Help ... Is this normal for my Leitz Elmar?

[mingaun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I just bought a Leica II and a leitz elmar 50/3.5. I think they were both made in 1932. I immediately fell in love with it until I saw the photos that came out of it. They all look washed out. I am new to black-and-white photography. I need someone to tell me if this is normal. I shot using Ilford hp5 plus 400 pushed one stop. It was a super hot and super bright day. I believe the sun was right above me. Shot around f12.5 or thereabouts. They were not taken with hood, I heard that the Elmar is quite resilient to flare. So is this flare that I am seeing in my image or is it overexposure or is it the lens? But FYI,  I checked the lens, I think there is no haze but I am no expert but the shock I got was it was full of scratches swirling all over. I love this lens. I would like to buy another Elmar if a later model Elmar can improve this. Or is this just a characteristic of vintage lenses? I am new to all this. Forgive my ignorance. Here are some of the photos untouched.

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!

[nitroplait]

You are overexposing by around two stops or more. According to Sunny 16, your exposure should be around f16 1/800 for HP5+ pushed one stop (800ISO) in the lighting situation you describe.

Leica II tops out at 1/500 and is probably slower in reality so you must have overexposed a bit if using f/12.5 unless you used a filter.
It does not make sense to push the film in your use case scenario.

Try to shoot a film and expose it correctly and try to use a hood (you could make one of matte non reflective black paper if you don't have one). Try to shoot under varied conditions - bright highlights will cause some flare in an uncoated lens.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by nitroplait

[spydrxx]

You need to experiment more with B&W to get control of your images....both in shooting and in development. The camera and lens can deliver terrific images, but you have to have a better handle on how to achieve good B&W end results. It's not rocket science, but it does take diligence and a little experimentation.

[Pyrogallol]

You don’t say what shutter speed you used with f12.5 ? sunny 16 would have given you about 500th  for a 400 speed film pushed up towards 800. Why did you push the speed up?  Pushing it up will increase the graininess. Did you develop it yourself? If so what development? If you used a lab then anything could have happened. If the film is pushed to a higher speed, with increased development time the result will be grainier but should be more contrast than regular exposure and development, but if the negatives are overexposed and denser than normal then they may print more like your results. Did you print them in a darkroom or scan the negatives? So many variables that could have added up to what you got. Your first picture with the building and river looks as if the negative is too dense and thick which has resulted in a grainier, flatter image. The second picture looking down on the field looks better, more contrasty. Was that negative less dense, more normal exposure?

For the next film try a medium speed film such as Ilford FP4+ in normal development and use a lenshood. Cleaning marks/fine scratches on the front of the lens will reduce the contrast, especially a prewar uncoated lens.

[250swb]

Don’t worry, I don’t think the camera is faulty or that vintage cameras make these images unless ‘helped’ by unhelpful technique. Use a lens hood if you can get one, don’t play games with the film and push it, use a slower film, and read a book. You will get the hang of it, don’t be despondent, in fact if you’ve made so many mistakes all in one go treat it as a crash course in what not to do 👍
 

One tip may be to use Ilford XP2 film which is a B&W film that can be processed in regular colour film chemistry, it has a wide exposure latitude and doesn't rely on the lab knowing how to process a normal B&W film like HP5. When you start getting some great photos with that it will encourage you to revisit HP5 and other B&W films.

[qqphot]

This looks like very overexposed film. With an old uncoated elmar there will also be a tendency for bright areas to bleed over into darker areas of the image reducing contrast. Scratches and haze can make this much worse. But first get exposure under control - If you're exposing accurately and aware of lighting it can be pretty good.

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 October 14, 2023 by qqphot

[mingaun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you all for your advice. I think the overexposure issue is correct. I am so used to using color films like Portra where I have a tendency to overexpose the shots by two stops. I must have done the same for my black and white film. I develop this in a lab. They develop and scan it. But even though I agree with the overexposure bit, I am still worried its not just overexposure because all of them are the same including those I believe were exposed correctly. Every single shot was washed out. I pushed the film because I was afraid I need it when light is low, just in case. If I knew I will finish the roll in one hot setting I would have shot at box speed. I am going to try to take some more photos at better lighting and see the results. Thank you all for your advise. 

 

[mingaun]

7 hours ago, qqphot said:

This looks like very overexposed film. With an old uncoated elmar there will also be a tendency for bright areas to bleed over into darker areas of the image reducing contrast. Scratches and haze can make this much worse. But first get exposure under control - If you're exposing accurately and aware of lighting it can be pretty good.

