Showing posts with label TMax 100. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TMax 100. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Classic Cars, Medium Format
After my Japan trip and some much-needed recovery time, I took in a classic car show in Port Costa, California, with my Pentax 6X7. I had just, a couple nights before, picked up the 135mm close-up lens (it's called a macro lens, officially, but only magnifies to 1:4 in-lens, making it a close-up lens). So this was a great chance to try it out. I brought slow film (which I've found I like for digitizing but not darkroom printing because the grain is too small to focus on with a grain focuser.)
The 6X7, any time I take it out, garners some attention. So I bought a T-shirt with a print of the 6X7 on it to wear when I use the 6X7 in the future.
The 105mm proves, here, that it's just a fantastic lens.
The 6X7 weighs so much that two weekends ago after a five-hour walk with it around the Castle Air Museum (those photos will come later this year or early next), my back was sore for six days. I'm also, in related news, a wimp.
One of my first shots with the 135, I was surprised to see how much it compresses the for- and background.
Because the 6X7 doesn't require cropping to fit 8X10 prints, the entire negative can be enlarged. Unlike 6X4.5 formats, such as the Hassleblad and many other cameras, this provides a lot of image efficiency and creates a higher effective lens resolution. That said, the 6X7 lenses are lpmm for lpmm basically as good as Hassleblad and Zeiss lenses.
The 55mm, at f3.5, provides a nice, shallow focal plane and exaggerated depth perception.
The Canon F-1 had the most components of any system camera ever made. The Nikon F line has the most professional film cameras in the line. The Pentax 6X7, however, takes far better pictures than either because of the negative size alone. To put it in perspective, if a 35mm frame were 8.6 megapixels (2,400 X 3,600 pixels for 24mm X 36mm) then a 6X7 image would compare to a 42 megapixel image (6,000 X 7,000 pixels for 60mm X 70mm.) So medium format captures much greater detail and tonal range.
The 55mm proves that it's very good for subject isolation.
Modern DSLRs cram tinier pixels into the same sensor size with each new version. This leads to reduced image quality at many of the smaller apertures. Also, this actually leads, to my eyes, to reduced tonality and color range. I suspect that each pixels records color data less truly.
Again the 55mm, the lens I use the most in my 6X7 kit.
Rendering in ways I can only (and often) describe as cinematic, the 55mm f3.5 captures light better and more nicely than any other lens I own. The 31mm and 77mm FA Limiteds may be sharper and more contrasty, but the 55mm seems to just grab light and direct it efficiently and attractively.
I shot this inside, hand-held, and 1/8th or 1/4 of a second, I forget which. Note that in the window there's some faint tree detail. The dark shadows here to faint tree detail represent more than nine spaces on the exposure index scale. Tmax 100 -- it's taken a long time for me to get used to it and to say I like it, but I do. I still prefer Plus-X 125, but that film is quickly disappearing and not to be found in medium format at all any more.
Another photo, not an enlargement from above.
The 6X7, any time I take it out, garners some attention. So I bought a T-shirt with a print of the 6X7 on it to wear when I use the 6X7 in the future.
The 105mm proves, here, that it's just a fantastic lens.
The 6X7 weighs so much that two weekends ago after a five-hour walk with it around the Castle Air Museum (those photos will come later this year or early next), my back was sore for six days. I'm also, in related news, a wimp.
One of my first shots with the 135, I was surprised to see how much it compresses the for- and background.
Because the 6X7 doesn't require cropping to fit 8X10 prints, the entire negative can be enlarged. Unlike 6X4.5 formats, such as the Hassleblad and many other cameras, this provides a lot of image efficiency and creates a higher effective lens resolution. That said, the 6X7 lenses are lpmm for lpmm basically as good as Hassleblad and Zeiss lenses.
The 55mm, at f3.5, provides a nice, shallow focal plane and exaggerated depth perception.
The Canon F-1 had the most components of any system camera ever made. The Nikon F line has the most professional film cameras in the line. The Pentax 6X7, however, takes far better pictures than either because of the negative size alone. To put it in perspective, if a 35mm frame were 8.6 megapixels (2,400 X 3,600 pixels for 24mm X 36mm) then a 6X7 image would compare to a 42 megapixel image (6,000 X 7,000 pixels for 60mm X 70mm.) So medium format captures much greater detail and tonal range.
