The Online Darkroom Store

Thursday, October 30

Swirly bokeh? From a Nikon Series E?



Back in September I mentioned that I'd won a Leitz Focomat 1C at a local auction. What I didn't say was that I also picked up a Nikon F100 with a Sigma zoom at the same auction for less than half of what I'd expect to pay on Ebay.

I didn't go along to the viewing day with the intention of buying the Nikon but it just looked in wonderful condition and had obviously seen very little use. The Sigma zoom isn't great - I tried it out on the D700 - but, strangely, it goes on Ebay for not far short of what I paid for it and the camera combined. So once I've sold it, I'll effectively have a free F100 - my kind of deal.

No, I didn't need the F100 at all and its purchase probably seems somewhat hypocritical after the last couple of posts bemoaning the G.A.S. we're all prone to from time to time. But I've got a couple of nice primes - a 35mm f2 AF-D and an 85mm f1.8 AF-D - that I thought might work really well with it and that swung it for me. In the past I've used the excellent Nikon F90X with these lenses but the F100 is just so much more refined.

The F100 had been sitting in a bag since September so I thought it was about time to give it a try - after all, it's always possible that a camera that looks almost new might still have a fault that renders it useless. So I loaded up a roll of Silvermax and went for a walk around the university campus, my standard location for trying out a new camera.

Rather than take the AF-D primes with me I opted instead for a tiny 50mm Series E lens that came in another cracking deal from a year or two ago that delivered a nice Nikon F to me again for effectively no cost. I tried it out back then on the D700 but wasn't too impressed. The images lacked contrast and weren't as sharp as I expected. Would it be any different on film?

The quick answer is, no. It still isn't too sharp and it has some dodgy-looking corners wide open and at f2.8 that lead me to think it's badly decentered. Take a look at the pic below (you've seen this one a few times before: I sort of use it to check a lens's quality), particularly, the bottom corners.

Swirly bokeh or lens decentering? Looks like a fault to me.

Maybe if it was an old Sonnar the swirly bokeh would be acceptable but this looks like something else to me. There's no gradual dissolution into the out-of-focus area - just a fairly abrupt jump into swirliness. You can see it in the top left hand corner as well. It's not really noticeable in the other pics probably because the lens was stopped down for most of them.

On the plus side, it's a great size on the F100 and completes a nice package for just walking around on a nice day and snapping away at whatever catches the eye. And the F100? If you're in a mood where you just want to concentrate on the image and not have to pay too much attention to exposure then it's great. I'd rather use the OM2 on a day-to-day basis but if I'm out with Cath for the day then something that makes picture taking quick and spontaneous comes in useful.

The camera's matrix metering should be almost full-proof but I wasn't able to test it out as the old Series E doesn't allow it, "just" spot and centre-weighted. Where the F100 scores for me over the OM2 is in the viewfinder department. The OM2's is bigger but I can't really see the edges when I've got my specs on which is all the time now since I gave up wearing contact lenses. The F100's is quite bright but it's smaller so I can take the whole picture in easily enough.

As for the pics, well, they're nothing special - just snaps. I'm trying to train myself to really look at what's in front of me. That paid off in the case of the pic below. I've passed this window plenty of times before but this is the first time I've noticed the tiny doll's head in amongst the leaves, feathers and muck in the corner. A bit surreal. Wonder if it will still be there the next time I pass.



The chair below is in an area outside a building that I think is used as an impromptu smokers' corner. On this day, a strong wind had blown all the leaves up against the chair whilst the sun had cast the shadows of their brethren, who were still clinging to the branches, all over the scene.



Nothing much to say about the following pics. The bottom one was to see what the bokeh of the Series E was like - not bad as it turns out. It was shot at f2.8 and you can see the dodgy corners again although it's not quite so clear in this example if it's just limited depth of field or something more sinister.




It's tempting to pair the F100 up with a 40mm f2 Voigtlander Ultron, a lens that's about the same size as the Series E but, by all accounts, a very well made and sharp optic. But that's getting perilously close to another G.A.S. attack… 

Wednesday, October 29

Will Ferrania resurrect P30 black and white film?



Ferrania's Kickstarter project has just ended successfully with an amazing 5,582 backers pledging $72,420 over and above the target figure of $250,000. That means the company should now be able to rescue some machinery from the old Ferrania factory in northern Italy and scale up production of a new colour transparency film.

That's great news for all those shooting slides but what about us monochrome guys? Are we likely to benefit from Ferrania's new operation once it's up and running? That's the question I put to the head of FILM Ferrania's US operations, David Bias.

