|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 3, 2008 1:42:09 GMT -5
Here are two images taken over the holidays with a Kiev-88 CM on Arista EDU-200 which was made by Forte in Hungary and is re-branded Forte-Pan AFAIK. Developed in D-76 for 8 min. at 66 degrees. Both images taken by bounce flash and cropped. Maximum speed of the Kiev-88 for electronic flash is 1/30th of a second. This is a pretty lame attempt at a self-portrait. I "flipped" the image so it wouldn't be backwards. Here is my oldest grandaughter Cassie. Not the best image I have of her by any means. As an every day film, Forte-Pan 200 would be OK but not my first choice for most situations. It would be good for night shots, I think. However, Forte is no longer making film so when my last couple of rolls are gone, I'll move on to another brand; maybe Foma-Pan 200? Walker
|
|
|
Post by davesworld on Jan 3, 2008 4:48:31 GMT -5
Awsome shots, Please, please More!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Jan 3, 2008 8:27:26 GMT -5
I agree, those shots are awesome!! Amazing tones!
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 3, 2008 10:51:40 GMT -5
Very nice B&W work, it has the oldtime look. I am surprised at what I think is grain in a 6x6 but it does add to the image. I've never shot med format B&W so maybe my expectations are off. What is your view of the Kiev 88 in comparison to the Hassy?
Bob
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 3, 2008 10:54:08 GMT -5
Very nice pictures, Walker, especially the one of Cassie. What a wonderfully photogenic face she has, with eyes that seem to look right into your mind. The photographic technique's pretty good too!
I've never tried Forte film, but it's got a lovely long greyscale. Rivals FP4+. I believe production of it has stopped - shame.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 3, 2008 12:06:09 GMT -5
I bought a brand new Kiev 88 CM once and never saw it. I knew a guy in Montana with a Leica M3 and I traded him the Kiev for the Leica (had it shipped directly to him). Then a few months later traded the M3 for a Nikon F100--then later sold the F100 to finance an mint F3HP and a couple of lenses. Still have the F3HP but am looking at a D300 and seldom use the F3HP. . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 3, 2008 14:06:03 GMT -5
Walker, these are really fun. The Cassie shot is a classic. There's nothing like MF -- it's why I keep using it despite how much more convenient 35mm cams are. This makes me want to dig into my 120 stash and get shooting!
Gene
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 3, 2008 17:02:51 GMT -5
Very nice B&W work, it has the oldtime look. I am surprised at what I think is grain in a 6x6 but it does add to the image. I've never shot med format B&W so maybe my expectations are off. What is your view of the Kiev 88 in comparison to the Hassy? Bob Thanks, Bob. IMO, the Kiev-88 varies in quality in similar fashion to the FUS equipment offered on ebay. There is a company called Hartblei that selects assembly line Kiev-88 cameras and then rebuilds them to ensure consistency and reliability. They are sold in the US by Hartbleioptic of Atlanta, GA, and presently bring $429 for a set that includes two "new type" magazines, a TTL eye-level finder and a waist-level finder. The body has an angled release and a shutter that goes from 1/2 - 1/1000 plus B. The shutter setting is changed ONLY after winding. The mirror doesn't instantly return. Mine is a 2004 model re-done by Hartblei and here's what I've found: While I've never handled a Hassy, I doubt that the Kiev-88 CM is up to Hassy standards by any measure. That doesn't make it a bad camera any more than a Pentax is bad because it's not a Nikon. The Kiev is simply not as refined as a Hassy although the magazines and finders will interchange. The film/shutter advance uses a folding lever knob that I advance in 2 or 3 stages by opening the lever and placing my thumb against the root of the lever, turning it in that manner. It's easy enough to do and is harder to describe than accomplish. The magazines are very easy to load and mount. There is a shallow groove in the mag's face that fits a matching raised square on the camera body. As a precaution, I cut 1mm foam to fit the groove on the mag to ensure proper sealing. I also darkened the narrow bright surfaces of the film channel