italy74
Well-known
Good evening everyone
I've finally got back pictures and files from the lab from the first roll, Portra 160 and this is what I figured out at the moment.
1) I need a little tripod. I tried to go down to 1/4s yet it's really a time "too long" to manage for me now. With 1/8s things are better and 1/15s already good. Keep in mind that having a 160 iso roll means shooting mostly wide open thus adding blur / narrow dof to the hand shake blur. With the second roll, shot in Portra 400, things should be safer.
2) I had a couple of overexposed pics but it might be my fault. I realized only a few minutes ago that +/- exposure compensation is reversed to what I thought, so let me try again
3) While the aforementioned rangefinder misalignment doesn't seem to be a problem, I need more care in focusing portraits. Probably, if my next lens will be a 21 F/4.5 I won't even care to focus properly, yet now I still have to do. This is again because of the narrow dof / wide aperture to compensate for the limited exposure time (and with a moving subject). This is usually the contrary I have on SLR where I can (from 50mm upwards) frame better people than scenes / landscapes where the split-line is less effective than the rangefinder matching.
In any cases, "blues" (without any cpl filter) are really nice, and prints are better than scans. I still have to learn the 35mm so I won't complain overall
A colleague of mine, aiming to me very close, seems to have a better eye for that. This is me, a few days ago. (Mixed lighting, neon and reflexed sun through the windows/shadows)
My adoptive son Ashu playing with the FM3A on the terrace (it's a crop)
From my terrace
Ashu and my wife, lunchtime
I've finally got back pictures and files from the lab from the first roll, Portra 160 and this is what I figured out at the moment.
1) I need a little tripod. I tried to go down to 1/4s yet it's really a time "too long" to manage for me now. With 1/8s things are better and 1/15s already good. Keep in mind that having a 160 iso roll means shooting mostly wide open thus adding blur / narrow dof to the hand shake blur. With the second roll, shot in Portra 400, things should be safer.
2) I had a couple of overexposed pics but it might be my fault. I realized only a few minutes ago that +/- exposure compensation is reversed to what I thought, so let me try again
3) While the aforementioned rangefinder misalignment doesn't seem to be a problem, I need more care in focusing portraits. Probably, if my next lens will be a 21 F/4.5 I won't even care to focus properly, yet now I still have to do. This is again because of the narrow dof / wide aperture to compensate for the limited exposure time (and with a moving subject). This is usually the contrary I have on SLR where I can (from 50mm upwards) frame better people than scenes / landscapes where the split-line is less effective than the rangefinder matching.
In any cases, "blues" (without any cpl filter) are really nice, and prints are better than scans. I still have to learn the 35mm so I won't complain overall
A colleague of mine, aiming to me very close, seems to have a better eye for that. This is me, a few days ago. (Mixed lighting, neon and reflexed sun through the windows/shadows)
My adoptive son Ashu playing with the FM3A on the terrace (it's a crop)
From my terrace
Ashu and my wife, lunchtime
italy74
Well-known
Ashu again on the terrace, playing with FM3A
italy74
Well-known
ps. Not namely here, yet in another gallery I took with my other cameras (FM3A / F80s) I think to see kind of bluish/turquoise cast almost everywhere... it's just me or is it a problem of the lab ? Here's the link to the gallery so you can check for yourself.
I have already shot in the shadows and I know at times this might raise, yet here it looks a bit too evident. What is (might be) wrong? The whole gallery is about 40/45 pics so you might be able to see only a part if you check it immediately.
http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Spring-Summer-2012/25644780_6ZMHBN
I have already shot in the shadows and I know at times this might raise, yet here it looks a bit too evident. What is (might be) wrong? The whole gallery is about 40/45 pics so you might be able to see only a part if you check it immediately.
http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Spring-Summer-2012/25644780_6ZMHBN
kxl
Social Documentary
I do see a blush/purple cast... so he images look "cold." Obviously it's easily fixed in Photoohop, but it's likely the dev process in the lab - which film did you use? The only other possibility is your (or the lab's?) scanning process.
italy74
Well-known
Lab's, btw I always used a Portra 160. Since they always did a good job, I assume someone messed something during development/scan process.
mfogiel
Veteran
I do not see any sharpness problem here, only maybe little too deep shadows - you probably know, that it is better to overexpose print film at least 2/3rds of a stop, right?
