Welcome to my Photo Blog!
Affordable 35 mm LTM Lenses: Russian Jupiter-12 and Industar N-61 Lens Review
After getting my Leica IIIc (see story in my previous blog), I looked for options for an affordable 35 mm LTM lens. Quickly I found that used lens prices in this focal length even on screw-mount are horrific. An original Leica 35/3.5 Elmar lens is already difficult to get just for $350. It is funny - 35 mm seems a focal length high in demand, and since LTM lenses can be used both on M-mount cameras as well as on any kind of mirrorless digital cameras, prices climbed up in general for LTM rangefinder gear. Great deals can still be found for a variety of 50 mm lenses or with longer focal lengths, but at 35 mm things get tricky. Probably one of the best deals regarding quality and price is the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35/2.5 LTM lens which goes between $250-300.
This is if you stick to the traditional brands. There is an alternative option especially when shooting with film. I already have an excellent Leica 35/2 M-mount lens, therefore I didn't want to spend several hundred bucks to get just another 35 mm LTM-mount based lens. The alternative are lenses made in Russia - they carry names as FED, Industar, and Jupiter. Some wider lenses used after WWII the exact same Zeiss Biogon lens glass and designs after Russia took over some of Zeiss manufacturing plants and lens construction blueprints in Eastern Germany. Later The Russian lenses were mass-produced with lens design variations from the original blueprints. Big advantage for amateurs is that those lenses are still very cheap compared to their western counterparts. But the low cost also comes for a price - Russian lenses tend to have more copy variation due to a much lower quality control in the plants. They suffer from some lens curvature making the image less sharp in the corners of the frame if not stopped down to f/11 or f/16. This field curvature with color cast issues in the corners of the frame is much less severe on film than on digital cameras. To use it on my Leica IIIc camera, I was more interested having a lens with character and a less perfect one.
I read some reviews and watched Youtube videos about the Russian Jupiter-12 lens - which is a 35/2.8 lens - which seems to be mostly fine especially on film where I wanted to use it mainly for. Prices for this lens have also risen in the past few years obviously driven by higher demand. I found prices mentioned in reviews dated several years back of $50 which I didn't see anywhere today. Even worse, known used photo gear resellers in the US have this lens listed by name but always shown as unavailable. I suspect there is not enough revenue for them to purchase and sell cheaper Russian lenses. When I screened the market, I did not find any Jupiter-12 lens offered in the US. On Ebay, prices were about $80-100 without shipping fee from Russia or Ukraine. Not so cheap either for a high uncertainty what I might be getting and without an easy way to return the item if needed. I waited a while, and then found an offer on Ebay for a Jupiter-12 lens in good condition with silver-looking metal housing for $60 (plus $25 shipping). The lens was made 1960 in the Lutkarinskij Optical Glass Plant and is likely one of the PT0825 series. I highly recommend reading the description of the lens on the Ebay posting in detail since the lens condition is key. The value of the lens is also connected to the manufacturing date, where it was made, and which version it is. I focused on a lens which is optically in very good condition without fungus, dust, or scratches and cared less about the lens version. As a bonus, this lens came with newer lens coating reducing flare. I figured this was worthwhile trying and ordered this lens. It took nearly 4 weeks to arrive here in the US - but it also came a long way from Siberia.
The lens arrived well packaged in bubble-wrap inside a small cardboard box. As shown in the item's description on Ebay, it came with the front cap but unfortunately had no end cap protecting the sensitive protruding lens element in the back (there was no end cap shown on the original Ebay post either, but I still hoped it would be included). The lens seemed disassembled at some point because the focusing ring was a bit loose. I could easily fix this by adjusting one of three little screws on the focus ring. The focus ring moves smoothly between 1 meter to infinity. Only in the small gap between M (macro) and 1 meter distance, the focus tends to be a bit jumpy and less smooth. The lens elements all look very clear without dust or scratches as promised. The aperture ring - which is accessible as rotating plastic element where normally the filter sits on other lenses - moves well, and the aperture blades change accordingly. The aperture ring serves a secondary purpose since it is built like a lens hood. The lens sits well protected deep inside this ring. The purple-blue lens coating reflects when directly looking onto the front lens making it hard to see the actual aperture blades. The large lens element on the back of the lens also looks like new and fully free of scratches. Only the lens barrel below the screw mount shows some wear of past usage which does not affect usability. The screw mount of the lens is fine and fitted perfectly on my Leica IIIc camera. The outer silver lens barrel looks nearly mint and must have been well cleaned before it was sent to me. The rangefinder focusing also works extremely well with this lens at all distances. Online I found on an older website the hint that a plastic film canister protects well the rear end of the lens in case the original cap is missing (The original caps alone go for >$15 on Ebay!). So overall not a bad deal for $60 - now I was curious how it would perform actually taking photos with it.
The Leica IIIc has only a viewfinder adjusted for 50 mm focal length. Any other focal length requires an external viewfinder sitting on the camera's hotshoe. For 35 mm focal length, I am using my Braun Paxette external viewfinder for 38 mm. Advantage is that this viewfinder is small and fits with its aluminum barrel perfectly on the brass metal of the camera. I simply estimate for the missing 3 mm in focal length which is fine.
I took a couple of shots with the Jupiter-12 on Ilford PanF+ 50 film on a sunny morning. I explored apertures wide open to stopped down to f/11. At f/2.8, the center of the image is still sharp but the rest is all blurry providing some nice effect. Con here is that the lens flare instantly can become an issue - I hoped the outer lens would be protected sufficiently by being quite deeply inserted inside the lens barrel but unfortunately this is not the case. Even with a "R" coating I got flaring and overexposure in the upper left corner of the frame since the sun was on the right when taking the photo.
