View Full Version : J-12 test shots
Kiev-4a, J-12, Lucky-SHD400 film which appears very grainy at 35mm I must admit.
I'll try some better shots with Pan F+ when I get the chance. These dont do any justice, but it's interesting how they came out.
Most around F4-8 1/50, or 1/125 F2.8
One more here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=44096&nocache=1
My favourite shot of the test roll so it's in my gallery :)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=44097&nocache=1
Will post some more shots from this lens soon as I can.
Not to be mean, but have you heard of levels and curves?
allan
I've posted them as the neg scanned. I didn't bother with post-processing. They're simply test shots.
and yes, with 3-4 years of photoshopping, I've used levels and curves once or twice ;)
Personally, I see no point in looking at straight scans. I can't tell if your exposure is right, or if your development is right. Based on what you have there, I'd say that your j12 must be causing horrendously flat and ugly images. But if you did just levels and a basic curve we might see the truth of the quality of the lens.
If by "test shots" you mean that you wanted to make sure that light passed through the glass of the lens...well, did that deserve a thread? I mean none of this in a rude way, honestly. I just don't get it.
People differ on this point. I've said my 2 cents. Enjoy the lens.
allan
Well lets hope this won't cause an argument between us. But a straight scan shows the image. I dont see the point in spending 10 minutes post-processing each shot to make it look nothing like what the lens created if you get me.
The lens may be causing horrendously flat and ugly images, (or it may be the lucky film, or my development such) but either way it's here for reference to anyone who wants one of these lenses and wants to see some images BEFORE they've been butchered in photoshop.
Of course, if I had the time to spend 30 minutes a photo in the darkroom, the images would look a lot different.
Here's some quick levelled versions. To be honest it adds nothing to the images. And it certainly doesn't help anyone looking to find the level of contrast the actual lens gives. But for arguments sake here they are.
Nothing wrong with disagreement. No agurement here, as far as I can tell and certainly as far as I intend.
I don't see what I do in Photoshop as butchering. Negative films are designed, shot, and developed with the _presumption_ that contrast will be added during the printing process. You might as well put the negatives on a light box, take a picture of the negatives, as negatives, and post those. That way at least we're looking directly at densities, which is what you've given us anyway.
seriously - no argument. just discussion. and disagreement is not inherently bad.
allan
I never said there was anything wrong with disagreement, but I posted simple neg scans, as you can see the image as it is...
Fact is this image below is a direct neg scan and the contrast is verrrry different.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=44099&limit=recent
Stephanie Brim
09-12-2006, 14:27
In ideal circumstances, you shoot the film with the print result intended in mind...this way you do less work in when printing. Sometimes, however, things don't go quite as planned...then you have to do some work.
It takes some time when developing to learn how best to shoot your film for the result you intend. Until you learn, some level/curves adjustment isn't so much a butchering of the photos as a necessity to show the results you intend.
Two cents worth and all that.
Whoa. You decreased your blacks by leveling? And your highlights got darker? That's weird. Is that even possible?
So the J12 produces inordinately low contrast results. My conclusion, therefore, is that you need to shoot at a higher EI (640?) and develop longer. Contrast as a straight scan is so far off from desired end result (even if you and I disagree on what we'd want in terms of contrast, you surely must want more) that you need to adjust.
And by "you" I really mean "a person using this lens."
(edit) Now, when you add in the link to the other images, you can see that there is a difference in contrast from the lens. Of course, I don't know your scanning method or anything, so I'm not _really_ sure what conclusions I can draw from your results :-)
allan
Stephanie Brim
09-12-2006, 14:31
kaiyen: The J-12 I have produces none of the flatness...I believe that it's the film and/or development that is doing it.
http://pleasewipeyourfeet.com/photowhore/photos/cheapdeath.jpg
If I'm recalling correctly, that is Tri-X developed in Rodinal.
Ferider - is that point lobos???
Stephanie - you make a better point than I. There are too many variables involved here for any real judgment to be made about the J12. Exposure and development are the starting point. Once that's dialed in, then a straight scan might be useful.
Unless, of course, you shot the exact same scene under the exact same lighting with multiple lenses. Then developed them all exactly the same way. Then you could evaluate the contrast of the lens vis a vis others.
allan
So the J12 produces inordinately low contrast results. My conclusion, therefore, is that you need to shoot at a higher EI (640?) and develop longer.
Well I'm not using Lucky SHD again for 35mm, as this is the lowest contrast I've encountered, and the film is verrrry thin; I've been getting pretty consistent results with Ilford films so like I said in the original post, I'll have more results with the lens soon. Either way I/'a person using this lens' will/should take into account your advice above ;)
Here's a Jupiter 12 shot, on my Leica IIIf, with a little help from PhotoShop. I didn't try to illuminate the rear of the hangar.
Jim N.
Roland,
(sorry, I'm usually better about using someone's actual name if he/she uses it)
Yeah, ticks and the poison oak. What a great place. It's been overdone, some say, but there is a reason why so many photos have been taken there. It's gorgeous. Nice photo. That particular spot is tough to get a good photo, I've found. Nicely done.
My last series was done there. Haven't finished the color yet, but:
http://photos.kaiyen.com/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=28
allan
Using a small portion of the image, I found a self-portrait in the shiny spinner.
Jim N.
Excellent. All done with FSU stuff, it seems? I didn't look at the tech info for all of them. Excellent.
this one:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/286298/1/11345152
looks like hidden beach (or is it secret beach?).
Okay. hijack OFF.
allan
Interesting difference between #4 and #12--I prefer #4--the J 12. Don't you?
Ash, thanks for posting. The second of the images shows what could be flare in the top left corner. Mine seems to be capable of flare when I don't expect it, when there is no direct bright light on the lens. Is this what J12s are known for, or could mine (& possibly yours) be poor at resisting flare?
Well I'm not using Lucky SHD again for 35mm, as this is the lowest contrast I've encountered, and the film is verrrry thin; I've been getting pretty consistent results with Ilford films so like I said in the original post
Funny, this.
Jocko, for one, uses Lucky film with remarkably dramatic and high-contrast results, as can be seen in his gallery. Could it be, perhaps, that the thinness on your Lucky negs has more to do with the processing than with the film itself?
I've developed Lucky in 120format very easily with good results, but in 35mm these images have turned out awful. I think its all a bit of bad luck, I didnt really expect 20 posts for this thread either!!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.