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
the colour cast is nothing out of the ordinary - possibly you did not adjust during scanning, but usually it's quite difficult then, so i do it in postprocessing. i scan to 16bit tiff/dng anyway.
and for the focussing - yes, that's necessary :-D
enjoy! (looks like you do)
cheers,
sebastian
and for the focussing - yes, that's necessary :-D
enjoy! (looks like you do)
cheers,
sebastian
bensyverson
Well-known
You really can't judge color (or even focus) based on a scan of a print of a negative.
Especially when the print is probably itself made from a scan of the negative.
If this is all that's available to you at the moment, that's fine—at least you can store the negatives and rescan them at some point.
But if this is your current process, you shouldn't be worrying about image quality.
You're using a good system, so you should just trust that quality images are being recorded on film.
Just enjoy the prints and don't overthink it.
Especially when the print is probably itself made from a scan of the negative.
If this is all that's available to you at the moment, that's fine—at least you can store the negatives and rescan them at some point.
But if this is your current process, you shouldn't be worrying about image quality.
You're using a good system, so you should just trust that quality images are being recorded on film.
Just enjoy the prints and don't overthink it.
Last edited:
italy74
Well-known
Hi.
Another serious finding is that I won't never ever use silver batteries anymore. It's the 3rd roll and the have already run out of power...
Another serious finding is that I won't never ever use silver batteries anymore. It's the 3rd roll and the have already run out of power...
italy74
Well-known
What's worst is that it looks like it's not battery related problem.. even with a new one the camera is stuck and the exposure meter / shutter don't work
italy74
Well-known
Jon, you're right but I've just put in a fresh new CR 1/3 lithium battery and the camera still doesn't work
italy74
Well-known
After several attempts the camera still doesn't work.
I'm heading tomorrow to Milan in the afternoon by train and have sent a pm to Russell in case he would be available for a quick meeting.
I'm heading tomorrow to Milan in the afternoon by train and have sent a pm to Russell in case he would be available for a quick meeting.
italy74
Well-known
@ Mfogiel: yes, I know the shadows thing, yet it's me who prefer having the negatives a bit underexposed (at times a little underexposure help you to have a faster time and not to get a blurred shot)
italy74
Well-known
Here we are AGAIN
well, you won't believe me but it looks like I've incurred in two pair of dead batteries despite they were packed and apparently new and valid thru 2017 or later..
After having checked the camera didn't work, the clerk first realized - to my surprise - the lithium battery was "discharged" (by a voltmeter) and then putting its on, the camera started working again... Anyway they realized that's not common having two different sets of batteries and no one of them was working properly.. They offered me a fourth one besides the one they put into the camera.
Well, in the meantime - since I was already there - I got an used multiple Leica viewfinder (21-24-28) which I'll use when I'll get the 21 (or the 25 f/1.8 we'll see what I can afford and when) - enough to give me an idea of what I'm framing.
Now I took a few pics in Milan, at the Dome.
If everything solves like this, well, amen, I made one trip for nothing (well, a trip to Milan is always welcome, now and then, and the underground is very handy) but I can use again the Ikon for the Christening of my niece, within 2 weeks. Theoretically, I should be using Portra 400 stretched to 1000 (I've already seen it works very well) for low light shots. I hope to be able to remain always within the safe 1/15s time range. I won't probably use flash yet I'm wondering if my SB-22s, very compact, I have for my FM3a could suffice at least in A mode. I found it a very neat unit, by shifting the base iso you can get the exposure compensation you need.
well, you won't believe me but it looks like I've incurred in two pair of dead batteries despite they were packed and apparently new and valid thru 2017 or later..
After having checked the camera didn't work, the clerk first realized - to my surprise - the lithium battery was "discharged" (by a voltmeter) and then putting its on, the camera started working again... Anyway they realized that's not common having two different sets of batteries and no one of them was working properly.. They offered me a fourth one besides the one they put into the camera.
Well, in the meantime - since I was already there - I got an used multiple Leica viewfinder (21-24-28) which I'll use when I'll get the 21 (or the 25 f/1.8 we'll see what I can afford and when) - enough to give me an idea of what I'm framing.
Now I took a few pics in Milan, at the Dome.
