Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 studio portraits on Kodak Portra 160NC
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Colour Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:05 pm    Post subject: Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 studio portraits on Kodak Portra 160NC Reply with quote
Some of the first shots that I have exposed using flash coupled with my late grandfather's Zeiss Ikonta 524/16. Lens is the Zeiss-Opton Tessar 75/3.5, camera is from 1953. Models are two friends of mine who wanted an old-fashioned portrait series. Film used is Kodak Portra 160 NC, scanned by the local photostore developing machine (not so great quality). I will scan properly, money almost put aside for a top quality 120 film scanner Cool



Larger size here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/5323871589/sizes/o/

Portrait is exposed wide open (f/3.5 1/250s) using two flashes (Nikon SB-800 #1 triggered by sync cable, Nikon SB-800 #2 triggered by flash unit #1). Photostore scanned film during developing, lost lots of shadow detail at the same time. No post-processing to JPEG.

Camera used to make these portraits (product photo is from my Flickr)



Here you can find more photos taken with the same camera: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/tags/52416/

Last edited by Esox lucius on Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:05 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Masterly handled , simple stunning!!!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow! Nothing wrong with that. Beautifully shot.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers guys!

Some more from the same roll. A little naive styling and roleplaying/posing, but that was the intention: to mimic musician duo portraits as they were styled in 1950s record covers Laughing







All photos are taken with the lens wide open, I missed focus on 15% as the Ikonta 524/16 rangefinder is not coupled with lens and DoF is a little tricky this close to subjects.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All are extremely good, lady is beautiful with amazing eyes!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow!
Awesome portraits. I really like the lighting and their expressions. Well done Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, image quality is perfect! Shocked
Also I like the poses very much.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poses, expressions, colors, and superb use of flash, well done! Shocked Cool


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're good! Beautiful photos, round and colorful and clean. That 524/16 is clearly more than sufficient Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
late grandfather's Zeiss Ikonta 524/16

Beautiful use of old photographic equipment which ties into the family Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic photos, Esox! I've never used an Ikonta from that era, but I've owned a few Super Ikontas from that same general era. As I recall they also had the Opton Tessar too. Anyway, I've always loved those old folders, and yours is every bit as good.

And actually I think your photoshop's processor is doing a good job too. What's not to like?

I remember these two models from an earlier series you posted here. They seem to be more relaxed now. The quality of this series of photos as far as their participation goes sure seem more refined.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They're all really superb but I wonder if the subjects felt they got the old-fashioned look they wanted; if so, it can only be because of the rather flat lighting (which is excellent, by the way - what was the set-up for that? Did you base it on 1950s lighting styles?)


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you all very much for the overwhelming feedback Embarassed

Michael: The photoshop's scanner is doing quite a good job for web sized images, but the scan is only 2048x2048 and the delivered JPEG file shows oversharpening and traces of auto levels and contrast. I think they run some sort of Photoshop "smart" fix on it which kills shadow detail.

It won't take long before I can set my hands on a top quality 120 scanner. I've scanned a few of my 120 film shots and the quality of the Ikonta Tessars is amazing. Likewise, I've made prints at the same store with their enlarger, 100cm x 100cm looks very good.

I agree Michael, these film shots show the models more committed and also more relaxed. This is quite natural as the roll of Portra was shot in the last minutes of the session; during a 45 minute studio shoot inexperienced models are always at their best during the last 15 minutes.

(Michael and I are referring to these photos from the same shoot:
http://forum.mflenses.com/1910-vest-pocket-kodak-strobist-studio-portrait-shoot-t33954.html )

Paul: The man in the picture is an Art Director by profession, and yes they were very satisfied both with these film shots as well as the Vest Pocket Kodak photos. Styling and poses aside, the flat lighting was the foundation for the shoot. We compiled a moodboard of 1950's photos, including Hollywood as well as Finnish chanson music record covers. Based on the moodboard, we agreed on a visual brief as follows:

