Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > TLR Forum - Twin Lens Reflex

TLR Forum - Twin Lens Reflex another alternative to the dreaded SLR way of seeing, this forum for all format TLR cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Rolleiflex 3.5 Model K4C C or E Planar 75mm - post your photos
Old 03-14-2016   #1
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Rolleiflex 3.5 Model K4C C or E Planar 75mm - post your photos

I couldnīt find any specific thread for the Rolleiflex 3.5 Model K4C C or E Planar 75mm (5 elements). I recently got one myself and I'm enjoying it very much.

Please share your photos.

Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2016   #2
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2016   #3
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,562
Hmmm... my 3.5E (C) shots were done with a Xenotar model.....

I really like the patterning and rendering of the trees in your shots. Trees without leaves can be difficult, I find.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2016   #4
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Feel free to post and add a note Dan and thanks for the comment.
I, indeed prefer trees without leaves.

Giulio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2016   #5
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles



[/url]
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2016   #6
Vincent.G
平和、愛、喜び
 
Vincent.G's Avatar
 
Vincent.G is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 1,391
Very nice, Giulio!
Post more!
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2016   #7
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Daniel View Post
Hmmm... my 3.5E (C) shots were done with a Xenotar model.....

I really like the patterning and rendering of the trees in your shots. Trees without leaves can be difficult, I find.
I don't have the 75mm version of the Xenotar myself, Dan, (just the 80mm). But I'd be pleased to see some owners add a few images made with theirs, without necessarily informing the images were not made with a Planar so that we could all have the pleasure of spotting them. FWIW I'd predict a 100% fail rate on my own ability to tell a Planar image from a Xenotar, however it would be amusing to see some others try. Perhaps a couple of 3.5F "White Face" owners could throw a few shots in, too. After all, we all know how much sharper those White Face lenses are.
Cheers,
Brett
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2016   #8
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Thanks Vincent, a couple more from the same series.

Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles





Looking forward to see some photos from any version of the 3.5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2016   #9
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2016   #10
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #11
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Parc Josaphat / Schaerbeek Bruxelles



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #12
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
I'm not trying to knock you images but find most of them very dark and low in contrast. Are you scanning negs? do you do any adjustments or let the scanner go in auto mode? Is your monitor properly calibrated? I'm viewing on a very top end monitor calibrated properly. These really do not show off the capability of the lens. Please don't take his wrong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #13
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Hi x-ray, thanks for your inputs I appreciate the honest feedback.
These are scans from negatives. I use an Epson V600 and normally simply adjust levels and nothing else and no, my monitor is not calibrated.
About the contrast, I wasn't looking for high contrast on this series.
I could try a different setting while scanning or as you might suggest calibrate my monitor (if this could make sense on my low budget laptop).

Any suggestion is welcome.

Thanks
Giulio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #14
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Without calibrating the monitor you have no idea what the output really looks like. I'd suggest something like a color monkey which runs about $89 from B&H. I use a dedicated device made by my monitor manufacture but my brother bought the basic color monkey for his HP monitor and it does a great job.

Default settings are no good. Every negative in my experience requires individual treatment for optimum output. You'll see a dramatic difference.

The above image looks better and I like the shot. Keep up the good work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #15
chambrenoire
Registered User
 
chambrenoire's Avatar
 
chambrenoire is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 707
The Planar 3.5 is almost too sharp!
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #16
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,391
E(2) 75f3.5 Cropped to about 135 size:



__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #17
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Mattia, Frank, thanks for posting!

X-Ray, thanks for the suggetion.

One more:

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #18
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
I'm not trying to knock you images but find most of them very dark and low in contrast. Are you scanning negs? do you do any adjustments or let the scanner go in auto mode? Is your monitor properly calibrated? I'm viewing on a very top end monitor calibrated properly. These really do not show off the capability of the lens. Please don't take his wrong.
I really don't get this. Giulio's images just look fine on my monitor! Contrasty, clear and very sharp.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #19
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 76
Posts: 6,074
[IMG]Rollei 75f3.5 Snake! by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr[/IMG]

Rolleiflex E, Planar 75mm f3.5 at f3.5 and 1 meter. Old shot from 2010. Tmax 400 in HC 110 (1:60/11.5 min). Peugeot 1907 with impressive "snake" horn.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #20
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
I really don't get this. Giulio's images just look fine on my monitor! Contrasty, clear and very sharp.

Erik.
Is your monitor calibrated with a calibration device? Is it a high gloss screen like a retina display.

High gloss retina type displays aren't good for editing images. Even calibrated they exagerate contrast, saturation and brightness. Matte screens are the only ones that really represent what's really in the image. Gloss screens make everything pretty and are fine for surfing the web and word processing.

I haven't looked at Apple lately but at one point they only offered high gloss screens. Top of the line photo editing monitors are all matte. You don't want a monitor to exagerate the image. For judging images you want to see exactly what information is or isn't there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #21
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Is your monitor calibrated with a calibration device? Is it a high gloss screen like a retina display.