Jupiter-12 at f/2.8
At f/4 the lens is still only sharp in the inner image circle, the corners look like creamed with vaseline. This might give some interesting vintage-looking effects, but when I took the photo this was undesired. Even f/5.6 still doesn't make the details in the corners of the frame sharp - it's getting better at f/8 but still not sufficient. To get a decent corner-to-corner sharpness, this lens has to be used at f/11 - which makes it a very slow lens especially when using low ISO film speeds.
Jupiter-12 at f/4.0
Jupiter-12 at f/5.6
Jupiter-12 at f/5.6
Jupiter-12 at f/8.0
Jupiter-12 at f/5.6
I expected a bit more of this lens and felt sort of disappointed when I scanned the developed film negatives. It might still be okay for some vintage-looking full body portrait shots where the corners have some artistic blur - no other lens can do this easily like this one does. For now I am keeping it but decided to buy online a better Canon Serenar 35/2.8 LTM lens for triple the money paid for the Jupiter-12 lens (performance of this lens will be part of a future blog).
I was also fortunate to acquire locally a Industar (FED) N-61 lens which also comes with M39 mount, PT4735. It was formerly used on a Russian FED3 rangefinder camera where this 52/2.8 lens came as standard lens. The lens is available in different variations with slight variations in focal length (50 to 53 mm) - mine is the quite common nicknamed "Zebra" version made between 1965 and 1972. The serial number on my lens indicates it was made in 1965. It uses a Zeiss Tessar lens design and is coated. This lens goes around $20 online and is a great deal for the image quality it delivers. It is not a very fast lens with f/2.8 but its aluminum lens barrel and small lens elements make it very light and compact. My lens copy had no scratches and no visible delamination issues. It has 10 aperture blades which close in a circular pattern (I read that the newest version of this lens uses a star pattern instead when it closes - it provides a very artistic but also unnatural looking bokeh IMO). Unfortunately the filter size diameter of 40.5 mm hinders to use my standard 39 mm filters on this lens. But my original Leica lens hood 12585H which came with the Summitar 50/2 lens fits perfectly also on this lens (it clips on from the outside).
In opposite to the sort of mushy Jupiter-12 lens, this Industar N-61 lens was a big positive surprise to me. The scanned negatives taken with this lens blew me away regarding sharpness - it certainly is sharper in the corners than my Leica 50/2 Summitar lens. Little details in the corners of the frame can be easily seen even at wider open apertures with this N-61 lens. This lens competes in the league of best slower 50 mm lenses which I own - and this only for $20! It also works flawlessly adapted on my Sony A7R for digital photos.
Industar N-61 at f/4.0
Industar N-61 at f/8.0
Industar N-61 at f/2.8
Industar N-61 at f/8.0
Industar N-61 at f/5.6 or f/8.0
Industar N-61 at f/5.6
Leica IIIc and Screw-Mount LTM Lenses
THE STORY
Already owning Leica M film cameras, it might come to a surprise why I would bother with an earlier Leica camera made in the late 1940s after WWII. By chance I saw that an auction house two hours away from my home listed this Leica IIIc camera with original Leica 50/2 Summitar lens and two additional chrome M-mount lenses as part of an upcoming auction in which I was interested in also for other items (microscopy-related gear and books). The camera's serial# revealed that it was not a collector item but a standard series instead. So I decided to take a day off from work and head down to PA early in the morning to have a closer look at the items I was already interested in by seeing the posted photos online. The camera obviously hasn't been used for a long time - the lens was quite dusty on the front lens but otherwise scratch-free, and the aperture ring was a bit sticky but worked fine. The camera body had a little crack in the skin, both the rangefinder and the viewfinder windows were very hazy inside and nearly unusable. But the shutter seemed fine and also most shutter times still worked well judging by the difference in time for the shutter to close. Only a few slower shutter times didn't work. I quickly realized that the camera had no major drawback, and mostly might just needed CLA (cleaning-lubrication-adjustment). Interestingly, there was an original Leica manual underneath the camera in the box - but for a Leica M3 camera which I already own. The M3 camera itself was not part of the auction - I never found out what happened with it but suspect that someone kept it before it could become part of this auction. The additional two Leica lenses in chrome versions - a collapsible Leica 90/4.0 Elmar and a Leica 135/4.5 Hektor lens came both in M-mount and were obviously part of the M3 camera set but added in error to the Leica IIIc screw-mount camera. Both M-mount lenses were in very good shape and made in the late 50s, just a bit dusty on the outside. At this point I set in my mind the highest possible bid for the package and hoped nobody else would be as interested in it as I was at this point. More people entered the auction hall afterwards, and a bunch of them looked at the camera but either had no idea how to operate it or were scared by the dusty/old appearance.
After a few hours in the auction - which was also streamed for online bidding - finally this Leica camera gear had its turn. It started with $10 and went quickly up to $100 - then it was just me competing with another bidder in the room and someone online. The price continued to increase, at $150 the other bidder inside the room left, and it was just me and the online bidder. My comfortable limit in my mind was set to $300, so I came closer and closer to this when the price went above $200. Lucky me the online bidder stopped adding bids after the $250 mark was reached - I was the only one remaining and got all for this price (plus auction fee and tax of course). It was a very good deal, and I saved enough money here to send the IIIc with Summitar lens in for CLA for another $200. When I received the camera with lens back from service, it looked amazing - new skin, clear rangefinder and viewfinder windows, shutter times fully operational, all mechanical parts moving smoothly. The lens was cleaned inside out and then reassembled - it looks like new. The other two chrome M-mount lenses I received work flawlessly after a bit of cleaning by myself on my M-mount cameras - especially on my Leica M3 with its 0.91x viewfinder. I found that currently each lens is sold online between $300-$400. But for now they are keepers for me, too.
