Showing posts with label rolleiflex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rolleiflex. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

The Amazing Minolta Autocord


It's amazing how many blog posts, all over the internet, start with the phrase: "...it's been a long time since I've posted on my blog."
In keeping with that fine tradition, it has been a long time since I have posted on my blog. Life always seems to get in the way and I have had my head firmly down making cyanotypes and prints for a solo exhibition that will take place next week. I have also had a number of commissions that needed to be completed.
But along the way I purchased a 1950s Minolta Autocord, TLR camera for about the price of a 16Gb memory card. I've heard good things about the 'cord which was the Japanese manufacturer's attempt to compete with Rolleiflex and I was not disappointed. The lens is every bit as good as my Rollei.
The two pictures taken here were shot on Ilford HP5 and developed in Rodinal. The (obviously tame) Zebra was photographed on the Seasons Eco golf course near Brits and the other shot is the arch on the Hartbeespoort Dam wall.
I think both illustrate the quality of the camera and the unique characteristics of real black and white film. I am looking forward to shooting some quality B&W portraits with the camera.


Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Trying to break an emotional bond

SimplyFlowers.co.za


There can be no doubt I love film and film cameras.
The smell when opening a fresh film canister is like perfume and holding a beautiful 1950s rangefinder or a pristine Rollei still sends shivers down my spine.
I like the look of images produced by film -- I think it is magical and I like to look through old negatives and slides. Having a beer while I wait for a roll of film to be developed makes me feel like a kid on Christmas morning -- except for the beer part. I sometimes believe I have Rodinal or D-76 in my veins and digital imagesx and cameras, more often than not, leave me emotionally distant.
But with all that said, I am seriously considering a complete switch to digital. What, you may wonder, has brought on this 180 degree turn-around? In a word, 'cost.'
Last week I took a roll of film to the lab I regularly use and asked them to do the normal 'develop and scan to cd' bit. What I did not know is they had increased their prices, dramatically. When I got handed the bill, I was left reeling. All of my arguments about film not being more expensive than digital suddenly no longer held any water.
As I drove home I can honestly say I felt betrayed, abandoned by an old friend. Since then I have gone through some major, internal, mental-wrestling. Logic tells me it's time to say goodbye to the 20 or so mechanical film cameras I have but the problem is, I have developed strong emotional bonds with them.
I know I can do the same or better with my digital cameras -- in fact I can no longer argue digital is inferior to film. The truth is, it isn't and hasn't been for a long time.
And clients' simply don't care. I've tried to position myself as doing something different by shooting film but no-one cares. Sad but true.
I haven't finally decided my course, though logic tells me I will keep a couple of cameras to shoot the odd roll of film, mostly for fun.
Naturally the Rollei will stay and most likely the Bronica so I can shoot B&W while I have colour in the Rollei. And the Yasica A will probably stay because it has a triplet lens produces nice portraits. I'll keep the Voigtlander Prominent because it's so beautiful, and the two Retinas because they have sentimental value. And, if I'm keeping the rangefinders, I probably should hang on to the Ricoh as it easily fits in my pocket. There's also not much point in getting rid of the Nikons because the lenses can be used on the digital bodies...
Arrrgh!! fuck it! Why is life so complicated?


Prime Scratch Cards

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

You snooze you lose!

You snooze you lose!

I found that out the hard way today when I went to buy a Mamiya RB67 outfit I'd been eyeing for a while and discovered it was sold yesterday. I will no doubt be kicking myself for the next few months as this really was "one that got away".
I saw the kit at a Johannesburg dealer last week, consisting of body, back, magnifying view-finder, 50mm, 90mm and 120mm lens and could have had it for around R4 000 (about US$530).
For those who don't know, the Mamiya RB67 produces a negative that is 60mm x 70mm and for years has been the workhorse of pros. I thought about it, ummed and ah'd and hesitated, while I tried to reach a decision. Did I really need it?
I am very happy with my Bronica SQA and my Rollei but Bronica lenses seem to be quite difficult to find and, when you do, tend to be pricey. The Rollei has a fixed lens.
When I finally convinced myself the wisest course would be to build a system around the more readily available Mamiya and to sell the Bronica, it was too late. I am gutted.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

How long will film still be available?


How long will film be around?
It’s a question that often pops up on photographic forums and in chat rooms. The answers range from “a year” to more than “100 years”.
As a dyed-in-the-wool film guy, with a love for old film cameras -- my favourite is a beautiful 1957 Voigtlander Prominent -- it’s a question that does concern me, as it no doubt does hundreds of thousands (more like millions) of other film-camera users.
It will be a sad day when I can no longer lovingly fondle and use my Nikkormats or my Rollei because film is no longer available. But I do not think that scenario is likely to happen, either in my life nor more sons’ and I think my future grandchildren will also enjoy the wonderful experience of opening a fresh canister of film.
For many that will be a wild, optimistic statement they’ll vigorously dispute.
“Film is already dead,” they’ll say, “it just doesn’t know it.”
There is no doubt digital photography has made major inroads into the market for film. The biggest blow has come, not from dedicated digital cameras, but rather from camera-equipped cellphones. No arguments there.