Tuesday, October 28

Did Leica kill "Leica photography"?



I've just been reading a thought-provoking six-month-old post on the leicaphilia.com blog that seemed a natural follow-up to Phil's post of yesterday on this blog. It posits the idea that Leica itself killed what we think of as "Leica Photography" as practised by HCB, etc. I'd encourage you to have a read as it also talks sense about lenses and, possibly, shames those of us too preoccupied with sharpness, bokeh or whatever.

The author argues that Leica, during its peak years, was never about the best, sharpest lenses but about the best-made, quietest and most functional cameras. He believes that the company, since the 1990s, has moved away from its core values, spurred on by internet pixel-peepers.

In support of this, he says:

Monday, October 27

A brief word about lenses


This post first appeared on the blog ("FogBlog" or "FB") of my pal Phil Rogers in October 2012. I came across it again recently and thought it contained a lot of common sense regarding lenses and their qualities. With Phil's permission, I've reproduced it here. The photographs are scans of darkroom prints. See if you can recognise yourself in the pen pictures Phil paints - I know I can. :(


By Phil Rogers

http://fogblog-hermansheephouse.blogspot.co.uk/

I will warn you in advance - there are a lot of photographs in this weeks FB. It is strange really and doesn't seem to make any sense at all, but quite a number of years ago, a weird phenomenon overtook the world of photography, and it doesn't actually seem to be getting any less. If anything it is on the increase. And I find it hard to get myself into the mindset-cave where it is residing like some big cave-dwelling thing, waiting to devour passers-by.

Surely, photography, any form of photography, is all about the image. I would hope that any of you reading this that aren't even of a photographic bent would realise this. Snaps of Auntie Tony and Uncle Sally, Nobby the Cat, your children, neighbours, friends, that tree that looms over your garden, a house, a bowl of pasta… get my drift… a photograph needs subject matter, and more to the point, the subject matter needs to be the reason for the photograph.

Saturday, October 25

The Zone System and why you might like to ignore it


Guest Post by David M.


Sooner or later, most photographers will hear about the Zone System. If you have a new and wonderful digital camera, and you are happy with what you send to Facebook, read no more. Carry on with what makes you happy. We are happy for you. No, really. We like to be happy ourselves.

Now that almost everybody has gone, we can continue. The Zone system is intended to make life easier. If it makes your life harder, ignore it up and grow marrows instead. A perfect marrow is a thing of great beauty and charm. You can no more eat a prize-winning marrow than you can eat a photograph.

This little essay isn’t going to tell you How To Do It. It will take you up into a high place and show you all the Zones of the World and how they can help you while you are taking photographs. The ideas behind the Zone System can help all kinds of photographers in all kinds of photography, because it is flexible. It is not like the Law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Like the bowl of sugar next to your cup of tea, you can take as much or as little as you please.

Ten Shades of Grey

Nobody seems to mention the first great advantage of the system. It enables you to give names to different shades of grey. You don’t need to resort to “Quite dark but not actually black” or “Light-ish, but not really white” or “Sort of average”. Nor do you have to speak in logarithms. This is convenient for conversations about printing, but hardly earth shattering. It has to offer more.

The Zone System divides the world into different greys, called zones, each representing a particular shade of grey. Each zone differs from the lighter or darker zone next to it by one stop, which is a familiar unit to most photographers.

Zone Zero is entirely black on the print, from a part of the negative that is entirely clear, just like the unexposed edges. Zone Ten is entirely white on the print and shows where the negative is so dense that no light can get through.

The other zones are spread out equally between them from very dark to very light.

There are probably too many confusing numbers in photography already, so the Zone System uses Roman numerals, like kings and queens, so that Zone Five is Zone V, Zone Three is Zone III, Zone Seven is Zone VII and so on. This is supposed to be helpful but no harm will come if you write Zone 8 or even Z8. The Romans were remarkably ingenious, but they seem to have missed photography and we can safely ignore them.

The second step in making a photograph, after finding and selecting the scene, is usually to measure the light falling on it, often by letting the camera do it automatically. We could also guess, look it up in a table, or use a separate exposure meter. We are the Meter People.

Meter Made

Your meter is a very clever thing, but it’s designed to measure ordinary scenes. It assumes that you are recording something ordinary, like your nice family, with the nice family dog, standing in your nice garden on a not-too-bright, but not-too-dull sort of day. It assumes that all this scene will have some black, some white with some dark and light greys, and if you were to average all these tones together, it would come out as a middling sort of grey.