The look of the Leica IIIc with Summitar 50/2 lens after the auction. Some cracked skin on the lower left, a bit dusty, and hazy windows, and not fully working slow shutter speed dial were the only obvious camera issues. The lens was scratch-free for its old age!
The shutter curtain of my Leica M3 (in the back of the photo) broke just at the time when I got the IIIc - both made a trip for service and repair. That's how the cameras - Leica IIIc and M3 - looked after I got them back. Also the Summitar lens was cleaned and lubricated. All looks like new! The size comparison is misleading in the photo: the IIIc is much smaller in size than the M3 in the back!
LEICA IIIc REVIEW
The IIIc camera is clearly its own class of so-called Leica Barnack cameras. They are fully mechanic cameras without need of battery and have no light meter. Lots of levers and buttons to operate the camera correctly - not the right tool to make fast adjustments during some shooting. But the built-style and vintage look - simply superb. The III-series is much smaller in size than the later produced first Leica M-cameras (M3 and M2 for example) and built as a rigid steel/brass body. The original L39/LTM series lenses were collapsible which additionally kept the rangefinder lens size very small to carry. I wonder which kind of modern camera would last over 70 years and could still work with some lubrication and cleaning like on its first day. Even taking electronic materials out of the equation, a camera isn't built like this since many decades.
Leica made sure that all cameras which followed the original III-versions could still use the original screw-mount lenses with thin adapter on the newer bayonet M-mount. On the other hand, it causes a major hurdle when trying to go the other way like I did now - I started with M-mount cameras and lenses and now suddenly owned a screw-mount camera. I figured quickly that M-mount lenses unfortunately do not fit on the older LTM/L39 cameras: the flange distance of screw-mount LTM cameras is longer than the ones of newer M-mount cameras (which seems a contradiction on the first look since the IIIc camera is smaller in size compared to the M3 for example). This means that the adapter to mount a LTM lens onto a M-mount camera compensates for the shorter flange distance of the M-camera and pushes the LTM lens a bit further out. But you can't use a M-lens made for a shorter flange distance on a camera which requires a longer one! So all my nice an d excellent M-mount lenses don't work on the IIIc. Even this is a bummer, it has one benefit: The IIIc forces me to use LTM lenses which might not be as optimized for later quality requirements - a real vintage- and character-style shooting experience!
I downloaded a user manual for the IIIc and watched some You Tube videos online to know how to operate the camera correctly. It was a short learning curve for me since I am already used to film gear and newer Leica cameras. One thing which was new to me was the bit cumbersome film loading with the IIIc: First, the film strip needs to be cut in a unique way to enable the camera to reel it. I found best is to make a cardboard screen which can be held onto the film strip to cut 10 cm in length off the top. Very important is to have exactly two sprocket holes open before the strip ends at the film cartridge outlet. I found this not well documented in the Leica manual I downloaded but much better described in some "How to Insert Film Into the Leica IIIc" videos. Next the film spool has to be taken out of the inside of the camera - it is a good idea to check that it is included when buying a used Barnack camera! The end of the film strip is squeezed into the spool - make sure the spool is in the correct way which means that it will appear awkward since Leica decided to have the film sitting in the camera with more tension to flatten it against the original turn how the film is rolled inside the film cartridge. The most tricky step comes next to insert cartridge and spool correctly placed in the camera - later M-camera models have a self-adjusting mechanism which moves the advanced film in the right position. The IIIc does not have this - to check that the film is placed correctly, fire one or two exposures, remove the lens on the camera and then use the "B" shutter position to see inside while pressing on the shutter release. The shutter curtain will remain open and makes the film plane visible while the shutter release is pressed. If you see any kind of sprocket holes on top or bottom, you need to reverse the film, put it back in the camera and check again until all sprocket holes of the film are covered. This is very cumbersome and makes changing a film in the field nearly impossible to do quickly. It is IMO the biggest drawback of the camera. But like with anything, the more often you practice the easier it will get.
If you are used to a modern digital, SLR, or modern rangefinder camera, you will be confused to see two little windows next to each other on the upper left on the back of the IIIc camera. When this camera was made, Leica still had the rangefinder focusing path and the viewfinder separate from each other - therefore two windows for each. With the left window you focus on a magnified central area in your view by bringing two frames on top of each other like any other rangefinder focus works. I found it remarkable that this older rangefinder style uses a bit of yellowish circular spot in the middle of the focus area in the rangefinder path which actually helps to bring lines together to achieve focus. I am not sure if this is standard in all this kind of cameras, or if this is a bit of a fluke just in my copy - in any way it is not obstructing and actually helps. The right window is the viewfinder adjusted for 50 mm focal length. After shooting a few films with the camera and the attached 50/2 Summitar lens, I can tell that the viewfinder window is just a rough estimate of the view you will be getting in the final image. The viewfinder gives you a bit wider field of view that what you actually get with a 50 mm lens. I believe that this is the reason why some use an external 50 mm viewfinder on the camera's hotshoe to allow better framing. But since this is a vintage camera fun for me to shoot with, I simply deduct a bit on each side of the viewfinder's frame to be fairly accurate on the taken image.