Where the argument falls down.

Where the contention falls is it is most often made by people living in rich western countries and, the truth is, there is a big world beyond that.
I recently stopped in at a few one-hour mini-labs in Johannesburg and nearby towns. I asked the owners what their experiences were and the answers surprised me. All reported that around 50% of their “film” business still comes from developing, scanning and printing 35mm film.
In more affluent areas digital photography occupies a larger proportion when compared with poorer areas. In a busy mini-lab in Randfontein -- a less affluent area -- I was told film make up two thirds of their business.
I would guess the situation in South Africa is reflected in Asia, China and South America. There are a lot of people in those parts of the world who already own film cameras, who cannot afford, nor want or need to supposedly “upgrade” to digital cameras. For them, using film requires no computer equipment, no power, no expensive batteries, no CD burners, no external hard-drives...well you get the picture.
And as long as that remains the case, someone will make and supply film. It may not be the traditional, large, film manufacturers, although Kodak, Fuji and Ilford have all, in the recent past, said they are committed to continuing to make film although, in fairness, it must be pointed out, some non-profitable lines have been dropped from their ranges.
But even if those companies decide to withdraw from the film market, someone else will step in. I am surprised that, with the flood of Chinese goods into South Africa, I have not yet seen anyone importing Chinese film which, by all accounts, is very good.
Film will never occupy the position it once did but it will be around for a long time. We may not be able to buy it in every corner shop and garage kiosk, as we can now.

Medium format difficulties

Unlike the situation in Europe and the US, where reports say medium format and large format film sales are seeing something of a resurgence, the opposite seems true in South Africa.
Many professional labs that used to process such film have shut down and, even if you develop it yourself, getting it scanned and printed is a problem and setting up a wet darkroom is something I do not want to do again!
But, if push comes to shove, the world is a small place nowadays, so I’ll either buy a medium format scanner or mail the negs to a lab overseas.
I love film and I love the fact that so many phenomenally good cameras are now within my reach because people are dumping them for crappy digital point-and-shoots.
Dust off those old cameras and get out there and have fun, then when, you’re too old, give ‘em to your grand-children so they can give those old gems another lifetime of use.
Film is dead! Long live film!

Friday, December 12, 2008

Some pictures from the Rollei

Please note that all images and text on this site is copyrighted material and may not be used with my written permission.







I ran a roll of Ilford FP4+ through the Rolleiflex I swapped for a Nikon SB600 Speedlight and now, more than ever, I am convinced I got the better deal in the trade.
The film was rated ISO64 and developed in D76 for nine minutes.
I am absolutely delighted with the results. In my opinion the quality of the large neg pretty well blows away any image created on a DSLR.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

SB600 speedlight for a Rolleiflex


Yesterday I traded my new Nikon SB600 flash for a mint 1962 Rolleiflex T medium-format camera, a few rolls of film and some black and white chemicals.
I think I got the better deal.
The Nikon SB600 flash is a dog! Stay away from it and all its ilk!
The problem is, the flash forms part of Nikon’s fancy 3D matrix lighting system and, in order to set the exposure, it fires two flashes of light in rapid succession. The first is used by the camera system to provide the information needed for the second flash.
The system works...no doubt about that. Exposures are perfect. So what’s the problem? Nikon claims the intense flashes of light are fired so rapidly the subject will not notice. That is simply not the case.

Closed eyes

In more than half of all people I photographed while using the SB600, the subject blinked after the first flash and was captured by the second with eyes half or altogether closed. Imagine presenting a set of wedding pictures where in most images the bride is dopey-eyed!
Of course the SB600 can be used as a manual strobe and, with a simple homemade, “flash meter” that costs a few cents to make (I’ll post instructions in the future) it performs perfectly.
But being forced to use a strobe that costs in the region of R3000 (approx US$300) to do the same job as a unit you can pick up for less than a third of that price, somehow doesn’t seem right.
The simple fact is, with a digtal camera and its instant feedback, you don’t need a strobe with all the bells and whistles, unless you intend to use it as a remote unit fired by a “commander”.
A digital camera allows you to take the shot, examine it in the viewfinder and then chimp the image until it is exactly the way you want it.
The fact is, many photographic products are like fishing lures -- designed to catch fishermen rather than fish!
Save your money, learn the underlying foundations of photography so you can MAKE the images you want.
In the meantime I can’t wait to get out with one of the greatest cameras ever made and to view the silky, rich tones of a 6cm x 6cm negative that allows me to make poster-sized prints.