david.elliott
Well-known
Hello,
It took me quite a while but I finally acquired all of the rolleinars for my rolleiflex 2.8D. The Rolleinar 3 was the most difficult to find and has proved to be the most difficult to use (although I have only taken one roll with it). There is essentially only an inch in which one may focus.
My first roll was taken on delta 100 and developed in rodinal 1:50. Thought I would share my favorite photos from the roll with you. Havent seen many other threads focusing on rolleinars around here.
All of the photos are from a quick walk around the neighborhood. Each photo was taken at f8 or f11. Even stopped down that far, one can see that there is not too much depth of field. The rolleiflex gives some pretty wacky pentagon bokeh when dealing with point light sources at this aperture. I was too worried that shooting wide open would give me practically no depth of field - and I think I was right. I might give some wide open shots a try anyway with the next roll.
Cheers,
David
A single leaf on top of a wooden pylon.
There were two of these huge mushrooms by the side of the road in my neighborhood. Each was about a foot across. I took a photo of this one because it looked like somebody took a large bite out of the other.
This tiny little plant was springing out of the mulch. It, and the surrounding plane of mulch, are the only objects in focus. I had to crawl under a bench and practically lie down on the ground to grab this shot. Perhaps it is aspiring to best the large tree behind it? You can see some of the wacky bokeh here.
Just loving the tones in this photo. Delta 100 is wonderful stuff. I can make the tones smooth or very contrasty. Great film!
Something about naturally occurring simplicity or minimalist subject matter really appeals to me. I am always drawn to it.
It took me quite a while but I finally acquired all of the rolleinars for my rolleiflex 2.8D. The Rolleinar 3 was the most difficult to find and has proved to be the most difficult to use (although I have only taken one roll with it). There is essentially only an inch in which one may focus.
My first roll was taken on delta 100 and developed in rodinal 1:50. Thought I would share my favorite photos from the roll with you. Havent seen many other threads focusing on rolleinars around here.
All of the photos are from a quick walk around the neighborhood. Each photo was taken at f8 or f11. Even stopped down that far, one can see that there is not too much depth of field. The rolleiflex gives some pretty wacky pentagon bokeh when dealing with point light sources at this aperture. I was too worried that shooting wide open would give me practically no depth of field - and I think I was right. I might give some wide open shots a try anyway with the next roll.
Cheers,
David
A single leaf on top of a wooden pylon.
There were two of these huge mushrooms by the side of the road in my neighborhood. Each was about a foot across. I took a photo of this one because it looked like somebody took a large bite out of the other.
This tiny little plant was springing out of the mulch. It, and the surrounding plane of mulch, are the only objects in focus. I had to crawl under a bench and practically lie down on the ground to grab this shot. Perhaps it is aspiring to best the large tree behind it? You can see some of the wacky bokeh here.
Just loving the tones in this photo. Delta 100 is wonderful stuff. I can make the tones smooth or very contrasty. Great film!
Something about naturally occurring simplicity or minimalist subject matter really appeals to me. I am always drawn to it.
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
Great pics,David!
and interesting thread;did you used a tripod?How about quality?
and interesting thread;did you used a tripod?How about quality?
Gumby
Veteran
Nice examples. The DOF is SLIVER THIN with Rolleinars, but especially with Rolleinar 3.
That "wacky bokeh" sure is wacky. I hate it.
That "wacky bokeh" sure is wacky. I hate it.
david.elliott
Well-known
Nice examples. The DOF is SLIVER THIN with Rolleinars, but especially with Rolleinar 3.
That "wacky bokeh" sure is wacky. I hate it.
Thanks. And totally agree about sliver thin depth of field.
I really dont like the pentagons at all either. My macro tak's bokeh is sooooo much smoother.
I just need to be careful about my foregrounds and backgrounds. I wasn't expecting pentagons at all so i was VERY surprised when I developed the film and looked at the negatives. The bokeh without point light sources is much better - just something I (and any rolleinar owner) needs to be aware of.
david.elliott
Well-known
Thank you.
I used my manfrotto 190xprob tripod with 410 junior geared head and a cable release for most of the photos. A macro rail would have been helpful but I don't own one yet.
