Rolleiflex 3.5E | first (TLR) experience

[Naumoski]

Hi everybody.

After quite a time of waiting, I finally managed to get the Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar. Along with it, I got Kodak GX 100 Slide film, so I'm showing here my first TLR/Rolleiflex/Slide roll.

First of all - it was fun.
Very easy loading film, no blank shots, very straight camera, just setting aperture/speed/focusing, and nothing more.
Handling and using the camera is easy, I need to get used to it, especially to focusing and getting right horizontals/verticals.
--
The photos are direct normal scans by photo lab, without editing (only resized).
The slides, actually, when pointed to a light source are much more vivid, contrasty and sharper.

Also, almost all photos are shot with open aperture f/3.5 @ 1/30th.

I expect to get sharper photos using smaller apertures and faster speeds.

_____________________

Only this one is on 1/125th @ 5.6, however it wasn't a steady shot.









--
The rest of the photos are all taken against light (windows / sun) so the lower contrast is expected. Also they are metered 'by eye', so are underexposed a bit.











----

And some technical problems..

Is this flare?



I don't know what's the black part of this photo.. ??

[Naumoski]

I did a quick edit of two photos to make a comparison:

[Mablo]

Hmm.. did you use hood? It does look like flare to me but at f/3.5 and no hood that would be sort of understandable. It could also be a development snafu (like that black part too) I think it's better you shoot another roll (maybe b&w this time) using more normal medium format apertures, something like f/8 to f/16 to be on the safe side.

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by Mablo

Hmm.. did you use hood? It does look like flare to me but at f/3.5 and no hood that would be sort of understandable. It could also be a development snafu (like that black part too) I think it's better you shoot another roll (maybe b&w this time) using more normal medium format apertures, something like f/8 to f/16 to be on the safe side.

Mablo, thanx for the advice.

Obviously shooting against sunset @ 3.5 and 1/30th is not much clever. I don't have hood. I have Portra 160NC now in the camera, and I will try to close the aperture down to f/8 etc, using faster speeds and to shoot under normal condition to see what results I will have.

I will say again, the slides when pointed to a light are very contrasty, sharp and much much colorful, and I'm kinda confused by the scans...

[mfogiel]

Scans or no scans, the shots have flare and could be exposed better. Try to get a lightmeter and a lens shade - if you do not find one, shoot with the sun at your back. Also, negative films will give you better exposure latitude.

[Michiel Fokkema]

Or maybe even worse, haze in your lenses. My 3,5 Planar is way sharper and more contrasty then your lens.
Look at these pictures, all indoor are made wide open. I do use a hood though.

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by Michiel Fokkema

Or maybe even worse, haze in your lenses. My 3,5 Planar is way sharper and more contrasty then your lens.
Look at these pictures, all indoor are made wide open. I do use a hood though.

What is actually "haze in lens"?

[Robert Lai]

I agree that your lens looks hazy. Haze is usually lubricant oil that has evaporated and condensed on the glass surfaces. This lubricant came from the shutter and diaphragm linkages. The easiest way to tell is to open the back of your camera, set the diaphragm to 3.5, set the shutter to "B", fire it, hold the shutter down (or use a locking cable release), and then look through the lens at a bright light. You should see nothing but a clear view with a good lens. You may see some specks of dust. In your case, I would expect a slightly foggy view through the lens.

You would need a professional repairman to disassemble, clean and reassemble this camera.

[Pickett Wilson]

Looks like some bad haze in the lens to me. The camera needs a good CLA.

[kzphoto]

Do you have a filter on the Rollei? I had the same problem and I realize now that the filters haze really bad if you shoot into light.

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by kzphoto

Do you have a filter on the Rollei? I had the same problem and I realize now that the filters haze really bad if you shoot into light.

I forgot. As I remember on the most of the shots I used a Rolleipol -1.5 filter (with 0-18 scale), except on last several 2-3 photos which are made outside on sunset.

[kzphoto]

Check the filter for haze, using the techniques people have described for checking your lenses. Same idea.

An example of a hazy warming filter is attached.

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by kzphoto

Check the filter for haze, using the techniques people have described for checking your lenses. Same idea.

An example of a hazy warming filter is attached.

Thank you, I'll try that.

[f16sunshine]

Unless it has had one recently a full is advisable. It sure looks like haze.

[Naumoski]

Here are some photos from the Rolleiflex, made by the actual seller of the camera:
(i think that he didn't used the filter - as he told me).








DETAIL:





I have them in very high resolution.

What do you think?

[Pickett Wilson]

Look at a bright light through the filter. Is it cloudy looking?

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

Look at a bright light through the filter. Is it cloudy looking?

It's very dusty with bunch of dots and lines, it should be cleaned.