The 55mm proves that it's very good for subject isolation.
Modern DSLRs cram tinier pixels into the same sensor size with each new version. This leads to reduced image quality at many of the smaller apertures. Also, this actually leads, to my eyes, to reduced tonality and color range. I suspect that each pixels records color data less truly.
Again the 55mm, the lens I use the most in my 6X7 kit.
Rendering in ways I can only (and often) describe as cinematic, the 55mm f3.5 captures light better and more nicely than any other lens I own. The 31mm and 77mm FA Limiteds may be sharper and more contrasty, but the 55mm seems to just grab light and direct it efficiently and attractively.
I shot this inside, hand-held, and 1/8th or 1/4 of a second, I forget which. Note that in the window there's some faint tree detail. The dark shadows here to faint tree detail represent more than nine spaces on the exposure index scale. Tmax 100 -- it's taken a long time for me to get used to it and to say I like it, but I do. I still prefer Plus-X 125, but that film is quickly disappearing and not to be found in medium format at all any more.
Another photo, not an enlargement from above.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Mustang, Angel, and Cannon
The day after the Oakland aviation museum, I had a partial roll of TMax 100 left to kill. So I took the Pentax KM and the SMC-A 50mm 1:2 with me to Petaluma and captures a few interesting shots around the city.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sunday, June 23, 2013
In the Jet Age
A few weeks ago, I visited the Oakland Aviation Museum. It's not huge -- you can easily take it all in with a 90-minute visit -- but it has some good displays. Rooms on the sides present artifacts and dioramas that present the history of aviation. These aren't the typical timelines and such, though. The rooms dedicated to the Tuskegee Airmen and women in flight were very interesting and informative.
But I went for the planes. Planes are pretty neat and to be able to photograph them up close is a nice treat. The indoor exhibits present planes in very nice repair that are well maintained and attractive. The outside exhibits present slightly more weathered planes that show some age and abuse.
Mig-15. Pentax KM, Samyang 18-28mm 1:4 (at 18mm), Ilford P4 Surveillance Film pushed one or two stops.
This Mig-15 wasn't the best-looking plane at the museum, but it was probably my favorite. I like these old Migs with their big gaping maws like mouths sucking in air like a while drinks in krill. Developed in 1947 and first flown in 1949, these old Migs still fly today. Some air forces use them as trainers. I doubt any remain active duty fighter craft, though, as a Mig-15 against an F-22 would be like using a Tandy to out-hack a Cray.
In addition to limited use as trainers, there are a bit more than a dozen of these in the U.S. that are privately owned and used in air shows and for fun. Were I independently wealthy, I could see having one of these for fun. Of course, me flying a fighter jet ends in a fiery death for me and anyone standing where I crash. Like three minutes after getting in it. I might not even be off the ground, but somehow I would crash it. I should never learn to fly.
TMax 100, Pentax SMC-A 50mm 1:2.
This is the plane that Harrison Ford sat in for Indiana Jones. Yes. In fact, you can sit in the seat he used. How neat is that? Pretty neat.
Ilford P4, SMC-A.
Flared nostril.
Crazy 18mm perspective warping. Almost as good as a fisheye.
But I went for the planes. Planes are pretty neat and to be able to photograph them up close is a nice treat. The indoor exhibits present planes in very nice repair that are well maintained and attractive. The outside exhibits present slightly more weathered planes that show some age and abuse.
Mig-15. Pentax KM, Samyang 18-28mm 1:4 (at 18mm), Ilford P4 Surveillance Film pushed one or two stops.
This Mig-15 wasn't the best-looking plane at the museum, but it was probably my favorite. I like these old Migs with their big gaping maws like mouths sucking in air like a while drinks in krill. Developed in 1947 and first flown in 1949, these old Migs still fly today. Some air forces use them as trainers. I doubt any remain active duty fighter craft, though, as a Mig-15 against an F-22 would be like using a Tandy to out-hack a Cray.
In addition to limited use as trainers, there are a bit more than a dozen of these in the U.S. that are privately owned and used in air shows and for fun. Were I independently wealthy, I could see having one of these for fun. Of course, me flying a fighter jet ends in a fiery death for me and anyone standing where I crash. Like three minutes after getting in it. I might not even be off the ground, but somehow I would crash it. I should never learn to fly.
TMax 100, Pentax SMC-A 50mm 1:2.
