[rollei_list] Re: ... Rolleiflex SL66, now with Kodak TMax 400
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:44:08 -0300
These old 35mm rangefinder cameras, one from 1937 and other from 1955,
are very pleasant to use. The Contax II was adjusted a few years ago
by Eddy Smolov in New York City, one of his last works, he is retired
now; the Diax Voss IIa from 1955 rangefinder was adjusted last year in
Buenos Aires city. I'm really happy with the SL66 after to wait 14
months for it, I can now say it is working very well. I used the lens
tilting function to incline the plane of focus for this photograph
(Scheimpflug principle), it's the best way to gain DOF for these
close-ups (better seen the largest size):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/14929633600/
Carlos
2014-09-01 8:36 GMT-03:00 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Yesterday I took a Kodak TMax 400 with the Rolleiflex SL66 and
> developed it too; the focal plane shutter is working perfectly, the
> vertical bands in the previous color negative Portra roll were caused
> in the lab; I had used other two Portra 400 from the same box in the
> 3,5F and 2,8C and they had no problems.
>
>
> This time I used an Argentinian developer for the Tmax 400, Romek PQ7,
> it is a Phenidone based developer, they call it Phenidek because
> Phenidone is an Ilford trade mark. It's a concentrated liquid to be
> diluted 1+3, you can develop up to 8 120 roll units with 1 litre of
> diluted solution.
>
>
> These two images were taken with the lens in the reversed position:
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/15079897386/
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/15102890525/
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> 2014-08-30 15:47 GMT-03:00 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> I was comparing the bad negs before the SL66 CLA with this first roll
>> after the CLA and discovered or recalled a little big detail, the
>> bands in the older negs are _horizontal_ and the bands in the recent
>> color neg are _vertical_, it means the bands in the older negs were
>> caused by the shutter, it has a _horizontal_ run, but the current
>> _vertical_ bands couldn't be caused by the shutter; I examined the
>> recent color neg with a loupe and could see the vertical bands have a
>> continuity between the affected frames through the space between
>> frames, if the shutter was the cause, these bands would be cut between
>> the frames, but they do have continuity. I suspect there was some
>> operation error in the lab; I'll check now the focal plane shutter
>> working with a B&W film developed by me, I'm almost sure the shutter
>> is working fine.
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>> 2014-08-29 11:00 GMT-03:00 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> This is the first roll after the SL66 CLA. I wrote the camera was
>>> working very fine and smooth but I needed to check the images for a
>>> final opinion. I did it and I have some doubts about the focal plane
>>> shutter working; some frames still show the regular bands caused by
>>> uneven exposure I had noticed before the CLA. The situation improved
>>> regarding the last rolls I shot before this CLA, but the bands are
>>> still there (I think they appear or disappear according the selected
>>> shutter speed). Sometimes it happens that some camera functions need
>>> to be "exercised" after a CLA (it happened to me for cameras serviced
>>> here, in USA and in Germany) , I'll shoot another roll to get a
>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> I specially like the SL66 for this kind of shot:
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/15048384216/
>>>
>>> Carlos
---
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:
