please help, My rollei 35 prints are garbage

[lawnpotter]

I just bought a rollei 35(Tessar lens) from KEH, and I have about another week to return it. I just got developed from a good local mass print place a roll of 24. I used 400 asa fuji superia. The pictures looked reall grainy and contrasty, My room mate said they looked like they came from a disposable camera. I took simmilar composititions with the same film using my olympus trip35 To compare. The trip 35 looked much better. better colours and way less grain. I asked the lab guy who actually took some good courses in college for lab work and he said the Rollei 35 pictures are grainy cause the lens is so sharp. He said I should use slower film. and a real black and white film would be much better with this camera. My intention all a long was to use this camera with TriX. I only used colour to test it. My Problem is that it will take a week untill tri x test prints come back from the lab. I only have aweek to get my money back for the camera. Is the lab guy right? Does the 400 asa superia look so bad cause the lens is so sharp? Will Trix look much better? Thanks for your help. Bye the way my Olympus epic looks great with Trix 400.

[Celloman]

It's possible that your shots were not correctly exposed. There could be a problem with the camera and it's shutter speeds. Not likely a lens sharpness issue.

Mike

[erikhaugsby]

The 'sharpness' of a lens has absolutely no impact on the film grain/structure--if you put the same roll in two different cameras you will get the same film characteristics. Is it possible that the film from the Rollei were improperly processed?

edit: Mike also brought up a good point, and was quicker than me. What did you use to meter the shots from the Rollei? Built-in meter? Handheld meter? Guess exposure?

[lawnpotter]

I used hand meter and sunny 16 and a lot of guessing, but the negatives didnt look to bad from my very untrained eye

[M. Valdemar]

You need a lot of practice and trial and error if you want to get good results from manual cameras.

Each camera has it's own quirks that you have to get used to. Likely there is nothing wrong with the Rollei. Operator error.

Notice that my post is somewhat easy to read because of something called "paragraphs".

[erikhaugsby]

Notice that my post is somewhat easy to read because of something called "paragraphs".
Notice that the period is intended to go inside of the parenthesis, not outside. Good example: "paragraphs." Bad example: "paragraphs".

Perhaps it's time for you to exit your little hypnotic trance and let nature take its due course.

[Roger Hicks]

Notice that the period is intended to go inside of the parenthesis, not outside. Good example: "paragraphs." Bad example: "paragraphs".


No. This is a regional convention. In English it is normal to place the full stop outside inverted commas -- and the fact that I use completely different words shows how much English and American have diverged. In English, and until today I had assumed in American too, 'parenthesis' as a punctuation mark normally refers to 'round brackets' (thus).

Not only are UK and US conventions different: the things that many regard as 'rules' are not even widespread, but relate merely to a particular bee in the bonnet of one of their early teachers (or its absence). Thus as a Cornishman I was taught that 'further' and 'farther' are regional variations and interchangeable. I was therefore much confused to learn that one of my editors had been taught that they refer to time and distance (or some such). Either view is defensible.

I fully agree that the point about paragraphs could have been more tactfully made, but adopting the same tactics is, in my view, counter-productive.

To answer the original question, I fully agree with you that the sharpness of the lens is irrelevant to the grain and contrast of the film, and I suspect that the problem was under-exposure. Shoot another roll, rating the film at one-half the ISO speed, i.e. giving twice the exposure. If in doubt, bracket in the direction of overexposure.

With colour negative films, reduced exposure means bigger 'grain' (dye-clouds) whereas with conventional monochrome, more exposure means bigger grain. In both cases, increased exposure also means reduced sharpness: exposure is always a trade-off between grain, sharpness and tonality, so there is no such thing as 'correct' exposure. ISO speeds are merely the best starting point that has yet been devised.

Cheers,

Roger

[Brian Sweeney]

I just picked up a Rollei 35-TE with the Tessar 40/3.5, still putting the first test roll through it.

Some items to note:
1) Always advance the film before collapsing the lens. Damage can result if you do not. With that said, I would check the Shutter Speed and Aperture control of your camera to make sure the linkage is good. If it "slipped", there could be problems and you might not be getting the F-Stop and Shutter Speed as intended. I would also check that the lens tube is locking into place correctly, and the mechanism was not damaged.

