ssmc
Well-known
Some of you may recall that I was a bit underwhelmed by my first test roll with this camera/lens a couple of weeks ago. Well I took it on another camping/hiking trip with much nicer weather and just posted a few of the better shots here:
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/grand_teton_bw&page=all
The scans were resampled to 50% in PS for posting but otherwise unaltered.
I find that compared to the old Minolta SLR setup I was using to shoot B&W previously, this has a considerably different look than I’m used to – the Zeiss lens is sharp but seems very contrasty (much more than the 45/2 Rokkor) and in combination with the B+W 040 (orange) filter is giving me a strange mix of harsh yet somehow delicate results in the tonal transitions that are difficult to describe in words and will take some getting used to (at least that's how it looks to me). Maybe if I went back to Tri-X, shot it at ISO320 and used a lighter filter like the Hoya G it would more closely resemble my previous B&W efforts; then again maybe attempting to duplicate the output of my old camera is a bit pointless and I should learn to appreciate its different character!
Anyway, The M6 + 35C are a great pleasure to shoot with and I will keep playing around with different films and filters! Also this time out I remembered to turn the meter off each time before putting the camera in the bag and managed to avoid running the batteries flat
Regards,
Scott
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/grand_teton_bw&page=all
The scans were resampled to 50% in PS for posting but otherwise unaltered.
I find that compared to the old Minolta SLR setup I was using to shoot B&W previously, this has a considerably different look than I’m used to – the Zeiss lens is sharp but seems very contrasty (much more than the 45/2 Rokkor) and in combination with the B+W 040 (orange) filter is giving me a strange mix of harsh yet somehow delicate results in the tonal transitions that are difficult to describe in words and will take some getting used to (at least that's how it looks to me). Maybe if I went back to Tri-X, shot it at ISO320 and used a lighter filter like the Hoya G it would more closely resemble my previous B&W efforts; then again maybe attempting to duplicate the output of my old camera is a bit pointless and I should learn to appreciate its different character!
Anyway, The M6 + 35C are a great pleasure to shoot with and I will keep playing around with different films and filters! Also this time out I remembered to turn the meter off each time before putting the camera in the bag and managed to avoid running the batteries flat
Regards,
Scott
Steve M.
Veteran
They look good, but a little on the grainy side. May be some flaring going on too. Next time you might want to try the Tri-X and a yellow filter instead of the orange, which can sometimes be a little severe if it's not blazing sun. Or just an UV filter if the lens is that contrasty. The only way to find out what's going on (assuming your processing is fine) is to keep careful notes and take several shots of the same scene w/ different filter combinations.
ssmc
Well-known
I was wondering about that - the graininess does seem a bit extreme (you should see it before I resize!) The camera manual states that with a darker filter such as the 040, exposure should be increased a full stop in addition to what the TTL meter compensates for. Would shooting ISO400 film at 200 increase the grain size? (sorry if that's an obvious question). When I checked the filter factor using the camera's meter, it's only worth 2/3 of a stop. When shooting B&W with my old setup I only used to give it an extra 1/3 stop (in addition to the meter), so I would shoot 400 at 320 and it seemed to work fine - in fact I shot a test roll @320 where I changed from a yellow G to a red 25A filter half way through and could barely tell the shots apart. I realize the Minolta and Leica meters are probably quite different but I think I might try this and see what happens.
Thanks
Scott
nome_alice
Established
nice photos! i was so close to buying the 35 C Biogon but went for the color skopar 35/2.5 instead.
if these are scans from the lab, they usually sharpen their scans way too much and totally indiscriminately so i wouldn't worry about whether you did anything wrong there. they did it.
i have a B+W 040 orange filter that i use with tri-x very occasionally and it has a filter factor of 4 so i shoot tri-x at ISO 100.
eg.
if these are scans from the lab, they usually sharpen their scans way too much and totally indiscriminately so i wouldn't worry about whether you did anything wrong there. they did it.
i have a B+W 040 orange filter that i use with tri-x very occasionally and it has a filter factor of 4 so i shoot tri-x at ISO 100.
eg.
Turtle
Veteran
the grain is pretty severe - more than I would expect from TriX in DDX for example.
Are you developing your own or getting them processed by a lab?
If using a lab, it could be tricky to improve them as mucha s you could if you processed your own. As things stand I would decrease film speed by 1/3 stop and in the case of contrasty scenes add another 1/3 stop exposure on top of that. If lab processed you are gonna get dense negs, but if you do your own, you can back off a touch on development, say 15%, and tyou will get smoother tonality and a less harsh look.
The ZMs are contrasty and they need a little more exposure than lower contrast lenses with a little less development. I would steer clear of the orange filter unless you are after a high contrast look and deep skies.