There are no other "frame lines" with this kind of camera - for any other focal length than 50 mm, you rely on an external viewfinder. When you consider getting one, best is to ask yourself first which kind of focal length you will be shooting with this camera. You can potentially get a Leitz VIOOH finder which has multiple viewfinders for 35-135 mm range in a revolver-like device setup. It is very bulky and likely attracts attention - I rather prefer a smaller more inconspicuous one. Since I am shooting more wide than tele, I continue using my Cosina-Voigtlander 21/25 external viewfinder also on my IIIc. When I get my 35 mm screw-mount lens, I will be using my cheap little Braun Paxette 38 mm external viewfinder which is sufficient (35 mm LTM lens review will be part of a future blog).
Talking of wider than 50 mm screw-mount LTM lenses - I was shocked to see online prices of old Leitz lenses. I suspect collector demand drove prices up especially for 35 mm Leitz LTM lenses. But also older Nikkor and Canon LTM lenses go for (too) much IMO. After a while of digging and searching, I found a more reasonable option as used copy online for a Voigtlander 25/4.0 Snapshot-Skopar LTM lens which I intend to use with adapters also on my M-cameras and my digital Sony A7R. I didn't know when I bought it, but the 25/4.0 has no rangefinder coupling. The lens is purposely built not to use the rangefinder focusing but simply to estimate the distance. Hyperfocal distance setting is very good with this lens which leads to excellent sharpness at f/8 for nearly all shots I took with this lens. It is the smallest wide angle lens I own - it fits in any pocket! If you shoot wider, I highly recommend this lens (and external CV 21/25 viewfinder) for the IIIc-type camera.
Leica IIIc with attached Cosina-Voigtlander 25/4.0 Snapshot-Skopar LTM lens and Cosina-Voigtlander 21/25 external viewfinder. The lens is super small and light for a 25 mm wide angle lens with f/4.0. You can tell from the distance scale that the focus ring doesn't need to be moved much between 0.7 meters and infinity.
The collapsible Leica 50/2 Summitar lens was produced in the 30s/40s in many different versions and iterations, and only collectors and experts for this kind of lens gear know all the differences between them. I know that mine was manufactured in Wetzlar/Germany in 1942 judging by its serial# - during WWII! It might have an interesting history to tell how it made it to the US and how many owners the camera and/or lens had before I got my hands on it. At the time not many were able to afford such camera gear in Germany. Judging by the condition of camera and lens, they were likely not traded and used too often. To see the Summitar lens unscratched with > 70 years after its manufacturing date is very unique. After having it serviced, I was told that there is some minor lens delamination starting on the side of one of the lens elements, but it does not affect image quality. Delamination is quite normal for a lens of this age. At the time when this lens was produced, Leitz also did not yet apply coatings on this lens.
The lens blocks a little bit one of the viewfinder corners which I didn't find an issue but worthwhile mentioning since this lens does not block the viewfinder attached to M-mount camera bodies. The lens delivers very sharp images in the center but even at around f/8 the corners tend to be slightly unsharp which is the character of the Summitar lens. My lens has some unusual f-stop numbers engraved, so f/5.6 or f/8 have to be sort of guessed. There are no click-stops on the f-stop dial, the 10-bladed diaphragm is opening and closing smoothly depending on the reel position. Supposedly this lens provides beautiful sunstars, but I haven't explored this option yet.
In the field, I found the IIIc is easier to operate than expected. Winding to the next frame takes a bit longer with the turning knob compared to M-cameras with single or double-stroke lever. But you likely won't use this kind of camera for action shots in the first place - the IIIc slows you down just enough to think about a good composition but is still fast enough to be used well for street photography. The camera feels extremely pleasant in my hand to hold it. I bought a cotton leather neck strap for the camera, and it didn't bother me at all carrying the IIIc for hours. The rangefinder focusing worked extremely well in sunlit and cloudy conditions as well. To my surprise, the shiny protruded lens element of the Summitar lens did fortunately not gain attraction either. It is still all very small and compact. The design of this camera is nothing but beautiful and everything seems just right in the positioning of buttons and levers. After reading online reviews and watching videos about the III-series, I was ready in my mind for some slow-downs and drawbacks to actually use this camera but the opposite happened: it quickly became a favorite tool to shoot 35 mm film.
The only hassle brings me back to the film loading with the IIIc. When using M-cameras and the IIIc in parallel, you have to use best judgment upfront which kind of films you might use during a field trip with the IIIc. Cutting the film lever into the desired length and form seems quite an inconvenience when being outdoors, so it better has to be done earlier at home. You could still use the film with prepared long film lever when changing plans and intending to use this film for example with a M-mount camera instead - a simple cut with a scissor will do but some exposures will then be lost compared to a regular 35 mm film.
One more advice in regard to the tripod mount: similar to older M-mount cameras, the IIIc uses a 3/8" screw-mount tripod mount. Most tripod plates these days use a 1/4" screw - you need an adapter to fit it into the mount on the camera's base plate. But careful - regular 3/8" to 1/4" adapter screws protrude quite a bit on the IIIc base plate (they work perfectly fine for the M3 for example!). You have to file off a bit from a regular screw adapter to make it fit, or you order a so-called screw adapter for Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras which seem to have the same length.
Surprise, surprise....the generic 3/8" to 1/4" screw-mount for 1/4" based tripod plates fits well on the Leica M3 base plate (top) but protrudes quite a few mm on the Leica IIIc with thinner base plate (bottom).
Getting the fitting Rolleiflex/Rolleicord screw adapter for 1/4" tripod plate mounts works!
USEFUL ACCESSORIES FOR THE LEICA IIIc
There are a few quite affordable accessories which come in handy with this camera body. I tend to stay here with third-party suppliers since they are much cheaper than the original Leitz/Leica items (and do the same in the end):
(a) LTM/M adapter (approx. $10): very useful to mount LTM lenses also on other M-mount cameras. I can even mount the LTM/M adapter directly onto my M/E-mount adapter to use screw-mount rangefinder lenses on my Sony A7R camera.