2) The camera was made to take Mercury-Cell batteries. Mine uses a PX-27. I cleaned the contacts on my camera, voltage on the battery looked good, and meter looks accurate. I'm not sure how voltage sensitive the meter will be with a 6v replacement.

I'm looking forward to finishing the roll and checking results.

[payasam]

Does the film look correctly exposed? You might compare the Rollei one with the other: hold them up to the light together. Lens sharpness has nothing to do with graininess.

I've been an editor for over 35 years, and to my knowledge inverted commas are nowhere called parentheses.

[Turtle]

look at the negs. Gross underexposure would result in grainy horrid prints. If the negs are fine it could be bad processing. Try a roll of slide film, make 100% sure you have set good exposure and get them processed asap. Even if you are a touch out you should see if the camera is operating properly. Take exposures from an SLR you are fmailiar with if it helps.

[Turtle]

Its' really does not matter if their are grammatical errors in someones' posts' as long as we know what they are talking about. Its not what matters. It would be shame if someone who loves photography but has terrible punctuation and spelling cannot find respite here amongst friends.

So their ;)

Tom

[payasam]

Who are the other five?

[kshapero]

I get this problem, too at times. If I shoot 400 ISO film in a dark room at 1/8 shutter speed and an aperture of 1.5, sometimes I get very grainy photos as if I shot 3200 film. Why is that?

[oftheherd]

I think everyone posted something helpful to the OP.

It's just so much fun for those of us who write a lot (for whatever reason) to get in a brawl over punctuation. Proper punctuation is important to at least six people worldwide, so worthy of debate. :angel:

Well, that"s not true: It used to bee important to me butt I finallly saw the lite. You'r now down to Five.

:D :D

[Jonathan R]

Lawnpotter, that Tessar lens is sharp, but it's also low in contrast. If your prints were very contrasty, you should definitely suspect something other than the lens. Mike's suggestion about exposure sounds very plausible. I'd suggest retrying with a 200 ISO film and a different lab. Bracket exposures, and match each print with its negative to see what might be happening.

[Roger Hicks]

Proper punctuation is important to at least six people worldwide, so worthy of debate. :angel:
Several thousand, presumably: Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves (which is mainly about punctuation) sold very well indeed and is, I believe, still in print.

When it comes to style books, though, the best you can say of them is that they reflect house styles, e.g. New York Times, Oxford University Press. Certain usages are simply illiterate, such as the greengrocer's apostrophe (for plurals -- apple's, pear's); some are conventions which do not bear very close analysis (such as it's/its); and many are matters of personal taste, or slavish obedience to an English teacher who way be long dead and may well have been poorly informed, at least on certain points, in life.

Cheers,

Roger

[mfogiel]

kshapero
The somewhat "grainy" appearance of wide open shots is something I have also noticed, and I attribute this to insufficient resolution - wide open MTF of many lenses plus a 400ISO film simply lower the MTF substantially - the cure? Best lenses you can get hold of and/or slower film.
To illustrate the point:
A wide open shot with the Nokton 35/1.2 and Acros, 1/2000:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2178/2269883260_6e4a97aeec_b.jpg
and another shot wide open with the same lens and 400 ISO film at 1/15:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/1794807300_0c82908851_b.jpg

As you can see, the second shot looks like done with a much worse lens than the first one.

However, this may not answer the point in question - I'd be inclined to think the problem lies with underexposure of the chromogenic film.
Here's a comparison of shots made on Kodak BW400CN, the first one exposed at 200 ISO:
(FM3A+Distagon35/2 ZF)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/466500137_aa2f6416e4_b.jpg

and this one made on a 6x6 film at 1600 ISO, as you can see, underexposure blows up the grain immensely:
(Hasselblad+Sonnar 250/5.6)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1256/1159277149_fd74dab056_b.jpg

[Jonathan R]

Oh, and if you are using a lab you may be particularly disappointed by the results from a BW film. I find films need a little extra development for that lens to boost contrast. Strangely enough my best results with it have been with T-Max 100 and T-Max developer. It also helps to use a lenshood, and a yellow filter (cute little thing for that lens) whenever the light allows.

[tripod]

I wouldn't characterize a Rollei Tessar lens as "low contrast.". (Just want to have all my punctuation bases covered. :))

The camera and lens cannot be blamed for graininess or bad colours. It's either bad exposure or processing.