I did not use the tripod for the little tiny plant photo because I had to get under a bench and the tripod would not fit. I made a little pile of dirt and rested the rolleiflex on the pile instead.
I also did not use a tripod for the mushroom photo. The mushroom was near a road and right by the curb. The positioning made using the tripod impossible. Or, at least impossible in the sense that I could not get the angle I wanted. So that shot was taken handheld.
Not sure what you mean by quality? Quality of the tripod?
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Interesting pics. I too have a Rolleinar 3 that I use on a 3.5F and I really like the results, and your right about the smaller area to focus in, have to be real careful. Here's a couple of mine.
this one is a scanned print.
a couple portraits on Tri-X
You can see the pentagonal bokeh to the right here, but I don't mind it much.
Todd
this one is a scanned print.
a couple portraits on Tri-X
You can see the pentagonal bokeh to the right here, but I don't mind it much.
Todd
david.elliott
Well-known
Nice photos Todd!
I have been very pleased by the image quality from all the rolleinars. They're good.
I have been very pleased by the image quality from all the rolleinars. They're good.
Tati
Established
David, this photos are all beautiful...love the first two, lovely tone, grain...even the ones with hard pentagon bokeh are lovely...their presence doesn't bother me all that much...I was wondering if you scanned the negatives and posted those maybe after some digital processing work, or just scanned the prints...oh, and what scanner please?...thanks...
kzphoto
Well-known
I've been using a Rolleinar 1/2 for my 3.5 . They're great! Wonderful for portraits, but man that parallax can get really bad with the 3. Glad to see you can use it really well! Great photos.
david.elliott
Well-known
Thank you.
I, personally, havent had much of an issue with parallax. The part of the rolleinar that goes on the viewing lens seems to do a pretty dang good job of correcting for it. I did chop off one forehead accidentally though.
Going to share some of your photos with us?
david.elliott
Well-known
Thank you Tati.
These are all from scanned negatives, not scanned prints. I do all of my processing in Lightroom 2. For scanning I use an epson v500 with holders and glass from betterscanning.com. I scan with vuescan software.
Tati
Established
Thank you Tati.
These are all from scanned negatives, not scanned prints. I do all of my processing in Lightroom 2. For scanning I use an epson v500 with holders and glass from betterscanning.com. I scan with vuescan software.
thanks David...valuable info for me...I'm going to start shooting some film again and was looking for a way to get quality scans onto my computer...I think this would work for me as my print size will be 10x10 inch max...I checked this afternoon and see I can get a v 500 for around 200 euros here in France...V600 goes for 260 (need to research the differences)...that's reasonable for good quality scans...I wonder if you are using the variable height film holder with your v500?...
just amazed at the image quality you and todd show with these images...
T
Last edited:
leicavidom
Member
the ultimate challenge......
the ultimate challenge......
Using Rolleinars for portraiture?
As already noted - sliver thin DOF and the OOF highlights;not pleasant.
One of my favourite Pro. Rollei users makes a living with just this challenging combination;Steve Pyke. There was a good article about him in
"Quadrat" on line journal that Rollei ran for a while.Worth tracking down for
all you "Rollei Squares" (take that as a term of endearment not an insult)
the ultimate challenge......
Using Rolleinars for portraiture?
As already noted - sliver thin DOF and the OOF highlights;not pleasant.
One of my favourite Pro. Rollei users makes a living with just this challenging combination;Steve Pyke. There was a good article about him in
"Quadrat" on line journal that Rollei ran for a while.Worth tracking down for
all you "Rollei Squares" (take that as a term of endearment not an insult)
david.elliott
Well-known
Please be sure to share some photos once you are up and running. I've no idea what the differences are between the v500 and v600. I think there was a fairly recent thread about the v600 here at RFF though - you might want to search the forums.
I do use the variable height film holders, but I have not seen a need to try adjusting the height. I've left it at the default since it seems to work well there.
And agreed, Todd's images are seriously good stuff.
Peter R
Established
FWIW, I don't mind the pentagonal bokeh at all. In fact it's attractive in it's own way, and adds something you don't see in every other shot.
david.elliott
Well-known
Thanks Peter.