In zone-speak, middle grey is called Zone V (five). The meter calibration assumes that you won’t want to do black cats on black leather chairs or brides in the snow. Nevertheless, these things do exist, and you might want to photograph them. Cats are very photogenic. So are many brides. We will want the bride’s dress and the snow to look white, but we still want to see all the details of the embroidery and stitching. We shall want the cat to look convincingly black, but black and furry. Making the dress totally white in the print will not be satisfactory. If the snow totally is white the print will look very odd indeed.

So, how can we get the dress exactly right?

We shall meter just the dress by itself and decide how it should appear in the final print. Experience (perhaps other peoples’ experience) tells us that the texture of the white dress will be shown best if it is placed at about Zone VII (seven), and the white textured snow will be much the same. We can see that Zone VII is two stops brighter than the Zone V that the meter assumes, so it will need two more stops of exposure and so we open up the lens by two stops from the meter reading (or change the shutter speed) and take the picture. We might, from our own experience, think we’d prefer the dress to be on Zone VIII (8 – very light grey) and we can do that in the same way; we’d give three stops more exposure than the meter’s Zone V reading. All other things being equal, the dress should print very nicely.

If the bride happened to be standing with a background of bright clouds, we might decide to create an arty silhouette, but still keep some detail in the dress. Perhaps the dress should be a bit darker than middle grey – perhaps Zone IV. So, once again, we measure the dress itself, and this time, we reduce the exposure from V to IV, one stop less.

Pseuds' Corner

We have just taken our first two steps in the Zone system. First, we have “visualised” (some people say pre-visualised) what we want in the final print and second, we have “placed” an important part of the scene on the zone we want to see in the final print.

Many clever people are able to do this “add two stops” stuff in their heads, but the more stupid and clumsy among us find it difficult: I am one. I have put a little sticker on my meter, with the Zones marked on it, one stop apart. Then when I want to “place” something on Zone III or VI, I simply point, click and twiddle the meter in the usual way, then read off the exposure against the Zone that I’m aiming for. This means I can concentrate on making better mistakes.

Up to now, we’ve ignored the groom, standing there in his smart dark wedding suit, with his black top hat. We can use the same methods to ensure that we record some details in the groom’s elegant suit.

This will lead us on to the next part of the Zone System.

Once again, we meter just the thing we’re interested in – the dark suit itself. We’ll want to see the shape of the lapels and the nice crease in the trousers.

Experience tells us that we shall just about see these details if we place them on about Zone III. Zone III is two stops less than Zone V so we reduce the exposure reading of the suit by two stops. The suit will print nicely, too. If it’s not such a very dark suit, we might choose to place it on Zone IV and we know how to do that – only one stop less.

Now we know how to get a picture of the bride, in her white dress and we know how to get the groom in his dark suit, but what if we want them together in the same picture? We might be lucky, and the same exposure works well for both. Often we shall find that one exposure won’t capture the important dark bits and the important light bits at the same time.

When too dense = too bright

We could just let it go and put up with whatever we get or we could do something about it. The next part of the Zone System will help. We shall adjust our development of the film.

Two things make film go dark: the amount of light and the amount of development. The more of either, the darker will be that part of the negative and the lighter the print. It’s wise to think about the zones in the print and not fuss about what the negative looks like. Some people can get very excited about negative densities. You can get excited later.

It’s probable that the exposure we measured for the elegant dark suit will be too much for the white dress and the snow. Normal development will make those parts of the negative too dark and in the print they might appear as blank white paper. We don’t want that.

(Today, there are other ways of getting round this problem. They are very useful, but we are trying to make a better negative, which will make our life easier, in the darkroom, later on. All photographic hints and tips seem to be about making the next step easier. Zones can make life easier for the scanner, too.)

Back to the picturesque churchyard and the charming couple. To get the details we want in the dark suit, we must give it enough exposure. If we don’t give enough, the suit will simply print as a solid black, making the groom look like a cardboard cut-out. Few brides want a cardboard husband (Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 often has detailed advice on what women want in a husband.)

We can’t make up for blank bits on the negative in the darkroom so we have to stick with this exposure. However, if we choose to develop the film for less time, the highlights will be less dense. Consequently they will print more easily to show the detail that we want to see in the dress. Zone System photographers do some testing to get it right. We’re not going to describe those tests here because there’s something else to learn and it is probably the most important thing. We are going to ignore the instructions on the box of film.