on which the film backing rides. I used black felt-tip markers for that. The mags allow double exposures with the flick of a lever. Extra mags in 6x4.5cm can be purchased too. So far I've used only one of the two mags and the single problem I've noted is a straight-line mark on both egdes of the negative. It's not bad but it is noticable and I've concluded that it results from the two spring-loaded rollers that push against the film to hold it flat against the pressure plate. The edges of the rollers are too sharp and should have been "broken" or beveled after machining. I plan to remove the rollers - easily done with a small cross-point screwdriver - and use a small, hard stone used to hone gun trigger sears to put a small bevel on the edges. Having closely examined the mag, the rollers are the only possible cause of the lines. The finder is bright and the TTL 45 degree finder is easy to use. The built-in TTL meter has given me good exposures when I use the readings it provides. Batteries are the common SR44's. To me, the single biggest advantage is the Pentacon-6 lens mount that allows use of all the P-6 lenses from CZJ, Meyer and the Russians. I don't think the Kiev-88 will ever be mistaken for a Hassy but the Hartblei conversion brings them up to a perfectly useable MF 6x6 camera that is good value for the money IMO. Walker
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 3, 2008 17:12:42 GMT -5
Peter, thanks for the compliments. Cassie has beautiful green eyes and a photogenic skin that makes my picture taking of her easy. At the moment she has braces that don't enhance her smile but they should be removed in another 6 - 12 months. The Forte-Pan 200 film in 120 is a nice all-around film IMO. It has a bit of curl but nothing when compared to the 100 speed 120. That 100 is almost like spring steel. Sadly, you're correct. Forte has stopped making consumer films and it's our loss. Hopefully, Foma will fill the gap for inexpensive 120. I always keep some Ilford available for serious shooting. Wayne, trading the Kiev-88 for a Leica M-3 was a smart move IMO. You could have sold the M-3, bought a new Kiev-88 CM and had money left over! Walker
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 3, 2008 17:45:15 GMT -5
Walker, these are really fun. The Cassie shot is a classic. There's nothing like MF -- it's why I keep using it despite how much more convenient 35mm cams are. This makes me want to dig into my 120 stash and get shooting! Gene Gene, I've often thought about starting a thread comparing 35mm and medium format but it's an argument as old as the day Leica began marketing the Model I or A. What prompted me to consider such a thread? Scanning my father's negatives and noting the difference between the quality of the images produced by the two formats. Last night I scanned and worked with a couple of Rolleicord shots taken in 1949. I emailed them to a friend because his father was prominent in both pictures. The 'Cord was a pre-war model II with uncoated lenses but the quality was superb IMO. It wouldn't be easy to match them with a 35mm camera. I'm also beginning to think that my father had a better "eye" for a picture when using his medium format cameras. I don't know if he was more careful when composing or if the WL finder gave a better perspective but that's my impression at the moment. The picture of my grandfather in the mill wouldn't have had the same impact IMO if taken with an eye-level 35mm. I may change my mind once I get back into the 35mm negatives but I doubt it. I think that 6x6 is generally superior. I don't think that should come as a surprise when it's realized that the 6x6 negative is 4 times larger than 35mm in area. Considering the quality you wring out of 35mm, I encourage you to get the MF cameras out and give us some samples! Walker
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 3, 2008 18:34:25 GMT -5
Walker, in my mind there's no doubt about the general superiority of MF over 35mm, especially in B&W. I actually started out in MF -- with a Yashica A, then an Ikoflex IIa, then a Rolleiflex. I had around a little Minolta Hi-Matic 7 rangefinder that I thought of as a 'slide camera'. 6x6 slides and projectors were simply too much bother (not to mention terribly expensive). Back when I was a keen darkroom user, I could really see a huge difference when I enlarged prints.
