Monday column; the another story... The learning process about digitalizing the first roll of developed film

Hello! I’m back again. It was busy for me lately, but here I’m. The last time I was talking about how I developed my first roll of b&w film. This story is about how a newbie digitalized his first roll of film.

I was describing in previous columns about how was my first contact with analogue photography. I quickly learned how to develop film on my own, but then I was left with developed roll of film with no clue what to do whit it. The enlarger and darkroom printing was for me still in clouds of, at that time, unknown future. At that time I have had no means of my own to view or scan the film, so the first move was that I went to the local quick lab, to scan my roll of film. Because unfortunately it was the nonstandard 120 format film, it could not be scanned on the fuji machine. But I was reassured that they could scan the film on the flatbed scanner. The result was disappointed for me. Not that I wanted or even that I could expect extreme quality from my first roll of film taken with Agfa Isola 1 and developed in the bathroom. 

 

I was not happy but I didn’t know any better. The next time I asked if they can scan the film in the best possible quality. I got this. 

 

Then I realized that the person who is scanning my film has no clue how to scan a film on a flatbed scanner. And for the results I was getting it was very expensive. I quickly made a calculation that a scanner will pay off in scanning only 20 of 120 format films.

After my first encounter with analogue photography I was beginning to shoot with cameras with more “standard” film format. This was scanned on the Fuji frontier scanner, and the workflow for doing that seemed that was more straightforward at that minilab. The results were better. 

 

But none the less, I made the decision to buy a flatbed scanner. I scanned again the disappointingly scanned film. The result speaks from themselves.

Matjaž

Cameras of Yesteryear: Yashica Dental Eye

What a funny name for a camera? Well, not really. In fact, its name says it all: the camera was primarily targeted to dentists but also to pathologists, forensics etc. who needed to do photo documentation of their work, patients and so on. More specifically, macro photographic documentation. A very peculiar, niche camera.  Being a specialistic camera, so it was its price-comparable or higher than a Contax SLR. There were three generations of this camera; the first one with a 55 mm lens, the other two with a 100 mm lens. The camera features a fixed macro lens with a built-in ring flash and capable of reproduction ratios between 1/10 and 1/1 (2/1 with additional diopter lens). The focusing ring doesn't tell you the distance, only the reproduction ratio. Almost everything is automatic, which is not necessarily a bad thing, as it turned out from my first tests: you can only select whether you activate the flash or use ambient light only (you can also set flash under/overexposure by 1 stop). But there is no flash TTL metering. Instead, it has a simple yet brilliant solution-the flash output remains constant while the aperture gets smaller as the reproduction ratio gets higher. Two problems are solved this way (may be even three, considering the high reflectance of teeth): the photos are always correctly exposed, regardless of shooting distance, and the compensation of the diminishing depth of field. Genial, isn't it?

Yashica Dental Eye II

I acquired this camera from Ebay for a very low sum (compared to the very cheapest pocket digicams), hoping to get it to use for macro work-not for me, but for a very special person, very fond of macro photography.  I must admit, I had no expectations at all regarding optical quality, but considering  the sell price...well, I could live with it. Nonetheless, this camera became very fashionable among lomographers, due to its ring flash (but lomographers cannot be defined as picky regarding lens quality...). Oh, how happy I was to be proven wrong: the lens' performance is simply outstanding-comparable to a Zeiss glass in terms of sharpness; however, the lens yields quite a  »hard« image, typical of most macro lenses. One of the amazing features of this camera is certainly its focusing screen-even though the lens is »only« f/4, I have never seen such a bright screen, not even in a Rollei. Even a half-blind person would be ableto focus, I am pretty sure. Simply put, you can get (almost) all you need for macro work in one piece on equipment, with no extra gear. And fortunately, the camera comes also with a synchro socket, for those who need and additional flash (e.g. for background illumination). For those (like me) who don't mind (or even prefer) to shoot on film, I can only say: go for it. It will cost you only a fraction of a macro lens (new or even used one) and it will deliver outstanding results and amaze you with ots ease of use and simplicity. Provided you find one.

