Rolleiflex 2.8C - Northern California and UCLA

[joho35mm]

I attended an interdisciplinary history conference this past weekend at UCLA, where I presented a paper on the photographs taken by American missionaries in early-to-mid 20th century China. Academic stuff aside, the weather at UCLA and in my hometown (I dropped by for a day before flying to the conference) was amazing. I took out the Rolleiflex - which I also used as a prop during my history talk! - and shot four rolls of 120, two Tri-X and two Acros 100 in both places. Rollei Bay III orange filter and hood were on the lens for most photos. The Acros is still waiting to be processed and posted, but I developed and scanned some of the Tri-X last night in D-76 1:1. I got some weird streaks on the negatives, possibly due to under-agitation(?), but that's a question for the film and darkroom board. The negatives cleaned up nicely in Lightroom nonetheless, so here are the results!

Home -







UCLA -

[jamesmck]

Very nice, Joseph.  There's something about this one http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6238994994_5159e1ab13_z.jpg that attracts me a lot.

James

[br1078lum]

These photos have a timeless quality about them, as they could have been taken when that camera was new (see James's preference).  The orange filter makes all the difference, Joseph.  Another beautiful set.

PF

[brazile]

Crisp crisp crisp -- love the quality of those shots. Makes me want to get mine out again and go for a wander. Have to finish calibrating the viewing lens again first, though.

Robert

[joho35mm]

Thanks! I'm still learning how to best use the orange filter and apply filter correction to the Sunny f/16 rule, so I'm glad these turned out well. I tend to worry about underexposing, apply too much correction, and then end up overexposing (which usually washes out the sky and defeats the purpose of the filter  :rolleyes:)

Robert - do you have a 2.8C also, or is it another one of the 2.8 models? My friend recently picked up a beater 2.8F for a great price and we had an interesting time comparing the two. I was impressed by the much brighter groundglass on the 2.8F and the neat hood mechanism, but like the 10-bladed aperture on my 2.8C for circular out of focus highlights (which would be pentagons with the 2.8F's newer 5-bladed aperture).

[shadowfox]

Very nice, Joseph.  There's something about this one http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6238994994_5159e1ab13_z.jpg that attracts me a lot.

James

+1

[LarryD]

Ouch So sharp my eyes bleed.. but in a good way.

[brazile]

No, mine is an "Old Standard" (622). Good on the aperture shape, but much slower and not nearly so sharp...

Robert

[joho35mm]

An Old Standard! I've never seen one in person, but based on the photos I've seen posted on Nelsonfoto and elsewhere, they're very capable performers. I hope to see some photos from your Rollei soon! That said, here are a few more from the two rolls of Acros 100 from the 2.8C that I finally got around to processing and scanning tonight.

UCLA -





Los Angeles (Friend's Home) -

[P C Headland]

That's a nice series.

I really like the Acros ones,  super crisp and super smooth.

[lesged]

Joseph,

Both sets have a unique appeal directly relating to its film/development combo. Do you have any idea what the photo lab souped the Acros in?

I never used an orange filter with my Rolleis; yellow was the only one I used with landscapes and outdoor portraits. Are all the photos in this thread handheld? If so, compliments to your steady hands. Your work is always impressive and your architectural shots have a true monumental quality to them.

If you believe inanimate objects can communicate, then you'll understand the message I'm getting from my restless Rollei Automat. Sitting in a dark camera case, she's begging me to exercise her shutter, but with film in her chamber, for a change.

[joho35mm]

PC and Les - thanks!

Les - I developed the Acros in D76 1:1 at 20C for 10 1/2 minutes. The plastic reels were placed in a Paterson tank holding two at a time and agitated by rotation. These were scanned directly from the negatives. And yes, all the photos here were handheld; since the sun was bright and I was shooting the earlier Tri-X shots at ISO 400, it helped keep the speeds at 1/250-1/500. Side note: I remember reading that Ansel Adams in his book on "The Camera" advises photographers to keep shutter speeds at 1/250 and above for maximum sharpness, instead of the usual "1/focal length" rule. I used to think that Adams' suggestion was a bit too conservative, but if you're on the go or get coffee jitters (like me sometimes - the side effect of being a graduate student ), it's helpful to stick to it.

And I know exactly what you mean by the camera speaking to you - get the Automat out and take her for a spin!

[br1078lum]

Ansel may be right, but it will be a few more tries before I'll be able to remember how many stops difference that is. :-)  Great LA shots, Joseph.  It's nice to have friends in the hills, isn't it?

PF

[lesged]

Joseph,

I searched for a photo of my first Rollei, an E2.8/80 Xenotar. I bought it in the early 1960s.There was a NFf thread discussing Rollei 2.8E, 2.8C and even 2.8D. They were nearly identical depending on their serial number. Using a list of my former cameras with their serial numbers; the one in photo is a Rollei 2.8E.

I loved the 2.8 Xenotar and used this Rollei for 5-6 years, then swapped it for my close friend Karl's Rollei E3.5/75 Planar, which was in mint condition.  Enuf chit chat, here's the camera! How close is this one to your Rollei?



Rollei 2.8E Xenotar, Tri-X, D76 stock. Early 1960s

[joho35mm]

Fantastic self-portrait, Les! My Rollei is identical to yours, with the 80mm f/2.8 Xenotar, minus the built-in meter. The serial number block dates my 2.8C to 1953; I had it tuned up by a brilliant local repairman (Dave Easterwood) over the summer and it runs like a charm.

Interestingly, my friend here recently picked up a 3.5E with the 75mm f/3.5 Planar - I've shot with it a few times, and it handles somewhat differently compared to the 2.8C and seems to have more contrast than the f/2.8, even though both lenses are hard to tell apart in terms of extreme sharpness. Apologies for going on an image roll here, but here are a few from my friend's 3.5E that I borrowed for a day and developed, this time on Tri-X (also in D76 1:1). Mostly shot wide open.

"Football Saturday" in Ann Arbor (Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar) -