Not so fast

The film speed that you find on a box of film is very accurately measured, by very clever people. But they are not you and they are not taking your photographs for you. Remember those nice people (and the dog) in their nice garden? It’s intended for them. You’re probably not quite so nice, or you wouldn’t be reading this. You might not even have a dog.

Zone system photographers can become obsessed with shadow detail. Our experience of seeing is that when we look around a scene and into the shadows, details seem to appear as our eyes adjust. Then, when we look at bright objects, our eyes adjust again, and we see detail there as well. A print with some detail in both shadows and highlights is closer to our actual experience of seeing, so it’s worth trying to capture both.

There are reasons for this. Firstly, it’s more difficult for our eyes to see details in the dark areas of a print, so to reproduce what we think we see, we need to help them a bit. More importantly, film doesn’t record small differences in very dark tones as well as it records them in the middle tones. Even though some dark detail may be recorded, it can be difficult to print. Any help we can give is welcome.

We’ve just learned that we can preserve details in the lightest parts of the picture, by adjusting film development, but how can we be sure to capture the darkest parts in our picture of the groom or our black cat? We don’t want a cardboard cat any more than we want a cut-out bride. We are going to set a different film speed on our meter.

Zone System photographers do tests, supposedly to check the film speed given on the box and establish what’s called a Personal Exposure Index. This doesn’t mean that the box is wrong. It means that it’s not perfectly suited to you and your photography.

Bespoke Photography

This has advantages, because testing with your own equipment, methods and personal quirks compensates for all sorts of little variables and reduces them to one handy number. You don’t have to remember that your meter might read a bit high or that your shutter might run a bit slow, or whatever; it’s all taken into account. Most people seem to find that they rate the film about one stop slower than the number on the box, but this isn’t a rule and you may differ.

At the same time, this testing establishes the best development time for the kind of negative you like to print. The dedicated Zone System photographer also learns how to change development times to cope with scenes with very high contrast, like the wedding dress and the groom’s suit, or with very low contrast like our cat in the coal cellar.

This is called expansion and contraction. The different up and down steps are called plus and minus development and you might come across Minus One or Plus Two (-1 or +2) and so on, depending on the number of stops that the photographer believes the highlights have been changed. This would be a
useful thing to know when photographing the bride in her white dress with the brilliant white clouds behind her and the groom by her side. It will certainly be useful for your photogenic black cat on your lovely Eileen Gray chair.

If you do a web search for Zone System, you will be deluged with information on how to do all this, much of it interesting and some of it useful. If it seems a bit overwhelming, or you spot the word densitometer, go out and take some pictures until you feel better.

If anyone tells you that any of this is wrong, agree immediately and listen to them politely, as they are probably right. Look at their prints before you follow their advice.

Friday, October 24

Leica M4-P Brochure




Here's another printable Leica brochure from my wee collection. This one features the M4-P that was reputedly a cheaper-made version of the original M4, which probably means it's only twice as well made as contemporary cameras.

Not sure about the winder, though. Maybe if it was only half as tall it wouldn't be so bad but it does make a big difference to the size of the camera, doesn't it? Anyway, if you're a Leica fan then enjoy.


























Thursday, October 23

I've got the Rolleiflex blues


The SL66E in happier times.

When I started this blog just over three years ago, I promised that I'd treat the twin impostors of triumph and disaster just the same and write about my cock-ups as well as any successes. There used to be a wee spiel to that effect in the left hand column. Well, here's a rather large cock-up that has spiked my plans to start using the Rollei SL66E on a more regular basis. In a nutshell, I've buggered it up.

Tuesday, October 21

Open House

UPDATE: See bottom of the post.


Having a trawl through some old negatives at the weekend, I came across a rare sheet of colour print film negatives. I haven't used colour film for a few years. This one was Fuji 200 according to the rebate. It was run through a Pentax MZ5n I used to have, a great wee camera by the way.

Monday, October 20

Twelve Small Squares - a new website


David Kirby, one of the splendid chaps at the Film and Darkroom Users group (FADU), has launched a new website, building on the work of his long-standing blog about film photography.

Friday, October 17

How blogging has changed my photography



For the second time in a few weeks, reader MartyNL has got me thinking about what I'm doing and reflecting on whether I should be doing it differently. First of all, he made me realise that I really needed to get back into the darkroom - it's why I started this blog after all. Then, in an innocent-enough comment to my previous post, he basically called me a "landscape" photographer.