For the Love of B&W Photography

[calamus]

Okay, one more. Took this one with my plastic fantastic Holga. It's of the Clarke Museum in Eureka, California.

Clarke Museum bw.jpg

[calamus]

I'm not trying to overpost, honest I'm not! I'm not, I'm not, I'm not! (That last inspired by a slogan on a license plate holder that I saw when I lived in L.A. The car was a candy apple red brand new sporty Mercedes convertible, being driven by what looked like a 16 or 17-year-old girl. It was right in front of me at a stop light in Beverly Hills, and I was able to see the license plate and holder easily. The license plate holder said, "I'm not spoiled! I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!"

But anyway, I just got back the first two rolls from my "new" 1934 Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta, and I am beyond delighted with this camera. I only get 8 shots per roll of film (120) because it's a 6x9, but that Tessar lens — wow! It's uncoated, too, giving the photos an old-timey look. I'm going to share a few photos. They were all taken within about 10 miles of where I live in rural Northern California, about 300 miles north of San Francisco.

I used T-Max 400.


Ikonta-4.jpg

Ikonta-6.jpg



I took this one with a yellow filter, to show the clouds better:

Ikonta-3.jpg



And finally this double exposure, that I was able to "save" in Photoshop, producing a quirky photo that I kinda like.

Ikonta-9.jpg

[penwash]

Overpost?
Certainly not.
Thank you for sharing with us the B&W goodness from the uncoated Tessar

[Yazeh]

Please over post. I'm enjoying the vintage look of your photography

[Chrissy]

I went into the last local traditional camera and film processing shop in the region, and asked if I could have contact prints made of hundreds of old 120 and 35mm film strips. I wanted contact prints to sort and cull the negatives and choose full-size prints. He was eager to help, but he replied that neither he nor any labs do contact prints of film anymore.

If anyone knows of a lab in the USA that does B&W (and color) contact prints, please share. (Or is there a digital equivalent I can do with my MFC printer/scanner? I would assume the negatives have to be backlighted to scan...right? I am reluctant to delve into digital equipment to do a one-time job of viewing thousands of negative images. I gave up on finding a decent negative scanner a decade ago, but maybe things are easier now.)

I agree with Yazeh. A really good scanner will do exactly what you need. Check out something like the Epson Perfection V600 Photo or better.

[forester]

calamus:

Much appreciated.

Please continue.

I am a 10 minute drive from a similar "T" intersection as your first picture.

Not uncommon to see a horse and buggy go by.

Again, enjoyed your photographs.

[calamus]

I'll have to wait until I shoot some more film in the Ikonta to continue "overposting." Next rolls are going to be Portra, so the images won't even be b&w. But I'll be baaaaack...

[FredRydr]

I sold my film cameras and lenses except for shelf queens. And then you throw these images at me, leading me to look at vintage equipment and their going prices.

Must...resist....

[Chrissy]

Shelf Queens is a title I've never heard of. Good one Fred.

[calamus]

I sold my film cameras and lenses except for shelf queens. And then you throw these images at me, leading me to look at vintage equipment and their going prices.

Must...resist....

Sorry Fred, but now you know how I felt when you gave me the address of that guy with the Big Reds... (oh, and thanks...)
As Adrian Monk used to say, "You'll thank me later."
This is where I got my CLA'd Ikonta: https://www.petrakla.com
Right now they have two fully serviced Ikontas, a 6x4.5 and a 6x9, each for $275. Ansel Adams used a Super Ikonta ($495) before he went large format. Same as an Ikonta but with a built-in rangefinder for measuring camera to subject distances. But you can find a vintage standalone distance rangefinder for about $50, or eyeball the distance. Depth of field tables come in handy.
Can't beat that Zeiss glass.

Homer.jpg

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

IMG_1834.jpeg

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

IMG_2693.jpeg

[calamus]

IMG_2693.jpeg

Caffenol?

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

IMG_2693.jpeg

Caffenol?

I had to google that to understand the question. :P

No. Digital shot. Just a shot facing mostly into the sun and some minor tweaking of the raw image, nothing too extreme.
Converted to black and white.
Some shots just work better in BW.
Film is out of my price range. Between needing to buy a camera, film and all the stuff to develop and scan, I’ll have to stick to digital for the foreseeable future unfortunately.