 

Not only for macro, the camera is useful also for other closeup shots.

This shot probably best shows lens' clinical sharpness (pun intended).

A macro handheld shot. A tripod would help in having sharpness in the right spot. All shots made on Kodak Ektar.

Monday column: How did I Get Into the Analog Photography

None the less that I’m old enough to start with photography in analogue times, I waited the time that digital cameras was good enough and cheap enough, so I could afford one. Before that I didn’t know how to begin. Black and white photography, with your own developing and printing seemed to me too complicated, colour photography without intimacy and too expensive.  At that time (in the nineties) actually I was photographing with my parents “focus free P&S”. But only sunsets, home cats and dogs. So this time I don’t count as my photographic experience.  So I waited the time when I had enough money to buy my own photographic camera. It was a P&S, and digital. But it was mine own photographic camera. And with it, I could get some photographic experience. But my photographic years (for me) began to counting only when I get a DSLR. Only then, for me none the less, I start the learning of the photographic way.

Agfa Isola 1, a frame from the first roll of film

Then deep into the photography, I started to look at my grandfather’s legacy in different way. I’d remembered that we have an old camera in the cabinet.  I remembered that as a child, from time to time I was taking it from the cabinet and played with it. But wait. It seemed to be in working order. Could possibly be still working? Only film was odd format. The camera was very old, and I wondered could I possibly still get the film for the camera? At that time I have already heard about medium format photographic equipment. But for my surprise when I was taking measures for the opening in camera where the film plane it should be, it was 56 mm in both directions. It was hard to believe it. The camera was too simple to be a medium format! At that time I did not know, that 120 format film was a standard in past times, because of low resolution of film around WW2. Yes Leica format was in use, but at that time (before the war) the only advantage of 35 mm film was portability (and number of frames of course). So when I learned all about 120 format film, I bought some, put it into the camera and start to do some true analogue photography. The camera was Agfa Isola 1. And of course I had to learn how to develop the film after exposure. But this is another story.
Matjaž

Cameras of yesteryear:Yashica Lynx 14E

alternative titles: How to get hooked on a 40-year-old Yashica OR It's never too late to get a good rangefinder-for cheap

I never considered myself a collectionist, although I have accumulated many cameras over the years. All of them have their own appeal, but it happens to like (and use) some cameras more than the others, regardless of camera construction or film format. I never had a particular interest in rangefinders, maybe because I never owned a really good one? Maybe. So I never really understood Leica aficionados despite knowing what their advantages are. So it happened, a few weeks ago, to get yet-another-film-camera gift from a coworker. An early 70's Yashica Lynx, possibly the oldest camera in my collection (or next to the Pola 210), and certainly older than me. It might be the fact that it's older than me, it might be due to its solid feel or its bright (and precise) rangefinder, its impressive (but fixed) 45 mm f/1.4 lens, or the combination thereof; I knew instantly it is a camera I want to test, keep and use. So I sent it for a CLA service.

Yashica Lynx 14E

But I still needed to know about its performance. Once I got the developed film back, I was hooked. The lens is a great performer. It easily matches or outperforms at least some of Canon prime lenses (although is prone to flare). Being left in a drawer for decades, this camera finally got a decent life. It deserves it. I just wonder how many of such mechanical marvels are still out there left. You can get one for little or no money, put it to service for a modest sum, and it will make wonders. My advice: don't bother if you cannot afford or just don't wanna spend a fortune on a high class rangefinder. Rescue some nice piece of optical engineering, get a bunch of good films, develop and get some quality scans. There will still be enough money left in your pocket for a good travel or vacation, a good excuse to use your "new" camera.

A closeup test shot on drugstore 400 ISO neg film. Sorry for the crappy scan, it doesn't render justice to the actual negative.

silver regards

Mitja

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the ultimate resource regarding useful info, repairs and the replacement of (obsolete) mercury batteries for your Yashicas is probably the Yashica Guy.