If everything solves like this, well, amen, I made one trip for nothing (well, a trip to Milan is always welcome, now and then, and the underground is very handy) but I can use again the Ikon for the Christening of my niece, within 2 weeks. Theoretically, I should be using Portra 400 stretched to 1000 (I've already seen it works very well) for low light shots. I hope to be able to remain always within the safe 1/15s time range. I won't probably use flash yet I'm wondering if my SB-22s, very compact, I have for my FM3a could suffice at least in A mode. I found it a very neat unit, by shifting the base iso you can get the exposure compensation you need.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
happy to see that it was only a minor fault.
italy74
Well-known
Hi everyone
tomorrow I'll go and hand back other few rolls from the Ikon.
As long as I'm enjoying the 35 (and especially after being back with a Leica vari-focal viewfinder 21/24/28 from Milan and a little Manfrotto tabletop tripod) I realize my next lenses will be the 21 to shoot my son and likely (for interiors) the CV 15 f/4.5 with its metal viewfinder, which is said to be a very good performer overall. Looking through the 35 and 21 viewfinders is really a remarkable experience and also my colleagues said "wow" passing from one to the other.
Useless to say, as soon as I'll have other pics available, I'll post them. Actually I've already smoked a Portra 400, a Kodak 200 (that's the last straw that in Milan I couldn't find any better than a Kodak Gold roll in Piazza Duomo) and a BW400CN - I'm evaluating also a tri-x to try film @ 1600 iso and very low light places.
Of course, any personal experience about the 21 (f/4.5, I see there's another thread) or the CV 15 f/4.5 they are welcome.
tomorrow I'll go and hand back other few rolls from the Ikon.
As long as I'm enjoying the 35 (and especially after being back with a Leica vari-focal viewfinder 21/24/28 from Milan and a little Manfrotto tabletop tripod) I realize my next lenses will be the 21 to shoot my son and likely (for interiors) the CV 15 f/4.5 with its metal viewfinder, which is said to be a very good performer overall. Looking through the 35 and 21 viewfinders is really a remarkable experience and also my colleagues said "wow" passing from one to the other.
Useless to say, as soon as I'll have other pics available, I'll post them. Actually I've already smoked a Portra 400, a Kodak 200 (that's the last straw that in Milan I couldn't find any better than a Kodak Gold roll in Piazza Duomo) and a BW400CN - I'm evaluating also a tri-x to try film @ 1600 iso and very low light places.
Of course, any personal experience about the 21 (f/4.5, I see there's another thread) or the CV 15 f/4.5 they are welcome.
Olsen
Well-known
Dino,
Very good pictures! I was a bit puzzled when only looking at the pictures. I could have sweared that this was 'somewhere in Sweden'. Then it is Northern Italy! I had a Zeiss Ikon for a few years, but have switched to digial for good. I have sold my Leica MP, Zeiss Ikon and a Hasselblad SWC 905 - which I regret. Now I only shoot with Leica M9 (and a little Canon 1Ds III).
Very good pictures! I was a bit puzzled when only looking at the pictures. I could have sweared that this was 'somewhere in Sweden'. Then it is Northern Italy! I had a Zeiss Ikon for a few years, but have switched to digial for good. I have sold my Leica MP, Zeiss Ikon and a Hasselblad SWC 905 - which I regret. Now I only shoot with Leica M9 (and a little Canon 1Ds III).
italy74
Well-known
Ciao Olsen
I read lots of your posts in the past in several forums. I'm curious to know what in my pictures recalls you about Sweden.. The only "landscape" pic tells you about a recently raised neighborhood ( within the past 10 yrs ) yet I'm sure Swedish buildings and houses are very different, especially in the roofs / windows design.