(b) Cable release. To use this, I have to unscrew the shutter release button to gain access to a screw thread surrounding the release pitch. The cable release can be fitted onto this screw mount. Less well known but works well also as cheapest option is getting a Nikon AR-2 style cable release. They go online for approx. $20 or sometimes even less.
(c) Mentioned earlier in my review is the wide open field of non Leica-based screw mount rangefinder lenses for decent prices (approx. $50-150 for non collector items also dependent on the lens focal length). Russian FED, Industar, or Jupiter lenses can be used with Leica screw-mount cameras. Between Russian and Leica screw-mount lenses is a minor difference in the layout of the helicoid thread pitch, but I doubt that it makes a visible impact on film. These lenses still deliver a quite high image quality on digital mirrorless cameras and certainly do on film. Don't expect perfectionism compared to modern lenses (you wouldn't use the IIIc in the first place if this was the case), but they have character in their little faults. There is a huge range of very affordable Russian 50 mm lenses (Jupiter-8 for example). A bit more expensive but also with character are for example screw-mount lenses from Canon and Nikon (> $250).
Some recently taken photos with the Leica Summitar 50/2 LTM lens and the Leica IIIc:
Some photos taken with the Cosina-Voigtlander 25/4.0 LTM lens and the Leica IIIc:
Shooting 35 mm Film with Hasselblad 500 C/M
Why would somebody use 35 mm film in a 6x6 based camera when medium-format film size gives you the advantages of higher resolution, less grain, and more shallow depth of field when needed? Two reasons come in mind which made me interested in this topic: being able to shoot panoramic looking 35 mm photos (size of the photo frame is then 60x24 mm instead of 36x24 mm). Second reason is that the film sprockets will be exposed and part of the final photo which is something differently looking.
There are a few blogs online which have brief descriptions how to do this, but from my experience they all lack some crucial details. First, it is never mentioned which Hasselblad film cartridge should be used. In my opinion this is an important point to think about. Hasselblad made basically two kind of 6x6 film cartridges - A12 and A24 types. The A12 type is used with 120 film which is still available today whereas the A24 film cartridge was designed for 220 films which allowed twice as many frames (24 to be exact) on one roll of film than the 120 film (which gives you 12 frames). There is an important difference between both types of film cartridges - and this is the focus plane of the film itself. Hasselblad designed the film cartridges to allow the most accurate focus of the lens onto the film plane. 120 film is a tiny bit thicker than 220 films were - 120 film uses paper backing whereas 220 films miss this paper. This means the focus plane of the film inside the A24 film cassette had to be adjusted a tiny bit closer to the lens since 220 film lacks the paper backing and is therefore thinner. The opposite is the case with A12 cartridges for 120 films. Now let's look at 35 mm films - they are "naked" without any paper backing on top. To allow best sharpness when modifying a Hasselblad cartridge for 35 mm film, I recommend using one of the older A24 film cartridges since the focus point will match closest the one from 220 film. It might still be okay to use A12 cartridges also, but I didn't try and have no idea what kind of cartridges - A12 or A24 - were used by other bloggers. To be on the safe side regarding correct focus, A24 is better, and if you have one sitting around unused since there is no 220 film sold anymore, you might find good use for it this way. When you get an older A12 or A24 cartridge make sure that the light seals are still (a) in place and (b) functioning. I bought my A24 cassette online for less than $40 (they are much cheaper than the A12 ones), but the former owner must have removed the light seals behind the cover. If there is a leak, light enters the film from the side where the dark slide is taken out. I only found out after I shot a film with it, and all frames were overexposed on the left of the frame caused by the light leak. Time to order (or make yourself) light seals and replace the decayed old ones (if even still inside).
35 mm film rolls have actually the same diameter as 120/220 film rolls. This makes it possible to insert a 35 mm roll into the space normally reserved for a medium-format spool within one of the Hasselblad A12/A24 cartridges. You can purchase 35 mm roll adapters for Hasselblad cartridges online which are 3D printed. But you can save quite a few bucks if you cut them yourself. For this you need an empty 120 or 220 plastic spool and a sharp knife which can also act like a saw (I used my Leatherman knife for this task successfully). One thing is very important here: one needs to be a bit taller than the other one, otherwise the 35 mm film won't be centered within the film cartridge! The difference is only a few mm - so don't cut one half too far first, test by setting both of them with a 35 mm film roll into the cartridge and grind away more if needed. The final stems don't have to look pretty, and the 35 mm film roll will often be a bit wobbly, but this is not a deal breaker for the application.
Cut-out medium-format spool stems. The 35 mm film roll comes in between them. Make sure one is a bit taller than the other one to have the film centered in the A24 cartridge.
Fit the taller one at the bottom of the 35 mm film roll, and the smaller one on top - this will make the film centered on top of the black screen on the back of the film holder unit. Place the film roll that the emulsive side of the film (in this photo the red colored slide of the Fuji Provia 100F slide film within a self-rolled Kalt film cassette) points to the outside. Reel the film onto an empty 120/220 spool on the opposite side similar how it is done with medium-format film. Turn the take-up spool a few times to ensure the film is not coming loose from this spool.
Inserted self-rolled 35 mm film cartridge inside an A24 Hasselblad medium-format film cartridge. Make sure the emulslve side of the film points outside that it can be exposed later.