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

FC_20211023_0087.jpeg


K, I’ll stop now and let someone else have a turn :P

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

Well. This is embarrassing

Just re read this entire thread and realized I had posted the tree growing out of a stump picture back in jul 2021…

Sorry for the double post…

https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread...l=1#post329428

[calamus]

IMG_2693.jpeg

Caffenol?

I had to google that to understand the question. :P

No. Digital shot. Just a shot facing mostly into the sun and some minor tweaking of the raw image, nothing too extreme.
Converted to black and white.
Some shots just work better in BW.
Film is out of my price range. Between needing to buy a camera, film and all the stuff to develop and scan, I’ll have to stick to digital for the foreseeable future unfortunately.

Wow! Digital caffenol. Who'd a thunk it? (It looks a lot like images I've seen from film developed in caffenol.)

Believe it or not, film can be way cheaper than digital under certain circumstances. For example, let's say you shot a once in a lifetime photo that you wanted to blow up and hang over your living room sofa. If you're shooting digital on a slightly older APS-C or even full-frame "35mm" sensor, you're out of luck. With a medium format digital camera, with sensors that start at about 50MP, you can get 23" x 23" prints. Just the body of a medium format camera with a sensor that size starts north of $3000. If you want to get up to, say, 30x40, it'll take about 108MP, I think. Bodies for those cameras start around $8000 and go up from there. The glass adds many more thousands of dollars just for one lens. But, you can find a serviced used Yashica TLR for $200, with a built-in taking lens, and drum scans of one of its negs can produce prints in that ballpark. A drum scan can cost $50 and up per frame, but for a once in a lifetime shot, that's not exorbitant. Anyway, that's why a lot of pros have gone back to film. Plus the look is something you can't get with digital.

[calamus]

FC_20211023_0087.jpeg


K, I’ll stop now and let someone else have a turn :P

This is my favorite! Please keep posting it AT LEAST every two years!

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

Caffenol?

I had to google that to understand the question. :P

No. Digital shot. Just a shot facing mostly into the sun and some minor tweaking of the raw image, nothing too extreme.
Converted to black and white.
Some shots just work better in BW.
Film is out of my price range. Between needing to buy a camera, film and all the stuff to develop and scan, I’ll have to stick to digital for the foreseeable future unfortunately.

Wow! Digital caffenol. Who'd a thunk it? (It looks a lot like images I've seen from film developed in caffenol.)

Believe it or not, film can be way cheaper than digital under certain circumstances. For example, let's say you shot a once in a lifetime photo that you wanted to blow up and hang over your living room sofa. If you're shooting digital on a slightly older APS-C or even full-frame "35mm" sensor, you're out of luck. With a medium format digital camera, with sensors that start at about 50MP, you can get 23" x 23" prints. Just the body of a medium format camera with a sensor that size starts north of $3000. If you want to get up to, say, 30x40, it'll take about 108MP, I think. Bodies for those cameras start around $8000 and go up from there. The glass adds many more thousands of dollars just for one lens. But, you can find a serviced used Yashica TLR for $200, with a built-in taking lens, and drum scans of one of its negs can produce prints in that ballpark. A drum scan can cost $50 and up per frame, but for a once in a lifetime shot, that's not exorbitant. Anyway, that's why a lot of pros have gone back to film. Plus the look is something you can't get with digital.

Maybe so but i don’t usually go out looking for shots. I get what i get while going about my usual daily routine. So I have to shoot what i can always afford and always have with me. Also the time required for film isn’t in the budget either, family comes first and i barely have the time to edit what i get now. The last thing i need is another expensive time consuming hobby
The good news is that i have a sensor that shoots close to 50MP and upscaling software is really good now for those lower MP shots.


And i do have a shot i want to blow up to sofa size. It’s a stitched pano and then super resolution upscale. However, again cost of print is preventing that from happening right now.

K, I’ll stop now and let someone else have a turn :P

This is my favorite! Please keep posting it AT LEAST every two years!

I’ll try and remember! Glad you like it (the colour version is pretty nice too IMO)

[INeedAFinancialAdvisor]

IMG_7047.jpeg