Useful to shoot some slide film – BEOON+M10

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since we're talking lenses, what do you make from this advert on eBay:

" El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 advertised as 'NEW'. "

 

Obviously it can't be new given production ceased in 2006 or 7. But could be old (very old) stock someone purchased to sell on.

 

I'm wondering if it's better to purchace a 'mint' used example (also currently on eBay) or not.

 

What do you think?

[wlaidlaw]

I think one issue is that the majority of these enlarger lenses seem poorly sealed against dust, so the older they are, the more dust there will be. Thus a new old stock, as long as it has been in its box for that time and not sat in a shop window, might well be a good buy. I will buy either a Schneider Componon S or APO Rodagon-N when I get back to the UK. I would like to try to find out the serial number ranges so that I can be sure of buying a recent lens. I will try my plastic Rolleigon 50 that I already have, with the BEOON but not expecting a lot. My Zeiss ZM 50 Planar I have could be interesting as well. Its MTF diagrams show it has quite a flat field when stopped down to f5.6. 

 

I have had good and bad experiences on new old stock. The good was a 135/4 Tele-Elmar, which was still sealed in its box, in the original polythene bag. It has been an excellent performer and at least you know that the head has not been swapped onto the wrong focusing tube (they are a matched pair from the factory and are marked with the same serial number). My bad new/old stock was a Leicaflex SL2 in 1981. It was a nightmare after the first week but luckily in view of the quite high price I had paid for it, I got a 12 months return to Leica UK warranty. It would be quicker to list the bits that did not go wrong than the bits that worked. When it was still wrong nearly a year later, after three lengthy visits to Leica UK, the dealer agreed a complete refund plus some compensation for ruined films, if I bought another camera from him. I bought a new Contax RTS2, which had just been released. It is still working perfectly in the hands of a Russian friend, some 35 years later. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest Nowhereman]

Another family shot among the 300 transparencies I have finished digitalizing. Doesn't show anything new — except maybe corner sharpness? — but I like the "Twin Peaks look" of it. Shot with the M3 and Summicron 50 on Kodachrome 64.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest Nowhereman]

Here are a couple more shots taken in Accra in 1976 with an M3 and a Summicron 50 lens on Agfa Scala film. The first one I use for focussing the BEOON because it  has the word "SINGER" on the sewing machine in sharp focus. The Focus Peaking on the M10 makes the lettering shimmer when I hit focus. Ideally, it would be good to have the type of negative that used to be sold for focusing enlargers. I have one somewhere but can't find it. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wlaidlaw]

Hartblei sell colour and focus charts, which you would then photograph and use for focusing the BEOON and PP colour correction. The cost is €45. http://www.hartblei.de/en/targets.htm 

[Guest Nowhereman]

Here are two Kodachrome II shots from 1965 made in harsh equatorial light in Uganda. The second is of our Beetle stuck in mud, upcountry, on the way to Karamoja, and the other is in Kampala. Both with the Leica IIIc and Summitar 50 lens.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 2, 2017 by Nowhereman

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice shots Mitch.

It's been said on the 'I love film' thread that camera digitisation reduces the qualities of film / slides by imposing the camera's own digital rendition. All images posted on-line have been through an analogue to digital transformation, and the screens we use to view have their own characteristics / imperfections which are potentially different for all of us. I don't know if you have a reference monitor, but you are probably best placed to say how well the digitised versions of the Kodachrome II slides match the originals when viewed side by side.

I'd be interested to hear what you think.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Steve - All I can say is that the Kodachrome II slides viewed on my light pad through 6x Rodenstock lupe look very much like the digitalizations. However, both of the slides above were underexposed, particularly the portrait, and that I have adjusted somewhat.

 

More generally, slides shot in bright, harsh light have high contrast and, if one was printing them using an internegative and, in the glory days, the Kodak dye transfer process, one would reduce the contrast. These days one can digitalize or scan and print digitally and according to someone who was one of the last dye transfer printers, Ctein, the results can be as good or better than dye transfer.