High gloss retina type displays aren't good for editing images. Even calibrated they exagerate contrast, saturation and brightness. Matte screens are the only ones that really represent what's really in the image. Gloss screens make everything pretty and are fine for surfing the web and word processing.

I haven't looked at Apple lately but at one point they only offered high gloss screens. Top of the line photo editing monitors are all matte. You don't want a monitor to exagerate the image. For judging images you want to see exactly what information is or isn't there.
No, thank you for your worries, but I have a matte screen, Samsung. I can't stand shiny screens as I will see myself all the time reflected in them.
I have a perfectly calibrated screen. I see and enjoy Giulios pictures perfectly.

There is a pure white border around Giulios pictures. That should be your reference. Lighter than pure white is not possible.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2016   #22
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
No, thank you for your worries, but I have a matte screen, Samsung. I can't stand shiny screens as I will see myself all the time reflected in them.
I have a perfectly calibrated screen. I see and enjoy Giulios pictures perfectly.

There is a pure white border around Giulios pictures. That should be your reference. Lighter than pure white is not possible.

Erik.
I trust my calibration on my monitor. Most of my work goes to print and I have a close relationship with many of the printers that work with my images. Corrections before printing never have to be made. From my cameras to my monitor and printers, I am completely color managed and profiled. I work my raw files in Pro Photo color space 16 bit and release the images in Adobe RGB 8 bit to my clients. My monitor displays 117% of Adobe RGB. It's my business to provide top quality files to my clients. In the 15 years I've been digital in the studio Ive never had a complaint. My reference is the graphic display from my calibration sensor when I analize the display after calibration.

I'm glad you're getting what you want out of your monitor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #23
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
I trust my calibration on my monitor. My monitor displays 117% of Adobe RGB.
I am very glad too hear that you are happy with your monitor, exept when you are looking at Giulios pictures.

Aren't your prints made on basis of your files instead on basis of what your monitor is showing? Mine are made on basis of my files.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #24
Vincent.G
平和、愛、喜び
 
Vincent.G's Avatar
 
Vincent.G is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 1,391
Every photo here looks fine on my I-don't-care-whether-is-it-calibrated-or-uncalibrated-as-long-as-I-am-happy-monitor.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #25
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
I am very glad too hear that you are happy with your monitor, exept when you are looking at Giulios pictures.

Aren't your prints made on basis of your files instead on basis of what your monitor is showing? Mine are made on basis of my files.

Erik.
Let me post a little illustration of my point. Here are three screen shots of images from above taken from photoshop which doesn't lie and is independent of monitor calibration. I cropped the white border out so a not to influence anyone. Please look at the data content of the images. The data is in the lower 60% of the histogram with the bulk of the content below middle gray. This may be his intent but they are still dark on a properly calibrated monitor.

I posted a third image where I adjusted levels giving a good histogram. See the difference in histogram and how it displays. The third histogram is how it should look unless you want dark images.

Hope no one minds my using these as an example.

Having a white border makes no difference. Probably the border was generated in photoshop and is independent of the actual content.

Forgive me for calling this to anyone attention.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 7.06.21 AM.jpg (54.2 KB, 54 views)
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 7.07.19 AM.jpg (56.1 KB, 40 views)
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 7.06.53 AM.jpg (57.2 KB, 56 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #26
Vincent.G
平和、愛、喜び
 
Vincent.G's Avatar
 
Vincent.G is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 1,391
I see what you did there, x-ray. I didn't know a good-looking photograph can be made better-looking by adjusting the levels!
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #27
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,554
Thank you, x-ray for making your point clear. However, on my monitor picture 1 is still quite good and picture 3 is too light. Picture 3 lacks totally the atmosphere and tonality of the original picture, how good it may be in the eyes of others. It does not represent the intention of the photographer. (Unfortunately the screenshots are very small.)

It is possible that the wite border is generated in Photoshop, but what does that matter? Every pixel has a value (number) in the file: white 255 and totally black 1. These values are given by the scanner. The histogram can be adapted before the scan is made with the aid of a densitometer. So the given values are the intention of the photographer. I don't think you can leave out the white border if that border is the intention of the photographer.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #28
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Thank you, x-ray for making your point clear. However, on my monitor picture 1 is still quite good and picture 3 is too light. Picture 3 lacks totally the atmosphere and tonality of the original picture, how good it may be in the eyes of others. It does not represent the intention of the photographer. (Unfortunately the screenshots are very small.)

It is possible that the wite border is generated in Photoshop, but what does that matter? Every pixel has a value (number) in the file: white 255 and totally black 1. These values are given by the scanner. The histogram can be adapted before the scan is made with the aid of a densitometer. So the given values are the intention of the photographer. I don't think you can leave out the white border if that border is the intention of the photographer.

Erik.
We're not talkin aesthetics here and my impression from comments from the person that made them was he took what the scanner output without adjustment. I don't believe the creator of these images was aware the levels could be adjusted or perhaps didn't think they needed adjusted because he was working from an Uncalibrated monitor and they looked fine.