If everything was done right, the film should look like this below (left photo) and within the inserted film holder unit inside the A24 cartridge after the dark slide is removed (right photo). Make sure the film strip is fairly centered in the 6x6 frame showing the light sensitive surface of the film. Important: when the closed cartridge is now added to the Hasselblad camera, it will expose the frame in the vertical direction! This is great for portraits but less desired for landscapes. To get a horizontal panorama, the camera (plus cartridge) must be rotated 90 degrees. I find a 45 degree prism finder very useful here since it still allows me to focus and compose the image in this camera position.
Reel the film towards the "1" position on the cartridge and then take the first frame twice to make sure the first frame is not overlapping with some already exposed film part when it was inserted.
An additional advantage of the A24 cartridge is that you will never run out of 60x24 mm frames of the inserted roll of film. You should get about 18-20 frames from a 36 frame roll of small film. When using an A12 cartridge, you need to disengage the whole cartridge when the seemingly last shot was taken to allow the camera to reset the counter and winding on. Again, much easier and safer with the A24 here!
Inserted 35 mm film with the red colored emulsive side on top (left). The film holder is then inserted into the A24 cartridge (right). The film then lays straight on the plate below.
When the film is actually finished, you can't wind-off the film like you would do with a 120 or 220 medium format film. The 35 mm has no more capacity to wind anywhere further, and you also can't rewind it into the original 35 mm cassette. You have to open the cartridge in the pitch dark or inside a bag and directly reel the film from the take-up spool onto a development reel fitting to the used film development tank. Some examples taken with Fuji Provia 100F film below (developed myself with E-6 process chemicals). Sometimes the exposed sprockets add an additional guide to the scene especially when horizontal or vertical lines are present. In any way, the sprockets with numbered frame and film information makes the photo unique and automatically watermarked!
Kodak Ektachrome 400X (EPL) Film Review in 120 Format
We all heard the news that Kodak Alaris is bringing back Ektrachrome 100 slide film - it is available since last year in 35 mm format and supposed to be produced in 120 film format this year. Much less known is one of the former relatives of this film - the Ektrachrome 400. Other than a few shootout videos taken with expired rolls of this film, there is not much found online about it. In 2013, all available Ektrachrome films were discontinued including the Ektachrome 400. You can still find some expired Ektachrome 400 film online, but supply especially for the medium-format 120 film size is limited and quite expensive for the age of the film. I was lucky that a friend of mine handed me several rolls of well-stored 120-format based Ektrachrome 400X (EPL) film with expiration date 2007 which I could use with my medium format cameras. I shot the first roll of this film with my Hasselblad 500 C/M in 6x6 cm format and developed the exposed film myself with the required E-6 color slide film process. Since there is not much out there describing the main properties of this film, I decided to write this short film review of it.
With regular color negative film, there is the rule of thumb that for every 10 years of storage, the film loses 1 stop of sensitivity when stored well. This rule does not easily apply to color slide (positive) film since overexposure can easily be tolerated by negative film but not by slide film! I decided to be cautious on my first trial run with the Ektrachrome 400 slide film even it was already 12 years old. I didn't want to risk overexposing the film by applying one stop exposure upfront without having tested it first (meaning to use it as an ISO 200 film). I set my Gossen light meter to ISO 400 sensitivity and went from there. As location for testing, I selected Fort Hancock at Sandy Hook/NJ since I am very familiar with this place. It provides good examples for yellowish, greenish, and brown decaying structures in high contrast scenes depending on the light. I chose a sunny day with a bit of overcast in the sky since I wanted to see how the colors would be registered by this film.
As first frame with this film, I selected the famous lighthouse tower which was recently repainted in a glowing white. Since so much light is reflected from the white paint, I added an additional stop of exposure to the metered value to avoid underexposure in the darker areas. I was afraid that I would still blow out the sky by doing so but simply gave it a try. I used a circular 2-stop ND glass filter to accommodate the limit of 1/500s of the camera and avoiding to close down the lens aperture to the limit. To my surprise, the frame turned out nearly perfect - I could see details in the shadows as well as structure in the white of the tower. This first frame already revealed one main distinguished property of this film - there was no washout of the sky, instead it turned out fully blue like if I had used a polarizer. Some cyan color sneaked into the white of the lighthouse, so I de-saturated a bit the cyan color channel of the scanned positive to make the white look more natural. Shadows still tend to have some blueish cast which reminds me on Kodak Ektar 100 color negative film which does the same. On the other hand, the red turned out darker than expected. The top of the lighthouse tower has a red metal casing which looks black in the positive; also the red in the flag didn't look natural. I increased the saturation of the red channel to compensate - indeed all frames needed to be pushed a bit in saturation for the red color channel. The film reveals some grain if focused closer, but it remains invisible for websize postings. But seeing it already quite well in an enlarged 120 film size, I wonder how worse it would get in the small film format - I suspect it would be too grainy for my taste there.
For the second frame, I chose a motive which contained high contrast elements as dark ones behind the staircase, brighter sky on top, and a yellowish tinted wall of the building with wooden stairs in shadow and in the sun on both sides. I know that the dynamic range of slide film is much more limited to negative film, but I wasn't sure how the Ektachrome 400 film would handle it. Similar to the first frame of the lighthouse, I had to decrease saturation of cyan to make the stairs look more grey and increase a bit the saturation of the yellow channel. I left the blue channel unchanged since the sky again turned out perfectly. I personally like the blueish cast within the window glasses, and the bit of blue in the shadow on the left. There is no detail in the dark areas behind - I got the first clue here that maybe a slight overexposure of the film could have been useful. Later frames proved this suspicion.
