sem
Registered User
sem
Registered User
ChrisN
Striving
Those first two, with the 150, are certainly crisp! I love the pentagonal highlights! Nice work for scans from prints - do you ever scan the negatives? Post a pic of the camera too, if you can. Cheers!
sem
Registered User
jan normandale
Film is the other way
That particular Rollei is an amazing camera. A friend has one and it's reputation is entirely justified. You will be a very happy photographer using the sl 66
sem
Registered User
Thanks Jan.
Here she comes! A bit heay, but real great fun to use and the developing of film is also a big pleasure to me.
I think there can be better Image than with the distagon, but it so great to use.
You see, I am very happy with the camera.
Thanks to Jeff Greene, who pointed the way to it.
Regards
sem
Here she comes! A bit heay, but real great fun to use and the developing of film is also a big pleasure to me.
I think there can be better Image than with the distagon, but it so great to use.
You see, I am very happy with the camera.
Thanks to Jeff Greene, who pointed the way to it.
Regards
sem
Attachments
Chris101
summicronia
Ah cool! I first encountered that camera in the mid seventies, and wanted one immediately! Maybe more than a Hassy. An industrial photographer was using a Rollei66 kit to shoot corrosion in turbines, and I was in love! Well, I couldn't afford one, and settled for a Mamiya 645, but the magical attraction remains to this day! Thanks for posting your pictures, it's like reminiscing about my first medium format love! 
I find that scans from negatives emphasize grain much more than do my print scans. Scanning from prints is also a 'scan-size-post' kind of process. With my negative scans it involves all that digital type, photoshopping.
Why do you prefer negative scans?
I find that scans from negatives emphasize grain much more than do my print scans. Scanning from prints is also a 'scan-size-post' kind of process. With my negative scans it involves all that digital type, photoshopping.
Why do you prefer negative scans?
ChrisN
Striving
Ah cool! I first encountered that camera in the mid seventies, and wanted one immediately! Maybe more than a Hassy. An industrial photographer was using a Rollei66 kit to shoot corrosion in turbines, and I was in love! Well, I couldn't afford one, and settled for a Mamiya 645, but the magical attraction remains to this day! Thanks for posting your pictures, it's like reminiscing about my first medium format love!
I find that scans from negatives emphasize grain much more than do my print scans. Scanning from prints is also a 'scan-size-post' kind of process. With my negative scans it involves all that digital type, photoshopping.
Why do you prefer negative scans?
Why do I prefer negative scans? Because I'm one of those poor under-priveleged sods that doesn't have a wet darkroom, or the skills to use one.
I hope to correct both those problems at some stage, but for now I'm tied to scanning negs.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
Did you crop the negatives? doesn't look square to me.
sem
Registered User
Yes, I croped the negative in the darkroom. The Format is the great chance to do this without loosing to much qualty.
sem
sem
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
sem: nice rig.
Chris: now is the time to jump into an enlarger. I bought my Saunders/LPL 670 for $99 (US) and put a mint Nikon 50mm/2.8 lens on it for $40. Its a pretty nice compact rig that can be easily stowed or used in a small space. There is nothing like BW on fiber-based paper. It is simply the best.
Chris: now is the time to jump into an enlarger. I bought my Saunders/LPL 670 for $99 (US) and put a mint Nikon 50mm/2.8 lens on it for $40. Its a pretty nice compact rig that can be easily stowed or used in a small space. There is nothing like BW on fiber-based paper. It is simply the best.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
sem: congrats, that is one lovely 6x6 SLR. That first portrait is the sharpest one from a Sonnar that I've seen
Chris101
summicronia
I don't have a darkroom either, but I do have two hundred bucks, and that what it costs to take a photography course at community college, were they not only let you use their darkroom, but teach you how!Why do I prefer negative scans? Because I'm one of those poor under-priveleged sods that doesn't have a wet darkroom, or the skills to use one.
I hope to correct both those problems at some stage, but for now I'm tied to scanning negs.
Oh, and when I'm not utilizing the cc's darkroom, I'm scanning my negatives too. Although I DO have an enlarger, but that's a far cry from a dark room eh?
sem
Registered User
Thanks Will. I have had read that the 150 isn t so sharp. So it was astonishing to me. Could be that is the Trix and Xtol mixed up with some rodinal.
Chris try it out, you will start your own darkroom. It is quite amazing, the pictures get quite a different look than scanning the negatives.
Have a lot of fun.
regards
sem
Chris try it out, you will start your own darkroom. It is quite amazing, the pictures get quite a different look than scanning the negatives.
Have a lot of fun.
regards
sem
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Scanning negs versus paper usually gives better shadow details in the scanned image.
I'm not saying it gives better shadow detail if you print it, than a wet print...
just on the monitor it does.
This might matter, or in some cases, might not matter at all.
I'm not saying it gives better shadow detail if you print it, than a wet print...
just on the monitor it does.
This might matter, or in some cases, might not matter at all.
sem
Registered User
Pherdinand,
if you use some very old fashoned Baryt Paper the tonality is great and the deepness of structure is quite different. In the end it is best, what you like best! And what is the biggest fun to you. I do both, but without scanner for 120 I do not have a choice.
Someone tryed the canon 8800f? And could tell the expereince with it? Please.
And I am still searching for the 80, 2.8 lens for the rolleiflex.
Regards
sem
if you use some very old fashoned Baryt Paper the tonality is great and the deepness of structure is quite different. In the end it is best, what you like best! And what is the biggest fun to you. I do both, but without scanner for 120 I do not have a choice.
Someone tryed the canon 8800f? And could tell the expereince with it? Please.
And I am still searching for the 80, 2.8 lens for the rolleiflex.
Regards
sem
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
yes, i'd definitely like to do that way myself, sem, for real prints.
I'm just not sure if it is better for scanning.
I'm just not sure if it is better for scanning.
ChrisN
Striving
Yes - you are all right! I have started down this road; I do own a B&W enlarger I bought for $20 at a flea-market, and some trays, two safelights, even a grain focuser, tongs, and a contact-printing frame. And I even have some paper and chemicals, and a couple of books that claim to tell me how. What I lack at the moment is somewhere to work, a dark room with water. I do have the room to build it, in the corner of my shed/workshop, but that is a harder project I've not yet begun. And I have been trying to get on to a fibre-based printing course with the local photo club for about 12 months - they keep cancelling it due to lack of participants. So I keep shooting, adding to my collection of negatives, scanning, and very occasionally getting a print from one of my scanned images. The day will come!