[Brian Levy]

Best thing to do is to have the camera serviced unless the prior owner had done it recently. You then know the camera is within specs and more importantly - RELIABLE. If shooting at 1/30th at 3.5, the closing the aperature to f/8 will require a still slower speed, the opposite of what you are saying.

If not really familiar with the Sunny 16 rule and the use of the graph get a light meter. It need not be expensive. In monitoring the auction listings, there have been some excellent meters such as the Metrastar, which I use, in the $20 range. Practice evaluating the light conditions and then compare the result to the meter and with some time you'll find you can come within 1/3rd stop or so.

The Planar lens is an excellent lens and I think you'll find the results excellent. I'm getting reaquainted with my Rolleiflex and it is like an old friend. If I had to live with only one film camera, there would be no hesitation in settleing on a Rolleiflex even at the cost of losing my Leica and other very nice cameras.

[Naumoski]

Second roll: - Portra 160NC (expired 2005)/ the last light minutes of the day.




I can't stop myself shooting against light










Oh, I hate that this one didn't came up as I wanted. the wind was blowing very strong that day, so my eyes got wet from the wind (so I couldn't focus right), and my sister couldn't made a nostalgic look









I just resized the photos and clicked "auto contrast" on CS3, to fill the shadows a bit because I overexposed a bit by purpose.

[Naumoski]

I forgot this one:



f5.6 @ 1/15th, handheld.

[Austintatious]

These look quite nice !
A bit better that the first batch, posted above. I think you are getting the hang of it

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by Austintatious

These look quite nice !
A bit better that the first batch, posted above. I think you are getting the hang of it

I appreciate it!

I think I'm getting more used to it and the whole workflow with the camera, but still I need to work more on that.

This film is such a garbage when shooting in tricky lighting. But I think to go more B&W in future.

[Brian Levy]

I was wondering if you have glasses as many seem to be slightly unsharp, a possible focusing problem. It might be the viewing and taking lens are not quite aligned, something that can happen with the Rolleiflex if banged about a bit. Depending on the tech, checking this is or is not part of a servicing.

Also, do you use glasses? If so you may need to adjust for this. The built in magnifier may need to be changed out to meet your individual needs. I was thinking of this since the prior owner's shots seem more in focus. But, it might be simply a learing curve issue for you also, take your time in setting up the shots and like Santa's list keep checking the focus not once but twice.

Are you using a meter? It seems the ev of most of your shots is of or possibly the develop you are using is messing up the development. I had this happen with me. I used a local store that is part of a chain and the negatives were thin and flat. I thoguhtI was screwing it all up, I'd lost my touch but then decided to take 2 rolls of a shoot and have 1 roll developed at that shop and took the other to another shop and it was night and day in results. The chain store results were thin and dead while the other was near spot on technically. Same film, exposure meter, camera, lens, etc. so it was the store.

[Naumoski]

Originally Posted by Brian Levy

I was wondering if you have glasses as many seem to be slightly unsharp, a possible focusing problem. It might be the viewing and taking lens are not quite aligned, something that can happen with the Rolleiflex if banged about a bit. Depending on the tech, checking this is or is not part of a servicing.

Also, do you use glasses? If so you may need to adjust for this. The built in magnifier may need to be changed out to meet your individual needs. I was thinking of this since the prior owner's shots seem more in focus. But, it might be simply a learing curve issue for you also, take your time in setting up the shots and like Santa's list keep checking the focus not once but twice.

Are you using a meter? It seems the ev of most of your shots is of or possibly the develop you are using is messing up the development. I had this happen with me. I used a local store that is part of a chain and the negatives were thin and flat. I thoguhtI was screwing it all up, I'd lost my touch but then decided to take 2 rolls of a shoot and have 1 roll developed at that shop and took the other to another shop and it was night and day in results. The chain store results were thin and dead while the other was near spot on technically. Same film, exposure meter, camera, lens, etc. so it was the store.

Brian,

Thanx for the suggestions first,

About focusing - the viewfinder is not that clear and it's not that visible, it's enough OK for old camera, so the focusing is tricky. I also see that on some shots the focus is not the exact place, but that might be more due to changing the camera angle to get the horizontals right, and also some motion blur on some. I don't wear glasses.

On metering - I used a P&S camera, set to 80iso, the photos with the girl in the field (and others) are mostly overexposed because I shot against the sun, also expired portra wants some more light as well.

The owner's shots are edited and might be sharpened, also most of them are shot above f/8.

I saw that the hole for tripod is larger on Rolleiflex and doesn't suit on a regular tripod, is there some tip to make this up?

[Mablo]

There are tripod adapters available in well equipped photo shops. If you don't find any I can send you one. You can buy a new screen for $30 from Rick Oleson (google by his name). In the meantime just stop down to f/11 or f/16.