There are two gamma standards that influence how the monitor displays brightness. PCs used one and Mac used another although most have adopted the Mac standard. Target brightness for black and for white can all vary too. There are standards but not everyone follows those standards.

Don't read into what the photographers intent was. Neither of us know what was in his head. I simply stated they are dark. They are dark and muddy and the histogram illustrates this despite what anyone's monitor displays them as.

Rarely is the output from a scanner the best that it can be without adjustments of levels and curves. Profiles for scanners are based on the ideal negative which very few of us produce. Conditions we shoot under to the developer and our te niche produce vastly different negatives even on the same film.

The white border if generated in photoshop is irrelevant other than to judge how far down the rest of the tones are relative to a value we perceive as white. The eye adapts too easily and values below pure white are often interpreted as white if there is no absolute standard reference. The white border really has nothing to do with the values within the image or the quality of scan or editing.

The size of the screenshot has nothing to do with anything. It's all to do with no data in the upper values above middle gray. We're talking 35% at least of the values causing all values to be too low.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #29
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
hi x-ray, would you mind posting a larger size image of the "how it should look" according to the histogram?

I would like to look at my original pic and to this one using the same monitor, this way I could tell which one is closer to what I want to achieve on this series in the parc.

Thanks

Giulio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #30
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by giulio stucchi View Post
hi x-ray, would you mind posting a larger size image of the "how it should look" according to the histogram?

I would like to look at my original pic and to this one using the same monitor, this way I could tell which one is closer to what I want to achieve on this series in the parc.

Thanks

Giulio
WhAt I could do is email it to you if you'll pm your email address. You could then post it if you like. I'm not sure how to post a larger image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2016   #31
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Hi

x-ray kindly sent me a few revised files of my photos and I will use the one below for comparison.

my original post:



x-ray version: (image deleted)

Looking at my screen the first image might be a bit too dark while the second one is too bright.

The first image is showing the tipical greys I am used to get out of my epson v600 while the second is closer to a straight scan preview from the same scanner in terms of brightness.

I personally like those "muddy" greys and being this ongoing series based on such greys I am personally happy with what I see on my screen.

Indeed exposure, developement and scan came out as I wanted. (apart from one roll that i messed up)

Histograms and technical details apart it seems that is just a question of preferences and goals.

Thank you all for your inputs and different point of views and please keep on posting.

Giulio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2016   #32
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Rarely is the output from a scanner the best that it can be without adjustments of levels and curves. Profiles for scanners are based on the ideal negative .
The software of the Epson scanners makes it possible to adapt the histogram of the image with the aid of a densitometer. The user has the possibility to give the lightest part(s) of the image values close to 255 (pure white) and the darkest part(s) of the image 1 (pure black). These values have nothing to do with the calibration of the monitor. The profiles of the scanner and the settings of the monitor are in this way irrelevant for the tonality of the scanned photograph.

By the way, I think that all this talking has a lot to do with aesthetics.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2016   #33
elmarman
Bail out the Brits too !
 
elmarman's Avatar
 
elmarman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: BRENTWOOD, England
Age: 82
Posts: 150
can I show some photos from my 'gift' 1962 Rolleiflex 75mm f3.5 E-3 Planar?
Pan F processed in Home-Made MK 35 developer 1+5 for 7.5mins f5.6 used
Weald Stump B by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

outdated 1995 Kodak EPG 400, 1/125 @f8 home-processed C41
Abstract Sculpture. by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

outdated 1995 Kodak EPG 400 1/125 @ f5.6 home-processed C41
Wisteria by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
__________________
An 'Old Dog' but still learning 'New Tricks' !
Rangefinders: 1934 Leica II,1965 M2,1986 M6,1966 Werramatic, 1950-60's Zeiss Contina, Russian FED 4,1956 Agfa Isolette III, 1968 Mamiya Press Super 23.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2016   #34
Volver
Registered User
 
Volver is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 63
Rolleiflex 3.5E, Planar, Fuji Provia 100F, Imacon scan, Montenegro, Kotor Bay, 2015
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2016   #35
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Bruxelles

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2016   #36
skibeerr
Registered User
 
skibeerr's Avatar
 
skibeerr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne Vic
Age: 57
Posts: 1,075
Hi Giulio,

the one above looks much better than the first ones in the park.
On my retina display the first ones lacked contrast.

Good to see more Belgians here, I am an expat from Antwerp.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-13-2016   #37
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Dank u wel skibeerr.

I am from Italy (Milan) but since 10 1/2 years I am leaving abroad. Before Germany and now Belgium.

Two more.

Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Bruxelles



  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2016   #38
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Bruxelles


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2016   #39
giulio stucchi
Registered User
 
giulio stucchi's Avatar
 
giulio stucchi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bruxelles
Age: 42
Posts: 738
Kodak Tri-X 400 / Ilford DD-X 1+4 / Bruxelles

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2016   #40
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,562
Wonderful shots of your family, Giulio. You've got a nice project going there and are using the Rollei very nicely.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:02.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.