Then I got a Pentax H1a and ended up with three lenses (28/55/135) and discovered I could take pics that I couldn't get with my TLR's. I fell in love with 35mm at that point, despite the lesser image quality. I still like 35mm, but I never lost my affection for 6x6. It's just that between 35mm and digital, 6x6 is the odd format out. I've made a resolution to shoot more 6x6 this year. I currently have four 6x6 cams, if I count the Ikonta folder.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 4, 2008 2:47:30 GMT -5
Walker, in my mind there's no doubt about the general superiority of MF over 35mm, especially in B&W. I actually started out in MF -- with a Yashica A, then an Ikoflex IIa, then a Rolleiflex. I had around a little Minolta Hi-Matic 7 rangefinder that I thought of as a 'slide camera'. 6x6 slides and projectors were simply too much bother (not to mention terribly expensive). Back when I was a keen darkroom user, I could really see a huge difference when I enlarged prints. Then I got a Pentax H1a and ended up with three lenses (28/55/135) and discovered I could take pics that I couldn't get with my TLR's. I fell in love with 35mm at that point, despite the lesser image quality. I still like 35mm, but I never lost my affection for 6x6. It's just that between 35mm and digital, 6x6 is the odd format out. I've made a resolution to shoot more 6x6 this year. I currently have four 6x6 cams, if I count the Ikonta folder. Gene Gene, I agree that 35mm is more flexable than MF and is much easier to use for rapid action and other shots that a 6x6 is simply not going to catch. The TLR and even the 6x6 SLR require a more deliberate style of shooting. I do like the perspective of the TLR or waist-level finder when using 6x6. I am looking forward to your 6x6 pictures. It will be interesting to see if your way of seeing an image changes with the larger format. Tonight, for the first time in nearly 2 months, I bid on a camera on ebay. It's a post-war Ikoflex I with coated lenses (75mm f/3.5 Novar-Anastigmat) and 1 - 1/300 shutter. I think I did OK at $31 and all I've read about the Novar lens has been good. I believe PeterW has spoken favorably about it. There was also an Ikoflex Ia with Opton lens and Syncro-Compur shutter from the same seller that looked to be in pristine condition but it sold for $81.... too much for me. I gambled that everyone would be fixated on the higher-end model and I think they were. Walker
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 4, 2008 8:02:32 GMT -5
I also think you did OK, Walker. Yes, In my experience the Novar is a good lens. At full aperture it's not quite up to the Tessar right in the corners of the neg, but between f/5.6 and f/11 it would be a very astute judge who could tell the difference between the two in a 10x8 print. I've had some very nice pictures from a Novar on a 6x6 Nettar.
I also have an Ikoflex, an original model II from 1935/36, with an uncoated Novar. Rather work-worn, but still working fine. No difference in definition that I can see between this lens and the coated one on the Nettar, but the uncoated Novar is down on contrast by comparison.
I always thought the Ikoflex was overshadowed by the Rolleiflex, but IMHO it's a fine camera. I like the lever focusing which on mine is very smooth and precise. I haven't used it for a long time as I'm not really a fan of TLRs. For one thing I never got used to the left to right image and movement in the viewfinder, and if I wanted to photograph something from above it I always felt in danger of toppling over on to it, but for informal portraits and general photography they're nice.
I agree that 6x6 probably has the edge on 35mm, and this was more marked some years ago before 35mm emulsions were as fine grained as they later became. Yes, for the usual print format, or the front cover of a magazine where the picture bleeds to the edges, you have to enlarge more and crop either the top and bottom or side edges so you have to remember this when composing in the viewfinder, but the larger neg takes this extra enlargement easily.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 4, 2008 14:28:53 GMT -5
Peter, I also think that the Ikoflex is a well-made camera. The Rolleiflex probably had the upper hand with it's lever-wind and self-cocking shutter, features that the Ikoflex lacked through most of it's production. In comparison, the Ikoflex probably fits between the Rolleicord and the 'Flex, offering more than the cheaper Rollei but less than the top model. IMHO, the quality of the Ikoflex is fully to Zeiss standards, which is to say excellent. I belong to a Rollei list and when I once mentioned 8 x 10, I was reminded that I really meant 8x8 or 11 x 11..... didn't I? In truth, there are times when the square format works and times when it doesn't and benefits from cropping. 35mm has indeed come a long way with much of the improvement being in the films. I recall being amazed at the mural-size enlargements on display at the E. Leitz factory waiting room when I visited in the Winters of '71-'72 & '72-'73. They really were superb and film is even better today. For all around photography, 35mm is unbeatable but larger formats, of course, have their advantages at times. The reversed image in the TLR viewfinder does take some getting used to. Before my migration to 6x6, I'd had used the Leitz Vidom finder quite a lot and I think that helped make the transition easier. Here's an image I took a few years ago with an Ikoflex 852/16. It's pre-war and the lens - a Tessar - is uncoated. I used an orange filter to enhance the clouds. The negative has obviously been cropped but the sharpness is pretty decent IMO. Other negatives from the same roll are also sharp. Walker
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 4, 2008 15:00:55 GMT -5
C141 Transport. Back in 1966 I was going through Army Basic Training at Ft. Lewis, Washington. All day long C-141s would fly over us while we were marching and I kept wishing I was on one of the planes. THEN I found out where the transposts were going!. Years later I flew from Idaho to Norway on one. That's a long flight in an aluminum tube with no windows.
|
|