 

The bottom line, for, me is that the color slides I've digitalized here look much more like the slides themselves than the look I get out of the M10. To get close to the same look in shooting directly wit the M10 would require a good amount of skill and a lot of adjustment. What has surprised me in these digitalizations is that the files have required much less adjustments, as far as I can remember, than scans of slides that I used to make with the Imacon. 

 

Perhaps, one should also take with a huge grain of salt some of the things that are so frequently said on the "I Love Film" thread. Sometimes they do "protest too much." 

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[Guest Nowhereman]

Discussion in this thread has been about the BEOON and camera scanning. However, in the original post I also raised the thought that the rendering of transparency film often has a beauty that we might not bring out when processing digital files. I showed one example in that post. Below are two pictures that have colors that I would probably attenuate if they were produced by my M10: the color in the highlights of the hair in the first picture and blues in the water of the Hong Komg picture. My feeling is that I might want to shoot slide film occasionally to keep this type of color rendering more in my mind wen post-processing my M10 shots. Any thoughts on this?

 

These pictures were taken around 1982 on Kodachrome 25 with an M3 and the Summicron 50.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 9, 2017 by Nowhereman

[wlaidlaw]

The beauty of colour reversal originals is what seemed to disappear on my Plustek scans, which looked anaemic and dull, with blocky blacks and blown highlights, not present on the original. The Epson V700 was considerably better for keeping the feel of the original but too soft to print to any decent size. Even A4 was a push. I am hoping for great things with the BEOON and SL. 

 

Wilson

[Steve Ricoh]

Discussion in this thread has been about the BEOON and camera scanning. However, in the original post I also raised the thought that the rendering of transparency film often has a beauty that we might not bring out when processing digital files. I showed one example in that post. Below are two pictures that have colors that I would probably attenuate if they were produced by my M10: the color in the highlights of the hair in the first picture and blues in the water of the Hong Komg picture. My feeling is that I might want to shoot slide film occasionally to keep this type of color rendering more in my mind wen post-processing my M10 shots. Any thoughts on this?

 

These pictures were taken around 1982 on Kodachrome 25 with an M3 and the Summicron 50.

I'm not sure Mitch, Kodachrome was known for its saturation and it's difficult for anyone other than the photographer to make an informed judgement as to whether the colours are accurate. I'm aware it's 35 years ago, but previously I believe you've said the young man is your son, and on that basis you will know how accurate the skin tones are. The second doesn't look out of the ordinary, but if I had shot the scene digitally, there's every chance I would fiddle in Lightroom, in fact I would be tempted to play with the digitised slide as it is. So for me I'm not sure if Kodachrome is an accurate reference for digital shooting. I have a roll of Velvia waiting and I'm tempted to do a side by side with my M240 and compare the output. Probably more informative to post process the digital captures, then compare with the slides when I get them back from the lab.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Steve - I think we're talking about different things: I wasn't advocating Kodachrome (or other transparency films) as a color reference for what the "real colors" were, simply because Kodachrome looked very different depending on the exposure used: "adan," in an interesting post, said, Getting too worked up over what "looks like Kodachrome" and what doesn't is pointless. Kodachrome was always a schizophrenic film, depending on exposure. A "bright" exposure gave pastel colors, while a dark exposure gave strong saturated colors. [On this same subject, you may be interested in reading two follow-up posts by "adan" in the linked thread: posts #35 and #42].

 

My point was a more limited one, that the rendering of slide films can be quite beautiful when it doesn't represent the true colors in the subject: the color of the highlights in the hair in the first picture and the blues in the water in the Hong Kong picture. So, it is precisely some of the unrealistic color rendering of transparency film that creates a type of beauty that I would most likely attenuate when shooting with the M10 — and it is to train myself to do the opposite that I was musing that it might be useful to shoot occasionally a slide film that one likes. Now, does that make sense to you?

