PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Oct 23, 2005 8:33:56 GMT -5
Hi Phil,
When you look at your album in Photobucket you'll see that underneath the picture there's a box labelled Img. Copy everything inside the box, including the bits in square brackets, and paste it in your posting. When you try Preview the picture should come up. If it's too big or too small you have to go back to whatever picture editing program you use and either make it smaller or bigger, then delete the one in Photobucket and substituite the resized one. go through the whole thing again. When you try again in Preview you may get a notice saying it can't do it ... Retry?. Click 'yes' and it retries and works.
Come back if you've got any queries.
Pter
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Oct 23, 2005 17:59:53 GMT -5
I shall try again. It worked. Taken with a Rolleiflex 3.5F and some B&W film Ilford HP5 developed at home. A picture of part of a local landmark here in Victoria
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Oct 23, 2005 18:08:46 GMT -5
Excellent Phil. I like the contrast.
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Oct 23, 2005 18:21:14 GMT -5
Thank you. I shall try to get my verticals a bit better lined up. These are certainly nice units to use. I gave my Yashicamat's away after getting the Rollei's
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 24, 2005 2:18:29 GMT -5
Lovely picture Phil. I liked the sunflower one as well
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Oct 24, 2005 2:22:25 GMT -5
I liked the sunflower one as well Oops I see that the sunflower was a Hasselblad picture. Still very nice.
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Oct 24, 2005 6:58:43 GMT -5
Thanks I prefer the SLR for macro work, but the Rolleiflex is perhaps a better camera in most other respects.
|
|
|
Post by bsdunek on Jul 18, 2006 8:03:39 GMT -5
I think the Rolleikin 35mm adapter served two purposes for a lot of users. It gave them 36 exposures without having to change film, and it cut down on individual picture cost. It also used just the centre part of the Tessar's image to give the best definition, and the focal length gave a nice long-focus effect. The picture in the masked-off viewfinder was a bit tiny to compose with, though. Peter Hello all - new member here. Peter, I think additionally, the Rolleikin was marketed as a way to make 35mm slides with your Rollei. They do make beautiful slides, if a bit awkard, especially for horizontals. As a collector, I have Rolleikins for my Rolleis. I've tried them just for fun - but use 35mm cameras for slides. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Jul 21, 2006 16:51:21 GMT -5
[As a collector, I have Rolleikins for my Rolleis. I've tried them just for fun - but use 35mm cameras for slides.Bruce Bruce, I have a Rolleikin 1 back and the Rolleikin 2 adaptors but have only used them as a novelty. Actually horizontal shots are not too difficult using the frame finder with masks. At the time these were introduced there were probably many slide films that were unavailable in 120 size.
|
|
|
Post by jennyandernie on Jul 28, 2006 13:10:16 GMT -5
We have two TLR's, a Rolleiflex 3.5f and a Yashica-Mat. The first TLR I owned was a Yashica 124G; I loved it. At the time I did a lot of child photography and the TLR is to my mind the ideal camera for that. You can sit the small child on the floor and sit yourself with the camera almost at ground level. I always loved the portraits taken with the Rolleiflex in the 1950's and 60's; such wonderful tonal range. I find the TLR great for candid people shots; it seems that these days if you have not got the camera to your eye no one notices that you are taking their photo lol. Try going into the market on a dull winters day with your Rolleiflex loaded with HP5 or Tri X pushed to 1600 ASA. Develop in something like Bromophen; You get great candid high contrast pics with almost no grain. Ernie
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jul 28, 2006 16:15:42 GMT -5
Ernie, nice shot with the Rollei! I've never used mine this way -- pushing to 1600. Now I've got to try it!
Gene
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jul 28, 2006 16:36:25 GMT -5
Ernie & Gene
I've heard Rick talking about pushing film to increase the tonal range. It's not a technique I'm familiar with. Is there any chance that someone could put together a description of how you actually go about it?
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm sure there are one or two others who would also be interested.
Regards - John
ps - If the technique increases the bokeh then forget it! LOL
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jul 28, 2006 17:13:48 GMT -5
I've heard Rick talking about pushing film to increase the tonal range. It's not a technique I'm familiar with. Is there any chance that someone could put together a description of how you actually go about it? When I push film it always decreases the tonal range, rather than increases it. Depending on the situation, I can usually live with that. Rick may be referring to a technique a user named Merciful explained on the Rangefinder forum. Merciful exposes Tri-X at at speeds like 3200, then develops them with a partial-stand method in dilute Rodinal. The theory, I think, is that while the developer is standing, not being agitated regularly, it loses its potency temporarily while adjacent to highlight areas but continues to develop the shadow areas. He has produced some stunning results using this method (and I have notes about it written down somewhere) but I've not tried it myself. Gene
|
|
|
Post by jennyandernie on Jul 28, 2006 17:25:24 GMT -5
From my experience pushing film decreases the tonal range, increasing the contrast and grain. That is why I like to push film on a dull winter day; and with medium format the increase in grain is not as noticable.
I too have heard about increasing the tonal range by not agitating the developing tank for the latter part of the developing time. This as Gene says exhausts the developer in the highlight areas and allows more development in the shadows. Never done it myself. Ernie.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jul 29, 2006 16:11:53 GMT -5
Thanks Gene & Ernie
Seems you are both talking about development techniques here, and I didn't remember Rick talking in that context. I had to look up all his old posts to find the references (which gave me time to make a cup of tea and stroll to the shop for a newspaper!).
My apologies Rick - you didn't use the term 'pushing' at all. Here are the quotes:
"I have found that if you expose Reala at ISO 80 you get the super saturated colors but at 100 it is more normal." and:
"The pro series films give better grain and quality but the tones are more subdued. It is an easy task to bump the saturation just enough to look like velvia."
The only reason I've changed the film speed is to compensate for using silver-oxide batteries in a camera calibrated for mercury (and there are better ways of doing that). I was just hoping that there was another technique here that I could learn something about.....
Regards - John
|
|