Rollei Retro 100 for the first time in an Oympus OM2 1st use

[tikkathree]

Nothing like in at the deep end!

My first home loaded spool ever in a recently acquired OM2. The latter was on EBay for spares/repairs because the mirror would only reset manually. One new battery and the mirror flips up and down like a good thing.

Anywhere, here's a few from my first go with this film... I'm very pleased!












[/u]

[Attila]

Agfa APX 100 I think , I like especially first one, great success! Congrats!

[tikkathree]

[rbelyell]

first, may i say your photos are lovely. well conceived and well executed. however, may i also say, that imo, i dont like this film. i have a whole bunch of it, but i personally find it is much too low contrast for my taste.
tony

[Excalibur]

The last looks the best result IMO as it shows subjects from white through to black.

[tikkathree]

[Orio]

Don't forget that in B&W photography the negative is not the end, it's an intermediate step which needs to be finalized - by printing (if in an analog darkroom) or by scanning (if in a digital darkroom).
So it's not really a correct approach to a negative to judge it as it was a final step. A negative with moderate contrast does not only depend on the emulsion, it also depends on the processing, actually processing is more influential than the emulsion with regards to contrast (Ed.: typo edited).
Secondly, a negative must be considered as part of the whole process: if I have an analog darkroom with a condenser light enlarger, or if I scan the negative with a home scanner, a negative with a moderate contrast is better than a strong contrast negative, because the condenser light enlarger is more contrasted than a diffused light enlarger, and because home scanners have a narrow dynamic range and a contrasted negative creates more scanning problems.
On the contrary, if I have a diffused light enlarger, a negative with good contrast and high acutance will counter-balance the softer kind of light of the enlarger, and if I scan with a drum scanner, a good contrast negative will allow me to exploit more dynamic range than a weak contrast negative.

[Lloydy]

That's the kind of B&W I like, the first picture is wonderful, the tones are good throughout the image. The only one I would change is the portrait, that does look a bit washed out. Good results though.

[rbelyell]

orio, you are a much better photographer than i, of this there is no doubt. and it is certain you have forgotten more than i hope to know about this medium. however, your comments leave me confused. there are films that are known as 'high contrat', there are films known as 'low contrast'. if making LC into HC, and HC into LC is merely a matter of PP (analog or digital), then may i respectfully ask, why have specifically different types of film?

imo, people use this particular film because it is low contrast. those in your league of expertise use that knowledge in advance to enhance their vision based on the inherent charachter of this particular film. i would think, in my simple mind, if one wanted to PP into a high contrast film, one would just choose a HC film to start with.

my comment was meant to convey that my taste does not run to this particular type of film, intended to yielld what i would call not 'medium', but 'low' contrast results. i myself would not use this film for 'normal' portraiture or normal scene capture, but rather specifically to achieve 'soft' portratiture, or to photograph fog, mist etc. special circumstance scenes. certainly everyone's taste varies, but i personally find this film singularly unappealing for what i would call 'normal' scene reproduction. having said that, i think OPs work here was very nicely executed, limited by the film, not by his talent.
tony