first b&w

[back alley]

got back my first roll of b&w this afternoon, ilford xp super.
felt a bit weird to have someone else process my black & white but i'm fearful i could get used to it.
the good news is there is no line across the negs or prints, meaning that the first slides were scratched by the lab. i used a different place this time.
the 35/2.5 is sharp enough for my needs but i think the lens is prone to flare. in the bottom right of a few shots there is really bad flare. i took 2 shots, almost the same view - seconds after each other, and there is flare in the second one. i may have to splurge for the better shade (i think there is one available). i find this odd in that i cannot recall any lens i have owned previously to exhibit so much flare. this was in both colour and b&w rolls.
anyway, i am going to attempt to post some of the shots here.
no great art but a good test to start off with.

[back alley]

--

[back alley]

without flare

[back alley]

with flare

[back alley]

sat morning, notice the flare - bottom right!

[back alley]

sat morning

[back alley]

colour shot - notice the nice blue scratch across the middle part. this was a not as noticeable scratch.

[back alley]

btw - what do you guys size your photos at for posting here?

joe

[rover]

Great to hear that you are happy with the results. The exposure looks good too, so you have a healthy meter.

[Rich Silfver]

Joe,
those look great! Really contrasty, very sharp and very well exposted. Really, really good!

How did you end up getting them scanned? If done by the lab I must say they did a good job.

And for the flare...are you sure it's a flare and not something obstructing the lower right corner...like a finger casting a shadown there or something? Are you holding onto the lens/hood when shooting and that may be what we're seeing?
Only reason for saying it is because I've been guility of doing that myself :-)

Once again - the results look great, very nice lens!

[back alley]

thanks richard!
i got them scanned at the same place they were processed. actually, it was a 1 hour lab (tho it took 2.5 hours) but they have a good rep in town.
looking at the scans themselves on my computer they look not so good, very grainy and lower contrast - but they appear better posted here. is that normal? the 4x6 prints look the best of all 3.
i quite like that xp2 and will continue to use it till the 'darkroom bug' hits me agian.
as for that flare, you could be right. i'm more used to shooting with the much larger mamiya 6 and maybe my ham fists didn't get in it's way. i have still to process any film from my ebay rf camera collection and there may be more evidence of my 'in the way' hands there.
as to my metering...i wanted to check out the meter so i followed it exactly. i did not interpret the scene or make any adjustments, just did what the meter told me to. i need to get used to the metering pattern and also move in closer to my subjects, i think i had to much extra area in my shots, especially the ones i didn't post.
overall, i like the camera and lens combo and look forward to picking up the 75/2.5 soon.
i'm surprised at some of the reviews that i've read about this camera. it does not feel cheap or plasticky in my hands and i wonder about all the complaints about it's plastic parts in this day of polycarbonate wonders out there. of course i rarely hammer nails with my cameras.
i look forward to more shooting and feel invigorated about my photography again.

...and that's what really matters to me...

joe

[Doug]

Joe, the photos look fine! I do agree with you that it would help to move in closer and frame tighter, but that's a good start.

Also I think Richard is right about the flare. Flare should show up as a white washed-out area, not medium tone or dark as with your first example. I'm sure it's the result of some obstruction creeping in from the lower right, possibly a strap or hand, etc.

Something to keep in mind about this camera, as with your Mamiyas, is that the lens is further to the right and lower than the viewfinder, so it will "see" obstructions in that lower-right quarter that don't appear in the viewfinder. It could even have been a nearby display shelf or some such in the scene. Parallax!

[Rich Silfver]

Joe, I agree about your closing comment about the most important thing is getting excited about photography again - but in addition to that they also look great.

Now go and photo document your neighbourhood and let us see some slices of your world :-)

[rover]

I am going to vote with you about the build of the camera. Taken on its own merits it is a fine machine. I read all those same things prior to buying the camera and decided that it is a case of folks pointing out the bad and calling it a review. Is the R2 more substantial, sure. Is it "Leica Quality?" Not much is. Is it a nice camera, you bet.

[taffer]

Joe, keep them coming ! I particulary like the one of the 'street painters'. As for the 'flare', I'd also vote for something obstructing the lens (finger?) instead of a real flare problem.

[back alley]

maybe i need to cut my finger nails, they ARE gettin' kinda long!

joe

[rover]

Hey Joe, I just got a couple rolls back I shot with my R. Print film, came out ok. The shots where I made some compensation I think were a little better, but it just may be me. It is hard to tell on print film, but I guess if my meter is off, it is just a little. Like I said before, I have not heard that meter problems are common with the Bessas.

[back alley]

rover, i think my meter is ok. i shot that roll without any compensation at all, just fiddled till the red center led glowed brightly. i would normally 'play' with it some checking out light and dark areas and compensating for the area that i thought was most important for the shot.
i'm impressed with the meter but with all the 'matrix' metering out there i think centreweighted is still the way to go. (outside of my favourite - a spot meter)

joe

[Nikon Bob]

I was advised at another site to expose XP2 and Kodak C41 film at 200 and process normally to combat grain. I tried some kodak and it seem to work.

[Rich Silfver]

Bob, looks really good!

[Nikon Bob]

Thanxs. the advice made sense as over exposure with print film seems to help them ( colour print too ) which is the opposite of slide film. Nothing really beats a home film scanner for getting the image into your PC either.

[unfocuzed]

Does Overexposing the C41 kodak make it more contrasty? I like having a c41 B&W to get done at 1hr but prefer my B&W to be real contrasty.

[Doug]

UnF -- nope, overexposing C41 film doesn't make it more contrasty. Overdeveloping would, though, so you might expose normally and ask your lab to push-process the roll one stop. I've found that does boost contrast!

[GeneW]

Originally posted by unfocuzed
Does Overexposing the C41 kodak make it more contrasty? I like having a c41 B&W to get done at 1hr but prefer my B&W to be real contrasty.
What Doug said ...

Also, you normally try to get 'normal' development of any B&W film. In a darkroom you can then use higher number paper grades to boost contrast. In Photoshop you use Levels and Curves. But if you overdevelop your film the contrast can become uncontrollable, losing values in highlights or shadows when you attempt to make images. Too-contrasty negatives give scanners the fits.

Gene