This is the plane that Harrison Ford sat in for Indiana Jones. Yes. In fact, you can sit in the seat he used. How neat is that? Pretty neat.
Ilford P4, SMC-A.
Flared nostril.
Crazy 18mm perspective warping. Almost as good as a fisheye.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Medium in Martinez: Pentax 6X7 visits the Ocean
A week after I bought the Ricohmatic 225 I talked about yesterday, I decided to go back to Martinez and see if there were any more deals to be found. In short, no, but I did manage some fun photos during the trip.
An old boat at the marina
A detail shot at f2.4.
Palm tree silhouette
Palm tree metered for shade
I wonder where the kid swinging on it went.
Stena Concert. The Pentax 6x7 has pretty good resolving power. The ship's name is easily readable when enlarged to 100%.
The GF. This is the shot I made into my first opalotype (just tonight, in fact.) When that blog post's time comes next month, I'll explain the process.
A train engine
An old boat at the marina
A detail shot at f2.4.
I wonder where the kid swinging on it went.
Stena Concert. The Pentax 6x7 has pretty good resolving power. The ship's name is easily readable when enlarged to 100%.
The GF. This is the shot I made into my first opalotype (just tonight, in fact.) When that blog post's time comes next month, I'll explain the process.
Wide-angle down portrait. Unless you're going for a specific effect, as here, always photograph a person from their chest level. That makes the proportions normal. You may note the Argus 75 she's holding. I'm looking forward to using that myself soon.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
San Francisco Deco Noir
I could not get out of work at all last week, so I didn't get to use the F3 and Nikkor-Q 200mm yet. But I do have some backup photos! The other week when I took the F3 out with the 43-86mm Nikkor Zoom, I took an extra roll of photos on Kodak BW400CN. The F3's batteries were shot -- again, which is what I get for buying 100 LR44s for $3 -- so only a few shots turned out. Here they are:
I suspect this may turn out to be one of my best shots in 2012. I already dig this shot a lot.
St. Patrick's Church, San Francisco. Poorly framed and a bit underexposed.
Additionally, over the past couple weeks I've been taking an old Ansco Agfa Plenax Singlet out and taking shots. This Plenax is either a 6X9 or a 6X4.5 I had it set at 6X4.5 to maximize the shots on the roll. This camera has some quirks.
1- The shutter has only "T" and "Inst." settings. T -- time -- means the user depresses the shutter release lever to open the shutter and then depresses it again to close it. Inst. -- instant -- is about 1/50th of a second.
2- Also, this camera only stops down to f14, so the whole thing is superbly slow.
3- As an added layer of challenge, the lens is fixed-focus. There's no adjustment. Either things are in focus or not. But it yielded a few interesting results.
I'm not sure what this is or how it happened, but it makes a great abstract photo.
In-focus content is pretty darn sharp, but it seems to have a fixed focal point about 15 feet, maybe 20 feet, from the lens at f14.
At f32, the focal point seems to be considerably further away. And the depth of field is generally good stopped-down.
This lens does have a lot going for it. It captures decent contrast levels for a tiny piece of glass. Also, it's surprisingly sharp.
I suspect this may turn out to be one of my best shots in 2012. I already dig this shot a lot.
St. Patrick's Church, San Francisco. Poorly framed and a bit underexposed.
Additionally, over the past couple weeks I've been taking an old Ansco Agfa Plenax Singlet out and taking shots. This Plenax is either a 6X9 or a 6X4.5 I had it set at 6X4.5 to maximize the shots on the roll. This camera has some quirks.
1- The shutter has only "T" and "Inst." settings. T -- time -- means the user depresses the shutter release lever to open the shutter and then depresses it again to close it. Inst. -- instant -- is about 1/50th of a second.
2- Also, this camera only stops down to f14, so the whole thing is superbly slow.
3- As an added layer of challenge, the lens is fixed-focus. There's no adjustment. Either things are in focus or not. But it yielded a few interesting results.
I'm not sure what this is or how it happened, but it makes a great abstract photo.
In-focus content is pretty darn sharp, but it seems to have a fixed focal point about 15 feet, maybe 20 feet, from the lens at f14.
At f32, the focal point seems to be considerably further away. And the depth of field is generally good stopped-down.
This lens does have a lot going for it. It captures decent contrast levels for a tiny piece of glass. Also, it's surprisingly sharp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)