder to get out of adjustment.

With the Geiss modified C4, this problem still remains. However, as you have stated, getting the lenses properly mounted is something else to be aware of. Fortunately, this is a simple affair. Just be sure that the distance scale on the adjustment wheel is lined up with the infinity mark, and that the lens to be mounted is also set for infinity. Now, swing up the small lever on the front of the camera body, seat the lens in place, and swing the lever down to lock the lens in place. For the standard 50mm Cintar, you don't have a distance scale on the lens to refer to. To set this lens to infinity, you need to be sure that two small red marks on the back of the lens are lined up.

I do wonder if you had the lens mounted properly, since your final photo shows the closest portion of your daughter's arm to be much sharper than the rest of the photograph. However, if you were using slow speeds and your daughter was moving, any analysis of sharpness is basically worthless. I do maintain that the Cintar should have performed better in this situation. The lightly hazed Leitz Summar (a lens commonly avoided due to concerns about low performance) that I've been shooting lately produces better results than these, and it's also being used wide open at f2.0. I'm fully aware that sharpness doesn't define whether a photograph is good or bad, and you don't have to look very far for solid evidence of this fact (just pick up a book about Robert Frank or Robert Capa photographs from the 1940's or 1950's). Furthermore, I do understand that "good" can be a subjective term relying solely on one's opinion. However, I feel that in this particular situation, sharper photographs would have actually improved the final result.

 

[raid]

Thanks

Thanks

Raid, I believe what radiocemetery was referring to is somewhat different than mounting or un-mounting Geiss C4 lenses properly. The C4 uses a rangefinder assembly that screws down onto the die-cast chassis, and if these screws loosen, the whole rangefinder unit (including the knurled adjustment wheel that meshes with the focusing ring around the lens) can acquire some "slop". The result of this is that the knurled wheel and the focus ring can skip teeth, causing the rangefinder to get out of adjustment.

With the Geiss modified C4, this problem still remains. However, as you have stated, getting the lenses properly mounted is something else to be aware of. Fortunately, this is a simple affair. Just be sure that the distance scale on the adjustment wheel is lined up with the infinity mark, and that the lens to be mounted is also set for infinity. Now, swing up the small lever on the front of the camera body, seat the lens in place, and swing the lever down to lock the lens in place. For the standard 50mm Cintar, you don't have a distance scale on the lens to refer to. To set this lens to infinity, you need to be sure that two small red marks on the back of the lens are lined up.

I do wonder if you had the lens mounted properly, since your final photo shows the closest portion of your daughter's arm to be much sharper than the rest of the photograph. However, if you were using slow speeds and your daughter was moving, any analysis of sharpness is basically worthless. I do maintain that the Cintar should have performed better in this situation. The lightly hazed Leitz Summar (a lens commonly avoided due to concerns about low performance) that I've been shooting lately produces better results than these, and it's also being used wide open at f2.0. I'm fully aware that sharpness doesn't define whether a photograph is good or bad, and you don't have to look very far for solid evidence of this fact (just pick up a book about Robert Frank or Robert Capa photographs from the 1940's or 1950's). Furthermore, I do understand that "good" can be a subjective term relying solely on one's opinion. However, I feel that in this particular situation, sharper photographs would have actually improved the final result.

Thanks for the tips. I may have more than one problems confounded with each other. The RF could be out of whack and the lens monting may have been incorrect. I got into using the Argus after seeing some excellent work [with very sharp images] by someone at PN. I was stunned by his B&W photos.

Cheers,

 

[leica M2 fan]

No matter what, Raid.

No matter what, Raid.

There is one that is a keeper from this roll. It is in your link and it is in the last row of pictures, 3rd from the left. It is very,very good. For me it's the best of all. There are others but this one is a definite keep. So not all was lost on this roll.

 

[raid]

Thanks

Thanks

There is one that is a keeper from this roll. It is in your link and it is in the last row of pictures, 3rd from the left. It is very,very good. For me it's the best of all. There are others but this one is a definite keep. So not all was lost on this roll.

Not all is lost. This is certainly good to know. I am satisfied with a few good images from such experimental set-up. Thanks.