FWIW I rate films slower in my Leicas than most cameras (like RF645/Mamiya 7) to get equal shadow detail. Its just a product of the way the cameras practically meter the way I use them. I certainly make sure my leica is pointed well away from the sky when metering unless I want to produce a more silhouette type shot. Again, FWIW, I rate Fp4+ from 64-80 (same for D100), TriX from 250-400 (same for Neopan 400) when using Xtol 1+2 or DDX as the dev.
Are you developing your own or getting them processed by a lab?
If using a lab, it could be tricky to improve them as mucha s you could if you processed your own. As things stand I would decrease film speed by 1/3 stop and in the case of contrasty scenes add another 1/3 stop exposure on top of that. If lab processed you are gonna get dense negs, but if you do your own, you can back off a touch on development, say 15%, and tyou will get smoother tonality and a less harsh look.
The ZMs are contrasty and they need a little more exposure than lower contrast lenses with a little less development. I would steer clear of the orange filter unless you are after a high contrast look and deep skies.
FWIW I rate films slower in my Leicas than most cameras (like RF645/Mamiya 7) to get equal shadow detail. Its just a product of the way the cameras practically meter the way I use them. I certainly make sure my leica is pointed well away from the sky when metering unless I want to produce a more silhouette type shot. Again, FWIW, I rate Fp4+ from 64-80 (same for D100), TriX from 250-400 (same for Neopan 400) when using Xtol 1+2 or DDX as the dev.
akiralx
Established
Yes, these are exactly like the scans Ilford do for me - if you get prints as well you'll find them much less contrasty with lower grain. Labs seem to love cranking up the contrast as they imagine their clients won't do any pp.
ssmc
Well-known
thanks to all who replied!
thanks to all who replied!
To clarify, these are lab processed and scanned, and up til now I have been totally stoked with their work (i.e. the same films on my old SLR setup for B&W). For various reasons at the moment home processing is not really an option, and anyway I don't have the $ for a dedicated film scanner. I don't think the lab are over-sharpening the scans as viewed at 100% (16MP) there are absolutely zero artifacts (halos and such), so unless they have changed how they're processing B&W film it's something I've done.
I Googled it at work today and found that some sources claim increased exposure can cause more prominent grain. So I suspect that the 2 main culprits are exposing the film @ ISO200 combined with the 040 filter (which now that I look at it really is a pretty strong orange color - if you go any further you start to get into the reds). This film was HP5+, which I've used previously but with much "milder" results. As soon as it stops snowing (argh - I'm not psyched-up for winter yet) I'll shoot another roll of HP5+ with my old exposure/filter setup (ISO320 & Hoya G), and try the 040 filter, take a few shots with both filters at ISO400, keep notes, and send it away and see what I get. I might shoot a test roll of Tri-X on the same day just to satisfy my curiosity about how they respond under conditions as close to identical as I can get (now I have to scout around for a series of test targets...)
While the shots I posted do have an interesting look, the harshness makes me think of the way I would try to render bombed-out buildings in a war zone rather than bucolic landscapes... I also find that the much more aggressive grain just obliterates detail in some scenes that I know I would have seen clearly with either Tri-X or HP5+ the way I shot either film before. Don't get me wrong, I like grain, but this is just nuts.
So anyway, as usual these forums are great! I appreciate everyone's input and will post the results when I get the tests done!
Thanks
Scott
thanks to all who replied!
To clarify, these are lab processed and scanned, and up til now I have been totally stoked with their work (i.e. the same films on my old SLR setup for B&W). For various reasons at the moment home processing is not really an option, and anyway I don't have the $ for a dedicated film scanner. I don't think the lab are over-sharpening the scans as viewed at 100% (16MP) there are absolutely zero artifacts (halos and such), so unless they have changed how they're processing B&W film it's something I've done.
I Googled it at work today and found that some sources claim increased exposure can cause more prominent grain. So I suspect that the 2 main culprits are exposing the film @ ISO200 combined with the 040 filter (which now that I look at it really is a pretty strong orange color - if you go any further you start to get into the reds). This film was HP5+, which I've used previously but with much "milder" results. As soon as it stops snowing (argh - I'm not psyched-up for winter yet
) I'll shoot another roll of HP5+ with my old exposure/filter setup (ISO320 & Hoya G), and try the 040 filter, take a few shots with both filters at ISO400, keep notes, and send it away and see what I get. I might shoot a test roll of Tri-X on the same day just to satisfy my curiosity about how they respond under conditions as close to identical as I can get (now I have to scout around for a series of test targets...)While the shots I posted do have an interesting look, the harshness makes me think of the way I would try to render bombed-out buildings in a war zone rather than bucolic landscapes... I also find that the much more aggressive grain just obliterates detail in some scenes that I know I would have seen clearly with either Tri-X or HP5+ the way I shot either film before. Don't get me wrong, I like grain, but this is just nuts.
So anyway, as usual these forums are great! I appreciate everyone's input and will post the results when I get the tests done!
Thanks
Scott