[Rogrund]

Sounds like underexposure to me.

And, if you're interested in the different conventions regarding commas and periods inside or outside quotation marks, I can recommend this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark) informative link, read under "Typographical considerations".

As you can see, I much prefer the logical quotation.

[micromontenegro]

That sure sounds as underexposure. A scan would help.

And a couple of decades as a proof reader say: "If the quoted fragment ends with a period, it goes inside." "On the other hand, if it does not".

[M. Valdemar]

All u peeps is write. Next time u axe a ? I won't say nuthing like B4.

[Sparrow]

I’m pretty sure a Panda is a type of bear; I could be wrong. I may also have mistakenly used a semicolon. I’m just a reckless sort of chap.

[kshapero]

Since I mainly use a ZI, could I solve the problem of underexposure by compensating by say, one + stop?

[Roger Hicks]

A panda walks into a restaurant, sits down and orders a sandwich. After he finishes eating the sandwich, the panda pulls out a gun and shoots the waiter, and then stands up to go. "Hey!" shouts the manager. "Where are you going? You just shot my waiter and you didn't pay for your sandwich!"

The panda yells back at the manager, "Hey man, I am a PANDA! Look it up!"

The manager opens his dictionary and sees the following definition for panda: "A tree-dwelling marsupial of Asian origin, characterised by distinct black and white colouring. Eats shoots and leaves."


Except that the joke as I saw it depends on the punctuation. 'Eats shoots and leaves' is an accurate description of a panda's diet. 'Eats, shoots and leaves' is what the panda does in the story -- which, in the version I read, depends on the panda's giving the restaurant manager the book with the poorly punctuated version in it.

Grammatically it turns on the change in the meaning of 'shoots' and 'leaves' from nouns to verbs as a consequence of inserting the comma.

Cheers,

Roger

[Brian Sweeney]

After all of this, I would suggest calling KEH and telling them the first test roll seemed to indicate a problem with the camera. Tell them that you are inclined to return it, but ask if you could get an extension on the normal return period to try a second roll of film. Just to be certain that the camera's not at fault, shoot a roll in your known good Olympus and the Rollei at the same exposure settings.

Good luck.

[lawnpotter]

Brian, that is great advice, I will do that tommorrow. Today I went to a pro lab and they said my exposures seemed fine. The girl said that the pictures are not grainy but digitaly noisy, due to the digital processing that they went through. She said if I print them with analogue equip, than my problems should go away. I will pick up some new prints from the pro lab tommorow. Thanks again everyone.

[payasam]

For the English language and it's [ouch] essentially illogical nature, see attachment.

[Roger Hicks]

For the English language and it's [ouch] essentially illogical nature, see attachment.

Of course, Indian English is another language again. To take an automotive example, what the English call the sump, Americans call the oil pan and Indians call the chamber...

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

> The girl said that the pictures are not grainy but digitaly noisy, due to the digital
> processing that they went through.

That makes sense. If the negatives were too dense from over-exposure, the digital sensor would pick up a lot of noise. If they were too thin from underexposure, the gain used to print them would make it look noisy. Either way, I'm amazed at how far off an exposure can be and the store print look good. Usually "my error" and shooting at the wrong speed. Or leaving a roll of film half used in a camera for 5 years...whoops...

[fidget]

On a similar theme, some time ago I had to use the supermarket processing and print service for my test films for a few new cameras. My (mistaken) belief was that 6x4 prints would show up most faults.
I didn't expect that the prints would show out of focus or soft images, as they are 6x4 and are little too small to use to check for sharpness. All prints from two cameras showed a "soft" focus, not what I wanted at all. As the prints showed this at 6x4, I thought that the images must have been very poor indeed. I passed one of the cameras on and left the other in the "shouldn't have bought that" box.
Only when I tried the same with a new lens for my FSU RF camera did I become suspicious when they too came out very poor. I took the negs (C41 B&W) and printed a couple up myself. They were fine.
I had a word with the very pleasant but absolutely non technical operator, who told me that she likes to work the photographic equipment as a nice break from the cold meats counter and had no idea what "my problem" was. She could only offer a reprint.