The third frame was predominantly a test how fairly bright (and fairly colorless) sky would turn out. Again I exposed the scene for ISO 400 but had to push the midtones a bit before the final scan after previewing the scanned image. Yellow/orange colors had to be saturated a bit more avoiding that some reddish color cast gets into the brighter elements of the otherwise - again - perfectly lit and colored sky. I could/should have used a graduated ND filter for this scene, but the plastic graduated ND filters which I use often create a magenta color cast which is no issue to remove in a digital photo but certainly is an issue for a film based photo! Since I wanted to see in this trial how the colors turn out on the film itself, I didn't even try to use the filters. As bonus some geese just flew into my photo when i pressed the shutter release button - since I didn't use a filter and therefore used quite a fast exposure time of 1/250s, they showed up very sharp close to the left border.
Time to test the film sensitivity of other colors! Some of the decaying structures use green paint - I decided to take a frame with the 80/2.8 lens closer focused in to blur out the background with f/8 and my circular 2-stop glass ND filter. The film revealed a less good sensitivity for greens - they show up in a more blueish look fitting to the dominant color sensitivity of this Ektachrome film. Even seeing the trade-off in the greens, I like that the bright sky in the background still shows some blue in it. Other than increasing again the saturation for yellow as in the frames above and increasing the midtone exposure, I had no other post processing to do here.
The last frame shown here as example is from a wall drawing which I detected on my drive to Sandy Hook. The blue/yellow/orange colors lit by the sun from the back were the perfect test subject for the Ektachrome 400. Consequently, again the blue dominated the frame followed by the yellow as second. The shadow caused by the overhang has a blueish cast, too.
Overall, a very unique film which doesn't compare easily to any other Fuji slide films I have used earlier! I can't fully exclude that some of the color gamut deviations are partially caused by my own E-6 development, but so far I developed a bunch of other Fuji slide films very well which had a different look than the Ektachrome film. A quick summary of my pros and cons of this film:
PROS:
- Rich in blues, brings out sky rich in color without using additional filters
- Very rich and contrasty look
- High resolution for this mid ISO range film
- Best use for landscape/scenery photography, also architecture
CONS:
- Less sensitive for green, yellow/orange needs to be pushed a bit
- White has a cyan tint in it (can be removed easily in PP)
- Visible grain when zoomed in (not an issue for the 120 film format though but likely for 35 mm film)
- Wouldn't use it as my first choice for portraits
What Is Going On With Photography?!
A bit of an unusual blog post from me since it doesn't cover technical aspects in photography. But I felt the urge to write about a social matter which has increased related to photography. But let me start from the beginning when I started off in photography as teenager in the mid 80s. This was a time long before internet, and if looking for information, we relied on books, journals, and the library to find out more. During this time in the 80s, photography was still a profitable business for professional photographers - in any kind of field. I remember when going on vacation with my parents, that often my Dad and I were the only ones with cameras surrounded by beautiful landscapes - National Parks were much less crowded with visitors, and it actually was no issue at all photographing the scenery without getting people in the frame.
This situation remained about the same even up to 2001, when I last time visited Yosemite National Park with friends of mine (see photos below taken with my SLR at the time in 04/2001). There were more amateur photographers with SLRs and film P&S cameras around, but well dispersed throughout the park. You could enjoy the silence when hiking and taking your time to snap photos. The change started slowly around 2002, when the first digital cameras became available for the amateur - I also got my first digital P&S, the Sony DSC-P5 with at the time unbeatable 3 MP in this category! When going outside on hikes and to take photos, I suddenly saw a few more other amateurs shooting with digital cameras, but it was still sporadic.
I came to the US permanently in 2005, and this was also the year when I upgraded to my first DSLR, the Canon Rebel XT with decent 8 MP APS-C sensor. Before I had stopped taking regular photos with my analog SLR since film development cost and uncertainty in the lab development took the fun away for me. My Sony DSC-P5 did not allow me to use manual modes, it was all P&S only. It worked well, but I was quickly bored by just pressing the shutter release button with this camera or making a quick low res video sequence with it. The Rebel XT brought back the fun for me even I had compared to my current situation a minimal technical photography knowledge since I was never taught in it nor did I read books about it - I just learned from my Dad and shot film with try&error. I remember that I thought in 2005 that I only need one lens for all (why the heck bothering with primes?!) and bought this camera with a Sigma 28-300 super zoom lens. Quickly I had to realize that this lens was not as I expected it to perform especially at the wide and long ends (in fact it turned out to be the worst lens image-quality wise which I ever bought!). I used this lens still for a year - but decided then to make more use of the modernized internet at the time with photo forums and the first photo reviews streaming in. I self-taught myself about lens characteristics, lens speeds, optical properties, etc etc. I bought my first higher quality Canon EF lenses and suddenly even had a lot more fun! GAS (Gear Aquisition Syndrome) was kicking in, and soon I had a nice collection of EF lenses at hand. I really enjoyed digital at this point and remember that I never wanted to go back to film. Year by year starting around 2005, I saw more and more people with digital cameras in the field. I lived in PA at the time, and tried to connect to other amateur photographers in the area. But there was not even one meetup photography group in the whole Philly area nor a photo club to share ideas and do photo shooting in a group. For years I photographed by myself all the time until I joined flickr and found a few photographers in my area to meet up with. Flickr also became the first website to share my photos with others. 2009 was another milestone for me when I was able to afford a full frame (35 mm based) DSLR, the Canon 5D MkII. This camera brought me again to a higher level in my skills using this camera with better viewfinder and finally avoiding the often disliked crop factor since I preferred mostly shooting wide. At the time I was shooting often at Valley Forge National Historic Park, and I could tell from year by year I was shooting there that more amateur photographers started taking photos around me, but it still wasn't too bad regarding crowds. In 2010 I got the opportunity to do my first photo exhibit inside the YMCA in Berwyn/PA - not really knowing how to do this professionally well, I used cheaper glass clip-frames instead of wooden frames. The exhibit was still well received, but this was the time I learned that the location and audience is important when anticipating sales. Most people simply wanted to go to the gym and exercise or bring their kids to classes and were not at all into photography or even considering buying photos (later I learned that the same applies for exhibits in libraries where people might look at the photos but most have no intention at all to make a purchase at this location).
