Author Topic: Did I buy anyone a Brownie folder? (Read 9249 times)

Francois · « **Reply #50 on:** August 17, 2016, 02:56:50 PM »

There's also an other way of dealing with dull people... Glossy paint works wonders and it sure gets them moving

Indofunk · « **Reply #51 on:** August 17, 2016, 03:32:04 PM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on August 17, 2016, 10:14:38 AM

try shooting without the lens hood

https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s

Cool! That should buy me another stop of light as well, right? I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea

) and found myself constantly wanting 5.6 for shooting in open shade...

Indofunk · « **Reply #52 on:** August 17, 2016, 05:55:33 PM »

Quote from: Indofunk on August 17, 2016, 03:32:04 PM

I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea )

A couple of these came out really well! (as per negative-peeping) I know I owe this thread results from these first two rolls, and I'm going to get on that immediately

Indofunk · « **Reply #53 on:** August 17, 2016, 06:38:36 PM »

Aaaand ... [drumroll] .... here they are! The first test roll on Ilford XP2 in HC110 1:100 for 1.5 hrs (semi-stand). It's possible I overdeveloped it, but I definitely overexposed it.

First up, our very own Filmwaster hookstrapped, as kind of a focus test. First shot, unknown focus (hey, it was my first time using the damn camera, I didn't know you could *focus* it

), second shot, focused at 8 feet, which was approximately the distance to the subject (Peter). Conclusion: this focus is whack.

Next 3 are way overexposed. I reduced the exposure in Lightroom by about 2 stops, applied some highlight recovery, and increased contrast and sharpness a bit.

Last one was my final focus test. Smaller aperture (maybe f/16? Or f/32?) and focused at 8ft which is what I estimated the distance to the first pole was.

Yup, focus is definitely out of whack

I guess I'm going to have to go with Andrej's conclusion that it's gotta be stopped way down to achieve any level of focus. Either that or my focus scale is off. Or, most likely, both. I'll try stopping way down and see what happens.

Terry · « **Reply #54 on:** August 17, 2016, 07:10:16 PM »

Woohoo! Success!!!!! Some adjustments may be necessary but it works. I particularly like the shot of the 59th street bridge from Roosevelt Island. Even the lens flare.

Bryan · « **Reply #55 on:** August 17, 2016, 09:12:19 PM »

I like the bridge shots. I need to take mine out again, it's been a while since I last used it.

Indofunk · « **Reply #56 on:** August 17, 2016, 09:18:46 PM »

Quote from: Terry on August 17, 2016, 07:10:16 PM

Woohoo! Success!!!!! Some adjustments may be necessary but it works. I particularly like the shot of the 59th street bridge from Roosevelt Island. Even the lens flare.

That's actually from Queens. Well, mainland Queens. By which I mean, the larger island of Queens

NYC is confusing.

[edit]: had to look it up again. Roosevelt Island is part of Manhattan, not Queens. So my first sentence would have been sufficiently clear.

I repeat: NYC is confusing $:-\$

Francois · « **Reply #57 on:** August 17, 2016, 10:02:09 PM »

I usually settle for the old "bridge or tunnel?" neighborhood classification

Indofunk · « **Reply #58 on:** August 17, 2016, 11:37:43 PM »

Quote from: 02Pilot on August 15, 2016, 08:39:59 PM

Lock shutter open. Put a wall of scotch tape across the film gate. Point the camera at something and look at the image on the faux ground glass with a loupe (or, lacking that, and inverted 50mm lens). Check focus at the center (for calibration) and the edges (for squareness of the lens standard to the film plane).

I just tried this. It looks fairly accurate at 8ft to me (using a reversed 50mm lens ... thanks for that tip too!). But it also seems fairly accurate until I step as close at 4ft or as far away as 15ft, so I think my eyes are not being that accurate as to what is "in focus". At any rate, I don't think I'm going to sweat it, it'll be my "everything's gonna be fuzzy on this camera" camera and try to shoot fast film on it so I can stop down past f/32 (or rather, "3"). Too bad, I think xpro'd slide film would look great on this, but that's slow stuff...

02Pilot · « **Reply #59 on:** August 17, 2016, 11:56:17 PM »

I wasn't kidding when I said it wouldn't be anything even approaching sharp until f/16. I did a static, tripod-mounted series of test shots on mine (with the four-element, two-group lens) and f/8 and f/11 (modern scale) are just soft all over. f/16 is reasonably sharp in the center. f/22 and f/32 are fairly uniformly sharp, but that's sharp by 100-year-old camera standards. If you were contact printing, it would look sharp at smaller apertures; scanning and pixel-peeping is always going to be disappointing.

Also consider that the lens is pretty long (I seem to recall around 100mm), so DOF is going to be quite shallow, especially close up.