At around the same time, my wife was regularly having 6x4 prints made from files from her digi compact. These came out beautifully. They knocked spots off my prints from negs.
So, I concluded that there was some poor performance or problem with the neg scanner on the equipment. More importantly, these things can't be relied upon, just ask Sharon on the cold counter!


Dave

[Roger Hicks]

. . . just ask Sharon on the cold counter! Dave
Dear Dave,

It was by no means unknown, in the days of purely optical printing, for the operator to set the focus slightly 'off', in order to help lose scratches, hairs, thumb-prints, etc.

I wonder if something similar is being done, either optically or via software.

Cheers,

R.

[Pherdinand]

maybe tell KEH that their punctuation system is wrong and you want your money back.
After all, that seems to be the most important thing in the replies:)

Oh sorry. I mean
"may be tell KEH they're puncuation systM iz rong n u want you're $$ back.".

[Scarpia]

[QUOTE=memphis;814401]A panda walks into a restaurant, sits down and orders a sandwich. After he finishes eating the sandwich, the panda pulls out a gun and shoots the waiter, and then stands up to go. "Hey!" shouts the manager. "Where are you going? You just shot my waiter and you didn't pay for your sandwich!"

The panda yells back at the manager, "Hey man, I am a PANDA! Look it up!"

The manager opens his dictionary and sees the following definition for panda: "A tree-dwelling marsupial of Asian origin, characterised by distinct black and white colouring. Eats shoots and leaves."


Pandas are not marsupials! :cool:
Kurt M.

[olroy2044]

I've been using a 35s for about 30 years, and have had excellent results from any film I put in it. The meter packed up twice, had it repaired once and just forgot about it and went to a hand meter the second time. The issue at hand definitly sounds like under exposure to me. The posters are all correct in saying that lens sharpness has no bearing on graininess. The last roll I shot in the little Rollei was Superia 400. Here's a couple frames from that roll:

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/olroy2044/Rollei%2035s/Rollei35sspringf16500.jpg

This one was published as the cover of a small circulation outdoor mag
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/olroy2044/Rollei%2035s/271267-R1-14-11_015.jpg

The little Rollei is capable of superb results, if you do your part. Cheers Roy

[pvdhaar]

Pandas are not marsupials! :cool:


Oh, you mean the story didn't really happen? :confused:

Along the same lines..

Two guys, both avid hunters, go out to shoot rabbits. But one of them has this spray can, that he tells the other is totally awesome.. and he'll show as soon as they've shot one of them rodents.

So after a while, they see a bunny and shoot it. They walk up to it, and yes, it's completely blown apart. Now this guy pulls out the spray can and uses it on the rabbit. Guess what? It jumps up, hops up a hill, and before vanishing to the other side, looks back, raises its front paw and waves to the hunters.

Of course, the other guy is totally amazed and asks what type of spray can that is. Well, says the guy with the can; 'I found this in the bathroom, it's my wife's. But here, read the small print: '.. restores life to dead hare, and adds wave..'

[lawnpotter]

The results from a roll of tmax 100 were more to my liking, but in the end, I returned the rollei and bought instead an Olympus RC. For me it just seems a better fit. Thanks again

[rolleistef]

Another story, about pronunciation :

A motorway walks into a bar, sits and order a beer. It's a big strong motorway (M25-ish) with 4 lanes. At that moment, a thin long macadam path enters into the bar and orders a beer as well.
At that moment, the motorway jumps, shaking, behind the bar counter, it's really afraid. "But how", says the barman, "you a big strong motorway, being afraid of that!" "Can't you see it's a cycle path?"

[kuzano]

In keeping with how this thread has degraded:

Your problem reminds me of the Penguin who takes his BMW into the shop for the service department to find an fluid leak. The service manager tells him it will take about an hour.


Standing in the waiting room, the penguin notices a Baskin and Robbins 31 flavors across the street. He marches across and orders a double scoop of his favorite Vanilla Bean ice cream. Naturally since Penguins have to eat with flippers, its a bit of a messy process.


He goes back to the BMW dealership, just as the service manager comes into the waiting room. The service manager says, "Well sir, it looks like you blew a seal."


"OH No, No, No" protests the Seal, wiping his flippers around his mouth. "That's just ice cream you see on my face."