[rollei_list] Re: Koni Omega/Omegaflex (was: Disturbing Lack of Traffic)
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:04:08 -0400
Thanks for the clarification, Slo. Now I understand that you weren't
exceeding the limits of the material, you were pulling the negative. I
also do this routinely, about a stop, because for my style of
shooting/lighting it generally yields more printable results...
I've shot the K-O lenses for quite some time and have not run into the
situation you describe. I was only half teasing when I suggested that
the lenses you were shooting may not have been completely haze-free;
other-wise I can't explain your unique findings. These lenses were
well-regarded for many years by thousands of pros who shot them, and
for you to see the same characteristics for both the 90 and the 135
would defy another explanation, as these lenses are of completely
different design and construction...
I do agree that these are, like our classic Rolleis, medium contrast
lenses, and as such do not give the appearance of being very sharp.
The 58 and the 135 are very well corrected, however, and hold up very
well to extreme enlargement...
Regards,
Eric Goldstein
--
On 6/18/07, slobodan dimitrov <s.dimitrov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I usually pulled my development times to account for my slight over
exposure, which was about half a stop to 2/3 of a stop. A method of
exposing and processing I still use to this day.
With the Omega lenses, if I missed their strange threshold, such as
too big a pull, I would get flat highlights. If I didn't pull enough
I then would get blown highlights.
At that time I was also the lab tech when the professors weren't
around to guide the students, and also worked at a rental darkroom
with ten stalls. So I got to see a lot of film and prints from which
to draw some fairly basic conclusions about where my gear's product
stood.
As far as shooting with Rolleis, I won't use anything prior to the
early 70's. I'm done with the hassle of split runs to accommodate for
the lower contrast of the earlier lenses. Currently I use a 3.5F,
#2830xxxx, and 2.8F white face, Planar and Xenotar respectively.
s.d.
On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
>> The whites were either flat, or somewhat blown
>> out when the lighting ratios exceeded the limits of the materials.
>
> Slo, you are a kidder... This statement belongs in the Irwin Corey
> hall of fame! Too funny!
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