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!

Very nice. Was this taken with the elmar? Has it been touched up?

 

[qqphot]

2 hours ago, mingaun said:

Very nice. Was this taken with the elmar? Has it been touched up?

 

Yes, taken with the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar (with a IIIf body).  I don't remember but probably f/8.  I'm not sure what you mean by "touched up" - film was scanned, inverted, black point set to keep the bulk of the shadows from going totally black, white point set to just retain detail in the sunlit area of wall near the center, the left edge brightened a bit to bring the ATM up out of the shadows, and probably a couple of dust particles cloned out.

This was taken on Delta 100 exposed at box speed and developed in TMax developer, so very different from pushed HP5+. Lots of resolving power, pretty contrasty, and will show up every fault in focusing and adjustment.

Edited October 15, 2023 by qqphot

[Pyrogallol]

7 hours ago, mingaun said:

Thank you all for your advice. I think the overexposure issue is correct. I am so used to using color films like Portra where I have a tendency to overexpose the shots by two stops. I must have done the same for my black and white film. I develop this in a lab. They develop and scan it. But even though I agree with the overexposure bit, I am still worried its not just overexposure because all of them are the same including those I believe were exposed correctly. Every single shot was washed out. I pushed the film because I was afraid I need it when light is low, just in case. If I knew I will finish the roll in one hot setting I would have shot at box speed. I am going to try to take some more photos at better lighting and see the results. Thank you all for your advise. 

 

If the lab developed the film then they would not have increased the development to match the “pushed” ie underexposed exposure. Your pushing or underexposure would just have partly balanced against the overexposure due to not using the correct exposure for the amount of light on the scene/shutter speed/diaphragm.

[250swb]

8 hours ago, mingaun said:

. I am going to try to take some more photos at better lighting and see the results.

 

Also try another lab who specialises in processing B&W film, or do as I suggested and use Ilford XP2.

[mingaun]

Just finished a roll of Ilford hp5 400 film and exposed at box speed. Will know the result by this Wednesday. Will keep you all updated. Difficult to try another lab because there are not many here in my area but I am looking into developing myself and see. Will also keep XP2 in mind and even Delta 100.

[spydrxx]

If you insist in using a lab and find local ones unsatisfactory, there are a number of mail order labs which do quality work, depending on where you are located in this big world. I know of several in the USA, but not elsewhere.

[earleygallery]

On 10/14/2023 at 3:35 PM, mingaun said:

Hi, I just bought a Leica II and a leitz elmar 50/3.5. I think they were both made in 1932. I immediately fell in love with it until I saw the photos that came out of it. They all look washed out. I am new to black-and-white photography. I need someone to tell me if this is normal. I shot using Ilford hp5 plus 400 pushed one stop. It was a super hot and super bright day. I believe the sun was right above me. Shot around f12.5 or thereabouts. They were not taken with hood, I heard that the Elmar is quite resilient to flare. So is this flare that I am seeing in my image or is it overexposure or is it the lens? But FYI,  I checked the lens, I think there is no haze but I am no expert but the shock I got was it was full of scratches swirling all over. I love this lens. I would like to buy another Elmar if a later model Elmar can improve this. Or is this just a characteristic of vintage lenses? I am new to all this. Forgive my ignorance. Here are some of the photos untouched.

 

Sounds like that could be fungus - if it's bad it will affect the image quality.

[mingaun]

8 hours ago, spydrxx said:

If you insist in using a lab and find local ones unsatisfactory, there are a number of mail order labs which do quality work, depending on where you are located in this big world. I know of several in the USA, but not elsewhere.

I live in Malaysia. Mail order is too costly. Will see how things go with this current lab. 

[mingaun]

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

Sounds like that could be fungus - if it's bad it will affect the image quality.

I did check the lens. Dont seem to have fungus. Just lots of scratches.

[mingaun]

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!

I got back my scans. These were shot at box speed. I have carefully exposed the shots. It still looks washout to me, especially under bright sunlight.

[mingaun]

As a comparison, i use the same Leica II but this time I used a light lens lab elcan 50/2. The result is very different. I know this is a modern sort of lens but ....

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!

[mingaun]

This one is taken inside my house by the window light with the elmar. No bright sunlight and it looks better

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Pyrogallol]

The Elmar pictures look ok to me. The indoor one is really nice. Any pre-war uncoated lens will have less contrast than a modern coated lens. It just needs using in conditions that it likes.