Jump to content

Leica C3 Photos


trickness

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm probably posting this in the wrong place, but I recently rediscovered a C3 sitting in a box that I gave my wife 20 years ago. It has never had a roll put through it until this week - she never used it. Had the original battery still in the compartment but amazingly it did not leak any acid - thank you Duracell! It was part of a Creative Kit that includes a pad, pencil and a leatherette case - very cool. I haven't shot film since maybe 2002, but here are a few pictures from the first roll this camera has ever seen. Portra 800, developed by a local lab here in NYC, images scanned as 6 megapixel tiffs, so quality not that great, but workable.

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 by trickness
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hansvons said:

Nice. More to come on film?

Thanks!

This is a question I’m asking myself right now.

The C3 required no investment on my part because it was just sitting under the bed. It was quite a nice discovery to make and definitely interesting to use.

But I’m also realizing it’s about a dollar for every photograph I take. And not having creative control over aperture, shutter speed or ISO (which are all automatically set by the camera as it is a point and shoot) is something I’m finding a bit difficult to deal with. I don’t really like the camera thinking for me!

I must admit, I have been looking at both R9 and MP videos a lot lately. And also thinking that perhaps I would get a set up to scan myself, for better quality and less money. But I’m guessing it would probably be about five grand to do all of this. 

I’m not sure yet whether I am attracted to film that much. But I’m going to put a few more rolls through the C3 and we’ll see! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

$1 per shot isn't that bad anymore. I recently found my dad's original Polaroid SX70, and then found that the "Impossible Project" had worked to create film packs for it and finally bought the rights to use the Polaroid name. So I now have a camera that needs outdoor light or flash, and takes poor quality 3x3" snapshots at several $ each. But it lets me show the grandkids what high-tech used to be like.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

$1 per shot isn't that bad anymore. I recently found my dad's original Polaroid SX70, and then found that the "Impossible Project" had worked to create film packs for it and finally bought the rights to use the Polaroid name. So I now have a camera that needs outdoor light or flash, and takes poor quality 3x3" snapshots at several $ each. But it lets me show the grandkids what high-tech used to be like.

Yikes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With some Topaz Noise Reduction.

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!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, trickness said:

With some Topaz Noise Reduction.

When shooting Vision3 250D 5207, and scanning the neg with the Valoi Easy35 attached to the Sigma 70mm Macro on the SL2-S I get about 5K resolution which roughly amounts to 18MP and is in the ballpark of Kodak’s resolution claims. 

Your portrait of the two shows lovely, distinct colours you’ll never get with digital.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2024 at 4:56 AM, hansvons said:

When shooting Vision3 250D 5207, and scanning the neg with the Valoi Easy35 attached to the Sigma 70mm Macro on the SL2-S I get about 5K resolution which roughly amounts to 18MP and is in the ballpark of Kodak’s resolution claims. 

Your portrait of the two shows lovely, distinct colours you’ll never get with digital.

Yeah, I think I’m getting drawn in. I’m going to keep shooting with the C3 and see where it takes me. But I have a feeling that an L mount macro lens and some gadgets from negative supply are in my future

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Portra 800, scanned on my SL2 with Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro & Negative Supply setup, conversion in Negative Lab Pro. WAY better than the affordable lab scans above.

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Portra 800, scanned on my SL2 with Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro & Negative Supply setup, conversion in Negative Lab Pro. Compare to the lab scan above

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, trickness said:

Portra 800, scanned on my SL2 with Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro & Negative Supply setup, conversion in Negative Lab Pro. WAY better than the affordable lab scans abov

 

You’re down in that rabbit hole only for 6 weeks now and already excel at it. Yes, proper scanning makes all the difference. Corners and grain should be tack-sharp.
 

Look at the skin tones, impossible to achieve digitally. Particularly true when regarding the endless individuality of human complexion.  

BTW, I find your New York street portraits eminently inspiring. Do you print? It’s super satisfying to experience the film colours and texture on a print. It looks timeless in a way that digital cannot replicate no matter what. And because of that charm you can print 35mm scans relatively large, say 33 inch long edge, and won’t do that 'where’s the detail?' peeping. The missing detail is sublimated to the viewer's imagination, as there’s no wall between them and the picture, as would be the case with digital, which only can win you over with curious content. 
(That’s why digital landscape photography is kitsch in 98% of the cases because people try to kill the soullesness of the shot with endless editing.)
 

I know your are preferring colour (only by telling of what I see on this forum), but 5222 DoubleX is extraordinary for portraits. No monochrome camera comes remotely in that stock's ability to present skin tones in such a tangible way (with some gamma tweaking, you’ll get that killing silver sheen on the skin’s highlights).

Bet you’re already contemplating an M6. 
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2024 at 3:29 AM, hansvons said:

You’re down in that rabbit hole only for 6 weeks now and already excel at it. Yes, proper scanning makes all the difference. Corners and grain should be tack-sharp.
 

Look at the skin tones, impossible to achieve digitally. Particularly true when regarding the endless individuality of human complexion.  

BTW, I find your New York street portraits eminently inspiring. Do you print? It’s super satisfying to experience the film colours and texture on a print. It looks timeless in a way that digital cannot replicate no matter what. And because of that charm you can print 35mm scans relatively large, say 33 inch long edge, and won’t do that 'where’s the detail?' peeping. The missing detail is sublimated to the viewer's imagination, as there’s no wall between them and the picture, as would be the case with digital, which only can win you over with curious content. 
(That’s why digital landscape photography is kitsch in 98% of the cases because people try to kill the soullesness of the shot with endless editing.)
 

I know your are preferring colour (only by telling of what I see on this forum), but 5222 DoubleX is extraordinary for portraits. No monochrome camera comes remotely in that stock's ability to present skin tones in such a tangible way (with some gamma tweaking, you’ll get that killing silver sheen on the skin’s highlights).

Bet you’re already contemplating an M6. 
 

 

Thank you so much for your kind words about my pictures. I sincerely appreciate the encouragement.

i do print inkjets at home on an Epson P800, 8.5 x 11. I know darkroom prints would be magic, just need to find an image I love to warrant the expense.

I’ll give the DoubleX a try, looked it up online and it sounds intriguing! I’ve got some Rollei loaded up in the R9 right now. Btw I got a Valoi Easy35 to see if I could get away with a cheaper solution than the Negative Supply setup, but it felt quite cheap & awful by comparison so I’m sticking with the Neg. In this case you get what you pay for.

I’m always thinking about an MP, but other than form factor and low light ability, I think the R9 is better suited to my uses, and 1/4 of the price. But never say never - the only M I’d buy would be film!

 

thanks again

 

jim

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...