My town is little and very nice to walk and live, yet in winter and summer you can forget about it, much better my homeland, Liguria, where weather is almost always within 0° and 30° C (and it's windy), while here we go -10/-15°C in winter and up to +40°C and more in summer (and it's sultry, adding heaviness to the heat). Actually, if I could have a wand and make a house appear from nothing, I'd move immediately to Chiavari, one of the nicest and least known towns from ligurian riviera. Its slate arcades, typical caruggi (main alley, where people go strolling from 17 to 20), the sea sun (who lives near the sea can understand it) beating and enlighting every house in the afternoons, the popular farinotti and the excellent climate make it a very nice place to live. Yes, it's not a big city, you have no big shopping malls or some services you might have somewhere else, yet if you can slow down a bit, you will find it very very relaxing and nice. It has been also recently renewed and the restyling is overall very nice. There are antique houses and Liberty-styled villas and its (mostly baroque/post baroque) churches have a very peculiar style as well that you can find only in Liguria. I love taking pics of belltowers, "you can't turn somewhere without seeing one", says a proverb. Houses here have often vivid colors (pink and yellow mostly and their green shadows are often a distinguishing sign you're in Liguria as well)
People from abroad usually know Portofino (elitary), Santa Margherita which are in the nearbys and have (had) for sure their charming and interesting points, yet I think now Chiavari overcomes both them. Portofino is really a small village for very rich people, very trendy being there but also very few to do or see. Santa Margherita was famous during fascism and lots of English people came in the first half of past century and in the '60s / 70s but now is again a place for very rich and old people that can afford expensive luxury hotels or huge liberty villas. Chiavari is a "real" town and has a bit of everything.
Not from Zeiss Ikon yet you can see some pics of it (mine) here:
1) a few Velvia slides about the seaside: http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Passeggiata-di-Chiavari/5753803_HTds5c
2) http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Leivi-Chiavari-1516012011/15531644_crjfcC
3) http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Spring-Summer-2012/25644780_6ZMHBN
One taken at dinnertime in summer.
My wife sitting out in a bar of the carugio (strangely noone around) - you can hint the arcades.
I really wish I could take more and more pics of such town, they would be always plenty of colors and life. Not by chance in our Region people easily arrive to 100 and more.
I read lots of your posts in the past in several forums. I'm curious to know what in my pictures recalls you about Sweden.. The only "landscape" pic tells you about a recently raised neighborhood ( within the past 10 yrs ) yet I'm sure Swedish buildings and houses are very different, especially in the roofs / windows design.
My town is little and very nice to walk and live, yet in winter and summer you can forget about it, much better my homeland, Liguria, where weather is almost always within 0° and 30° C (and it's windy), while here we go -10/-15°C in winter and up to +40°C and more in summer (and it's sultry, adding heaviness to the heat). Actually, if I could have a wand and make a house appear from nothing, I'd move immediately to Chiavari, one of the nicest and least known towns from ligurian riviera. Its slate arcades, typical caruggi (main alley, where people go strolling from 17 to 20), the sea sun (who lives near the sea can understand it) beating and enlighting every house in the afternoons, the popular farinotti and the excellent climate make it a very nice place to live. Yes, it's not a big city, you have no big shopping malls or some services you might have somewhere else, yet if you can slow down a bit, you will find it very very relaxing and nice. It has been also recently renewed and the restyling is overall very nice. There are antique houses and Liberty-styled villas and its (mostly baroque/post baroque) churches have a very peculiar style as well that you can find only in Liguria. I love taking pics of belltowers, "you can't turn somewhere without seeing one", says a proverb. Houses here have often vivid colors (pink and yellow mostly and their green shadows are often a distinguishing sign you're in Liguria as well)
People from abroad usually know Portofino (elitary), Santa Margherita which are in the nearbys and have (had) for sure their charming and interesting points, yet I think now Chiavari overcomes both them. Portofino is really a small village for very rich people, very trendy being there but also very few to do or see. Santa Margherita was famous during fascism and lots of English people came in the first half of past century and in the '60s / 70s but now is again a place for very rich and old people that can afford expensive luxury hotels or huge liberty villas. Chiavari is a "real" town and has a bit of everything.
Not from Zeiss Ikon yet you can see some pics of it (mine) here:
1) a few Velvia slides about the seaside: http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Passeggiata-di-Chiavari/5753803_HTds5c
2) http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Leivi-Chiavari-1516012011/15531644_crjfcC
3) http://italy74.smugmug.com/ALLTHEREST/Family/Spring-Summer-2012/25644780_6ZMHBN
One taken at dinnertime in summer.
My wife sitting out in a bar of the carugio (strangely noone around) - you can hint the arcades.
I really wish I could take more and more pics of such town, they would be always plenty of colors and life. Not by chance in our Region people easily arrive to 100 and more.