2010 brought big professional changes for me when I changed my workplace and moved from PA to NJ. I would have never thought at the time that this would change my photography severely! In PA I loved going to parks to take scenery, flower, and especially all kind of insect macro shots - I could do this there for hours undisturbed. But NJ was a totally different game - parks there are always crowded in spring to fall, I found it very hard to do macro shots undisturbed by people walking by. But my move had its benefits - people became interested exponentially in digital photography since gear was now a lot more affordable than just 5 years earlier. Photo meetup and photo clubs formed all over the place, and getting to know others with similar interests was easy. I started getting out more, shooting sunrises and all kind of locations in a group of 10-15 people. Everybody knew each other, it was a mixed age range from the 30s to 70s.
But nothing remains the same, change is imminent! What was formerly a nice group of single-minded people became an overcrowded and less personal group only 2 years after I joined. I remember a sunrise shoot where more than 40 people came, and it was tough to have somebody not walking into my frame (or not standing myself in the frame of somebody else). Also the age distribution in the group changed - the younger people disappeared, and suddenly the median was easily over 55 at the time. Nothing against retirees (hey, we all don't get younger), but this is the group from which camera manufacturers must have made a lot of money selling gear! It is caused by a great combination of available time and opportunity to use a technology at its highest for an affordable price. Younger people often are professionally busy, have family commitments, and often less money available to purchase photo gear, too. Also since mid 2007, smartphones were on the rise which came with increasingly better camera technology. Cameras also had quite short innovation cycles - every two years a new camera with new sensor or image improving technology hit the market. Marketing created a hype to upgrade to the best quickly, vest in more modern lenses etc. And people followed - both with smartphones and digital cameras.
And now things turned really crowded. Forget about being contacted by a well known publishing company which saw one of my photos on flickr and asked to purchase it for a book. The values of photos hit the bottom, photo stock markets skyrocketed in profitability by paying the photographer only the absolute minimum and cashing in the rest. After I started using my own photo website and deserting flickr, I was contacted a few times to hand over a few photos for free and just receiving the acknowledgment with my name. When I refused to do this, I got once the response that "everyone can do this photo with the cell anyway". Well, best of luck buddy! But this clearly was a sign of a shift in attitude towards photography which had much more supply than demand. Professional photographers had to close down their business because of amateurs disrupting the prices and profits with often mediocre quality of work done. I remember an article where a professional landscape photographer was asked how he avoids that somebody else takes the same shot. His answer was to use special lens gear which most amateurs can't afford - even this is no longer an obstacle now for most lenses which all got cheaper. Competition between amateurs was also on the rise - facebook became very popular and people posting their taken photos. One way to kick out potential competition was (and still is) to hide the location where the photo was taken. In one example a few years back one amateur photographer even purposely assigned the wrong location to his photo to mislead potential copycats. This all ignores that the value of any kind of photo isn't there anymore monetary-wise in the first place.
What's next? Mirrorless technology is certainly on the rise, but the photo market itself is saturated since all interested ones already upgraded from film to digital camera technology from about 2005 to 2015. Smartphone cameras are so good now that nobody can tell the difference between cell and semi-professional camera from a photo posted on the web. Art galleries ask interested photographers for a hefty fee just to present photo prints for a few weeks in a small gallery section. Rarely anyone actually still buys photos - companies have contracts with photo stock distributors for an annual fee to use any kind of photo they need from the site. Potential customers rather grab their own digital camera (or cell phone) to try to take a similar photo which they see and like in an exhibit than actually paying $$ for it. It has gotten so bad that many started post processing well taken photos into painting look-alikes since this stands out from the mass and actually attracted customers to purchase the modified photo. Others went a step further and sold all their photo gear to do painting rather than photography since this is still seen as form of art.
Especially youngsters who never grew up with analog photography have come back since 2016 to film. Film is again a slowly increasing market after it was considered dead in 2010. Several companies are now revamping their activity to manufacture films which isn't all that easy after equipment was shut down or given to the junkyard about 10 years ago. Analog well maintained camera gear of known brands like Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad etc easily doubled in the past three years due to high demand. Film will never even get close to the digital photo market in the future - it will remain a niche, but it is again a growing one. Many find themselves more connected with the "real" photography when using film, and I have to agree with this from my experience after I started shooting film again 4 years ago.
It is the best time ever regarding the choices we all have to use photo gear, but it has also become an overcrowded field leading to environmental issues, for example in National Parks where herds of amateur photographers enter every year stumbling on the same location to take similar shots as already seen on facebook or IG. Iceland already took measures and closed districts to photographers for exactly this reason. More often we all see signs with "No Photography Allowed" because it has become just too much. I sometimes ask myself these days if it is really worthwhile going out and shooting instead of doing something else. I most often still answer it with "yes" since I use it as creative outlet, but my expectation has severely changed what I want to do with my photos compared to 10 years ago. Other than for the benefit of social interaction, I don't see any value for me in participating in photo exhibits anymore or trying to sell my photos online.
I am curious what I might write in 10 years from now on this subject. Please leave your comments below! Happy shooting!