Naumoski
Well-known
Hi everybody.
After quite a time of waiting, I finally managed to get the Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar. Along with it, I got Kodak GX 100 Slide film, so I'm showing here my first TLR/Rolleiflex/Slide roll.
First of all - it was fun.
Very easy loading film, no blank shots, very straight camera, just setting aperture/speed/focusing, and nothing more.
Handling and using the camera is easy, I need to get used to it, especially to focusing and getting right horizontals/verticals.
--
The photos are direct normal scans by photo lab, without editing (only resized).
The slides, actually, when pointed to a light source are much more vivid, contrasty and sharper.
Also, almost all photos are shot with open aperture f/3.5 @ 1/30th.
I expect to get sharper photos using smaller apertures and faster speeds.
_____________________
Only this one is on 1/125th @ 5.6, however it wasn't a steady shot.
--
The rest of the photos are all taken against light (windows / sun) so the lower contrast is expected. Also they are metered 'by eye', so are underexposed a bit.
----
And some technical problems..
Is this flare?
I don't know what's the black part of this photo.. ??
After quite a time of waiting, I finally managed to get the Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar. Along with it, I got Kodak GX 100 Slide film, so I'm showing here my first TLR/Rolleiflex/Slide roll.
First of all - it was fun.
Very easy loading film, no blank shots, very straight camera, just setting aperture/speed/focusing, and nothing more.
Handling and using the camera is easy, I need to get used to it, especially to focusing and getting right horizontals/verticals.
--
The photos are direct normal scans by photo lab, without editing (only resized).
The slides, actually, when pointed to a light source are much more vivid, contrasty and sharper.
Also, almost all photos are shot with open aperture f/3.5 @ 1/30th.
I expect to get sharper photos using smaller apertures and faster speeds.
_____________________
Only this one is on 1/125th @ 5.6, however it wasn't a steady shot.
--
The rest of the photos are all taken against light (windows / sun) so the lower contrast is expected. Also they are metered 'by eye', so are underexposed a bit.
----
And some technical problems..
Is this flare?
I don't know what's the black part of this photo.. ??
Naumoski
Well-known
I did a quick edit of two photos to make a comparison:
Mablo
Well-known
Hmm.. did you use hood? It does look like flare to me but at f/3.5 and no hood that would be sort of understandable. It could also be a development snafu (like that black part too) I think it's better you shoot another roll (maybe b&w this time) using more normal medium format apertures, something like f/8 to f/16 to be on the safe side.
Naumoski
Well-known
Mablo, thanx for the advice.
Obviously shooting against sunset @ 3.5 and 1/30th is not much clever. I don't have hood. I have Portra 160NC now in the camera, and I will try to close the aperture down to f/8 etc, using faster speeds and to shoot under normal condition to see what results I will have.
I will say again, the slides when pointed to a light are very contrasty, sharp and much much colorful, and I'm kinda confused by the scans...
mfogiel
Veteran
Scans or no scans, the shots have flare and could be exposed better. Try to get a lightmeter and a lens shade - if you do not find one, shoot with the sun at your back. Also, negative films will give you better exposure latitude.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Naumoski
Well-known
What is actually "haze in lens"?
Robert Lai
Well-known
I agree that your lens looks hazy. Haze is usually lubricant oil that has evaporated and condensed on the glass surfaces. This lubricant came from the shutter and diaphragm linkages. The easiest way to tell is to open the back of your camera, set the diaphragm to 3.5, set the shutter to "B", fire it, hold the shutter down (or use a locking cable release), and then look through the lens at a bright light. You should see nothing but a clear view with a good lens. You may see some specks of dust. In your case, I would expect a slightly foggy view through the lens.
You would need a professional repairman to disassemble, clean and reassemble this camera.
You would need a professional repairman to disassemble, clean and reassemble this camera.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Looks like some bad haze in the lens to me. The camera needs a good CLA.
kzphoto
Well-known
Do you have a filter on the Rollei? I had the same problem and I realize now that the filters haze really bad if you shoot into light.
Naumoski
Well-known
I forgot. As I remember on the most of the shots I used a Rolleipol -1.5 filter (with 0-18 scale), except on last several 2-3 photos which are made outside on sunset.
kzphoto
Well-known
Naumoski
Well-known
Thank you, I'll try that.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Unless it has had one recently a full is advisable. It sure looks like haze.
Naumoski
Well-known
Here are some photos from the Rolleiflex, made by the actual seller of the camera:
(i think that he didn't used the filter - as he told me).
DETAIL:
I have them in very high resolution.
What do you think?
(i think that he didn't used the filter - as he told me).
DETAIL:
I have them in very high resolution.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Look at a bright light through the filter. Is it cloudy looking?
Naumoski
Well-known
It's very dusty with bunch of dots and lines, it should be cleaned.
Brian Levy
Established
Best thing to do is to have the camera serviced unless the prior owner had done it recently. You then know the camera is within specs and more importantly - RELIABLE. If shooting at 1/30th at 3.5, the closing the aperature to f/8 will require a still slower speed, the opposite of what you are saying.
If not really familiar with the Sunny 16 rule and the use of the graph get a light meter. It need not be expensive. In monitoring the auction listings, there have been some excellent meters such as the Metrastar, which I use, in the $20 range. Practice evaluating the light conditions and then compare the result to the meter and with some time you'll find you can come within 1/3rd stop or so.
The Planar lens is an excellent lens and I think you'll find the results excellent. I'm getting reaquainted with my Rolleiflex and it is like an old friend. If I had to live with only one film camera, there would be no hesitation in settleing on a Rolleiflex even at the cost of losing my Leica and other very nice cameras.
If not really familiar with the Sunny 16 rule and the use of the graph get a light meter. It need not be expensive. In monitoring the auction listings, there have been some excellent meters such as the Metrastar, which I use, in the $20 range. Practice evaluating the light conditions and then compare the result to the meter and with some time you'll find you can come within 1/3rd stop or so.
The Planar lens is an excellent lens and I think you'll find the results excellent. I'm getting reaquainted with my Rolleiflex and it is like an old friend. If I had to live with only one film camera, there would be no hesitation in settleing on a Rolleiflex even at the cost of losing my Leica and other very nice cameras.
Naumoski
Well-known
Second roll: - Portra 160NC (expired 2005)/ the last light minutes of the day.
I can't stop myself shooting against light
Oh, I hate that this one didn't came up as I wanted. the wind was blowing very strong that day, so my eyes got wet from the wind (so I couldn't focus right), and my sister couldn't made a nostalgic look
I just resized the photos and clicked "auto contrast" on CS3, to fill the shadows a bit because I overexposed a bit by purpose.
I can't stop myself shooting against light
Oh, I hate that this one didn't came up as I wanted. the wind was blowing very strong that day, so my eyes got wet from the wind (so I couldn't focus right), and my sister couldn't made a nostalgic look
I just resized the photos and clicked "auto contrast" on CS3, to fill the shadows a bit because I overexposed a bit by purpose.
Last edited:
Naumoski
Well-known
I forgot this one:
f5.6 @ 1/15th, handheld.
f5.6 @ 1/15th, handheld.