Indofunk · « **Reply #60 on:** August 18, 2016, 12:25:09 AM »

Quote from: 02Pilot on August 17, 2016, 11:56:17 PM

I wasn't kidding when I said it wouldn't be anything even approaching sharp until f/16. I did a static, tripod-mounted series of test shots on mine (with the four-element, two-group lens) and f/8 and f/11 (modern scale) are just soft all over. f/16 is reasonably sharp in the center. f/22 and f/32 are fairly uniformly sharp, but that's sharp by 100-year-old camera standards. If you were contact printing, it would look sharp at smaller apertures; scanning and pixel-peeping is always going to be disappointing.

Also consider that the lens is pretty long (I seem to recall around 100mm), so DOF is going to be quite shallow, especially close up.

I was wondering what the focal length was. 100mm sounds about right, although do you think there's a difference for your 4-element lens and my 1-element lens? Also, my eyes aren't really used to 120 focal lengths. Do the above shots look about 100mm to you?

Today I tried Jonas' suggestion about removing the lens hood and shooting WIDE open. I'm expecting so little to be in focus that it turns into colored bokeh-art

Terry · « **Reply #61 on:** August 18, 2016, 01:25:57 AM »

Well, it's a Brownie after all. Kodak never claimed it was a good camera...

02Pilot · « **Reply #62 on:** August 18, 2016, 01:41:21 AM »

I suspect your lens (which is actually a two-element cemented pair) is about the same focal length as mine. ~105mm is "perfect normal" for 6x9, so it's about the equivalent of 40mm in 135. Proportions are the same, so just think of it like a really big 40mm and you'll be fine.

With the aperture restrictor removed, I'm guessing you'll not only have soft focus everywhere but also a fair bit of distortion. Could be fun....

Indofunk · « **Reply #63 on:** August 18, 2016, 02:32:04 AM »

The only thing that actually annoys me on this camera (because, let's face it, its a 1920's camera so there's not much you can ask of it) is that the viewfinder is square. Why the hell would you do that? I have no idea what is going to end up in the picture at all. I've been assuming that it shows me the center of the picture (ie, the height is correct), but how am I supposed to put my main subject in, say, the left "third" of the 6x9 if I'm looking at a square?

02Pilot · « **Reply #64 on:** August 18, 2016, 02:57:54 AM »

It's probably missing the mask on top of the prism. It's a sort of +-shaped opening that is supposed to give you portrait and landscape framing. In practice, I've found that it is ridiculously conservative, showing only about 60% of what ends up on the film. I've thought about building a simple wire-frame external finder that is actually reasonably accurate.

Indofunk · « **Reply #65 on:** August 18, 2016, 03:09:32 AM »

Ahhh, so the top & bottom of the "+" do not appear on the picture? My viewfinder is rotatable for portrait or landscape, so I'm not sure why they'd have 2 +es, but I guess if you want to take a portrait picture 90^o to your left and want to hold the entire camera up to your face, then I guess it would be useful

Indofunk · « **Reply #66 on:** August 18, 2016, 03:53:53 AM »

Also, if you end up building an external finder, build one for me too

jojonas~ · « **Reply #67 on:** August 18, 2016, 07:39:40 AM »

Quote from: Indofunk on August 17, 2016, 03:32:04 PM

Quote from: jojonas~ on August 17, 2016, 10:14:38 AM
try shooting without the lens hood

https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s

Cool! That should buy me another stop of light as well, right? I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea ) and found myself constantly wanting 5.6 for shooting in open shade...

I think they mention 6.8 for their camera. but it might differ since theirs is a 127-type and yours 120, right?

Francois · « **Reply #68 on:** August 18, 2016, 02:58:46 PM »

I wonder if this one has a fold-up viewfinder on the side?

Bryan · « **Reply #69 on:** August 18, 2016, 03:57:09 PM »

Quote from: Francois on August 18, 2016, 02:58:46 PM

I wonder if this one has a fold-up viewfinder on the side?

Mine doesn't, just the little rotating one next to the lens.

Francois · « **Reply #70 on:** August 18, 2016, 08:35:03 PM »

The way these work is that if you're shooting portrait, you just use the shape that's in portrait orientation and discard the two imaginary side bars. When shooting in portrait, you use the entire horizontal frame minus the two imaginary top and bottom parts.
This is why the viewfinder mask is shaped like a cross.

And don't forget that you have no parallax correction on these! That's why the viewfinder shows less than the taking lens.

Indofunk · « **Reply #71 on:** August 18, 2016, 09:59:23 PM »

Ok, now I get it. I should have opened up the camera first before writing that last post

Indofunk · « **Reply #72 on:** August 25, 2016, 08:17:44 PM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on August 18, 2016, 07:39:40 AM

Quote from: Indofunk on August 17, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: jojonas~ on August 17, 2016, 10:14:38 AM
try shooting without the lens hood

https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s

Cool! That should buy me another stop of light as well, right? I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea ) and found myself constantly wanting 5.6 for shooting in open shade...

I think they mention 6.8 for their camera. but it might differ since theirs is a 127-type and yours 120, right?

Jonas, thanks for the tip! I tried firing off a few shots without the lens hood (exposing at 5.6, but this is negative film so it doesn't particularly care) and it does indeed look soft-focused and dreamy!

ps, yes, mine is a 120.