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

 

[Guest Nowhereman]

The beauty of colour reversal originals is what seemed to disappear on my Plustek scans, which looked anaemic and dull, with blocky blacks and blown highlights, not present on the original. The Epson V700 was considerably better for keeping the feel of the original but too soft to print to any decent size. Even A4 was a push. I am hoping for great things with the BEOON and SL. 

 

Wilson

 

Wilson - Look forward to seeing what you get in your digitalizations of transparency film why the BEOOB and SL: hope you post some of them here.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson - Look forward to seeing what you get in your digitalizations of transparency film why the BEOOB and SL: hope you post some of them here.

 

It is going to be mid October before I am back in the UK, where the BEEON should be waiting for me. I can then decide whether to see my Plustek 7400 or not. 

 

Wilson

[Steve Ricoh]

Steve - I think we're talking about different things: I wasn't advocating Kodachrome (or other transparency films) as a color reference for what the "real colors" were, simply because Kodachrome looked very different depending on the exposure used: "adan," in an interesting post, said, Getting too worked up over what "looks like Kodachrome" and what doesn't is pointless. Kodachrome was always a schizophrenic film, depending on exposure. A "bright" exposure gave pastel colors, while a dark exposure gave strong saturated colors. [On this same subject, you may be interested in reading two follow-up posts by "adan" in the linked thread: posts #35 and #42].

 

My point was a more limited one, that the rendering of slide films can be quite beautiful when it doesn't represent the true colors in the subject: the color of the highlights in the hair in the first picture and the blues in the water in the Hong Kong picture. So, it is precisely some of the unrealistic color rendering of transparency film that creates a type of beauty that I would most likely attenuate when shooting with the M10 — and it is to train myself to do the opposite that I was musing that it might be useful to shoot occasionally a slide film that one likes. Now, does that make sense to you?

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Oh I've got you now Mitch, that makes complete sense.

[wlaidlaw]

What tube/adapter combination are folks using on the BEOON to get the correct 1:1 reproduction of a 35mm film with an L39 mount 50mm enlarging lens and M mount full frame digital. There is a thread on RFF that is struggling with this. They either get less than 1:1 or run out of distance on the BEOON focus pillar. Since that is the combination I will be using, I am interested for my own purposes. 

 

Wilson

[pop]

The BEOON is being discussed in another thread. While no one appears to have the answer to your question, one crucial part is the question of the exact focal length of your enlarging lens. It turns out that different lenses of the nominal focal length have very different actual focal length, and the BEOON can be used with some of them, and can not be used (for 1:1 work) with others. See - for instance - https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/276151-beoon-advice-please-functional-checks-prior-to-purchase/page-4?p=3350345&do=findComment&comment=3350345

[a.noctilux]

Wilson,

Not all 50mm enlarger lens work with the Beoon.

The other thread, we are talking about that type of lenses.

 

In my trying, EL-Nikkor-N 2.8/50mm didn't work, I gave up mainly because of field curvature of that EL 50mm.

Two of my Focotar 4.5/50mm work best with rings A+B+C and 1:1 mask for slides or negatives.

 

For fun, I'm working to find out what peuple could use for slide/negative dup. plus digital camera + Beoon or bellows :

results will come soon with Focotar, Summar repro, EL-Nikkor, Micro-Nikkor, Macro-Elmarit, S Planar, Macro Pentax, and maybe more .

[wlaidlaw]

I have just bid for a set of 4 assorted length Periflex L39 extension tubes (17, 26, 34 and 52mm) between those and the Leica tubes, surely I should be able to get every lens length between about 40 and 60mm to work at 1:1. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Ricoh]

I have just bid for a set of 4 assorted length Periflex L39 extension tubes (17, 26, 34 and 52mm) between those and the Leica tubes, surely I should be able to get every lens length between about 40 and 60mm to work at 1:1. 

 

Wilson

I wouldn't bank on it, but please update us.