Giant's Causeway

[SidW]

A windy day at the Giant's Causeway, County Antrim, Northern Ireland, in September 2007.
Exakta Varex (1955-56) 35mm SLR, Kodachrome 200.


The Causeway. Zeiss Jena Sonnar 145mm/4 (1967).




Rough incoming tide. Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm/2.8 (1967).




More rough sea. Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm/4 (1967)




Continuation of the causeway into the cliffs behind. Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm/4 (1967).

[PeterW]

Lovely pictures, Sid.

They show yet again that Ludwig Bertele's venerable Sonnar (born 1931) is still a lens to be reckoned with. The post war Sonnars from Jena were recomputed to use later glass, but they were still to Bertele's design.

PeterW

[olroy2044]

Peter, is that the same formula as the Sonnar in my Rollei 35s? It sure is sharp.
Great pix, Sid!
Roy

[PeterW]

Hi Roy,

Not absolutely certain about the Sonnars in the Rollei 35.

Over the years the Sonnar was modified numerous times by Bertele and other Zeiss designers to use different types of glass and for different applications, including cine. The number of glasses sometimes varied to enable this to be achieved, but as far as I know they were all based on the original Bertele design. There was also a Vario Sonnar which was a zoom, but I understand this was a completely new layout.

BTW, not very many people realise that the Rollei 35 was not an original Franke and Heidecke design. It was designed at home in his spare time by Heinz Waaske when he was chief engineer with Wirgin.

He had a prototype made in the Wirgin works which I uderstand led to major row with Wirgin management about using works facilities for his own use.

Waaske left Wirgin and went to work for Franke and Heidecke in 1965 but didn't show them his 35mm camera for a couple of months. When Dr. Heinrich Peesel, then boss of Rollei, saw it he liked it and put it into production. It was shown the following year, 1966, at Photokina. I hope Waaske got a substantial bonus for it!

Just a bit of not very vital but interesting info. I wonder what sort of quality it would have been had Wirgin taken it up?

PeterW

[nikonbob]

SidW

The old vintage gear doesn't take a back seat to anyone, does it. You photos of a lovely country go a long way to proving that. Were the people as friendly there as I remember them to be?

Bob

[mickeyobe]

SidW,

Beautiful pictures of what looks like a rather imposing and daunting place.

I am almost tempted to load up my old VX IIa. Almost, but in truth, I am too lazy.

If only we had a Giant's Causeway. There is a fallen log over Black Creek but it just doesn't inspire the same awe - or any awe.

Mickey

[SidW]

nikonbob said:

.... Were the people as friendly there as I remember them to be? ....

Bob, remember Northern Ireland has been a troubled spot for many years, but it's much quieter now, plenty of new industry coming in which indicates confidence in the future, and yes, they are very friendly people.

Thanks everyone for the friendly words, and I join in the praise of the old Zeiss lenses. But I have one bind, these are relatively late and colour-corrected, yet today they give a distinct blue cast, with plenty of hard work balancing the colour. Not quite so bad as the uncorrected 1930-1950s lenses. I suppose it's due to some zealous previous owner polishing them twice a day.

I didn't get the colour right on pic. no. 3, too turquoise, I'll have another go at it. No. 2 is my favourite, looks a treat at full screen size. No. 1 is our son by the way, the only one of us sufficiently surefooted to stay up there (50 metres distance by the way and cropped to about 60%). I believe they call the rock formation in no. 4 "the organ" - if they don't they ought to.

Talking of lack of surefootedness, my legs have been weakening for a number of years and walking was really tough last year. The cause was found to be a pinched nerve in the spine and I've just had back surgery to free it up. All went well, and I haven't had more discomfort than after digging the potato patch. Now after 4 weeks my daily walk is still no more than 300 metres, but it's a straight and steady 300 metres, no wobbling about or stumbling. So the outlook is good. Next week I start a course of physiotherapy in the bathing pool at the hospital. And then I'll be ready to start working up strength again.

Incidentally, I was sitting on a convenient rock to take those pictures, it's the sort of place where there are convenient rocks everywhere, not like a city centre.

[olroy2044]

Sid: The photos are beautiful! I love it when I see great photos produced with old gear. Best wishes on your recovery! Roy

[olroy2044]

Peter-Believe it or not, I was aware of the issues between Waaske and Wirgin. I believe that the Sonnar was the higher regarded lens of the ones used on the Rollei 35. I sure enjoy mine! Roy

[PeterW]

Hi Sid,

Thanks everyone for the friendly words, and I join in the praise of the old Zeiss lenses. But I have one bind, these are relatively late and colour-corrected, yet today they give a distinct blue cast, with plenty of hard work balancing the colour. Not quite so bad as the uncorrected 1930-1950s lenses. I suppose it's due to some zealous previous owner polishing them twice a day.

I've found similar blue colour casts on lenses from the 1960s. I believe many lens makers at the time used the words colour corrected in a slightly different sense from their use today. What they meant was that, for example, red and blue light don't focus in exactly the same plane because of their different wavelengths. Early emulsions weren't sensitive at all to the red end of the spectrum, and even orthochromatic film didn't see much below orange. Deeper reds tended to look black.

When panchromatic film with greater sensitivity towards the lower part of the spectrum came in, late 1920s early 1930s, this difference in wavelengths gave a softening of definition at the edges of different colours with un-colour-corrected lenses.

'Colour correction' was used as a term to indicate that all, or most of the visible light, across the spectrum was brought to focus accurately at the film plane, and the term hung on to mean this. It didn't necessarily mean that the shade or tone of colours was balanced to be the same as our eyes see them. Things were better with lenses that had the prefix Color but even they weren't as good at colour balance as many of today's lenses

In any case, colour films of the 1960s varied as to how they saw the spectrum much more than they do today. Ektachrome and Ferrania and some of the earlier colour print films, for example, had a reputation of giving a blue cast if there was a lot of ultra violet light about, hence the popularity of UV or 'Skylight' filters. Others, Agfa and Gevaert I seem to remember, tended to give everything a warm look, as did early Prinzcolor from Dixons, but I don't remember who made that. Generally, though, Kodachrome was pretty good.

There was quite a lot of correspondence and readers' queries about this in Amateur Photographer around that time, which is where most of my understanding of it came from.

PeterW

[Deleted]

Ektachrome always had a reputation as a "cool" (blue cast) film. I shot a lot of Agfachrome back in the '60s and '70s because it was warmer, with what I considered better skin tone--a redder cast. Kodachrome was the most balanced but even it was a little cool.

[nikonbob]

SidW

Sorry to hear of your troubles with the pinched nerve and hope your recovery will be complete. We were in Belfast about 1995 or so and remember after seeing the police station was behind a high fence topped with razor wire wondering who the inmates really were. There were other things that I found were reminders of the troubles too. I really hope that is all now in the past.

Bob

[SidW]

Peter, yes indeed, thanks for reminding me that colour correction in the 1950s and 1960s meant getting the whole spectrum to focus on the same spot. I was being my usual elliptical self and intended colour balance in the image.

Bob, 1995 was before we started going over there, I think you'd notice a big difference there now.