- "Hollywood glow", either in post-processing or brought by the lower contrast of the Vest Pocket Kodak 1910 optics
- I deliberately shot wide open to soften skin detail and introduce natural vignetting, to promote the flat lighting
- skin tones important, slightly paler skin than in reality
- flat lighting, which seemed typical for every 1950's musician duo's promotional photo we found
- slightly naive (by today's standards) poses. conservative hint of sensuality (styling, make-up, poses, male/female roleplay, gestures)
- compose for empty space in the image (to include text and artist info)
- in post, increase contrast "too much" to kill shadow detail and flatten light even more

Lighting set-up: varied slightly during the set, but in these film shots it consisted of

#1 Nikon SB-800
Two o'clock high, narrow beam and bounced via white ceiling on the models

#2 Nikon SB-800
Three o'clock level, diffused with medium softbox and covering center parts of the models

#3 reflector disc, gold
Six o'clock low, to warm up skin tones and bring red detail to glow better

Last edited by Esox lucius on Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:59 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
You're good! Beautiful photos, round and colorful and clean. That 524/16 is clearly more than sufficient Wink

+1, verrrrrrrrry good job Shocked
Why do you need such "expensive" cam and lenses when you can get this kind of beautiful results with a 50 years cam/lens Very Happy .....


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
You're good! Beautiful photos, round and colorful and clean. That 524/16 is clearly more than sufficient Wink


pich900 wrote:
+1, verrrrrrrrry good job Shocked
Why do you need such "expensive" cam and lenses when you can get this kind of beautiful results with a 50 years cam/lens Very Happy .....


Thank you, gentlemen!

I agree: An amateur does not need newer, "better" or more expensive equipment. A pro however does need at least a semi-pro DSLR with corresponding lenses, because for a pro who shoots a lot the cost per client is what matters. For studio portraits, the cost per frame exposed with Portra 160 NC (bought and developed) is about 2 EUR excluding equipment, studio & scanning costs. Even if you develop yourself cost will be more than 1 EUR per frame. A pro body that costs 4,700 EUR and is used for 100,000 shots equals 0.05 EUR cost per frame (excluding post-processing & studio costs). Even if you add 5,000 EUR worth of lenses price per frame increases to 0,10 EUR per frame - a fraction of film cost per frame.

Nikon factory warranty for a D3 covers 500,000 shutter actuations, so 100,000 frames per body is not even much. Added DSLR versatility is easier postprocessing, instant ability to verify (and adjust) results etc. etc.

Studio is easy with controlled light and static subjects, I only need 2-3 rolls of 120 film (total cost 60 EUR) to produce 3-5 top frames. Shooting photojournalism, weddings, sports etc. however would not be economically productive using the Ikonta and film. It's all about improving the profit margin and turning your equipment into a production facility that earns you money.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, and there are other things, too: the fixed lens Ikonta is very restrictive compared with a DSLR (or any SLR) when it comes to macros or shooting pretty much anything other portraits and landscapes. These days everything goes through a scanner into a digital format, anyway, and scanning is either expensive or time-consuming. A pro has to count his time as having some value and 15 minutes spent scanning and cleaning a scan is worth 4% of a day's wages, which makes the process much more expensive.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agreed re. the requirements of business and coverage of situations.

For amateur use - or for a high-end niche pro portrait side-line - using old cameras is fun and adventuresome Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Being born about 20 years after this camera was made, it took me a while to understand that thanks to great engineers at Zeiss the shutter is still today syncable with modern wireless flash units designed for DSLR.

The fact that the camera I myself CLA'd belonged to my late grandfather is of course important to me, but likely of no interest to anyone else. Interestingly, the rear element of the Opton-Tessar has three severe scratches, introduced by my uncle who for some reason wanted to disassemble this very camera in his teen years (he is now 67 and a retired engineer Very Happy ). I can only imagine the feedback he got from his early tries on disassembling and assembling it Very Happy

Goes to show that even quite severe damage to rear element doesn't have much impact on images, unless you shoot straight into light.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stupendous IQ; and what a fun series.
the shots have a 50s Life magazine look to them ...


PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm renovating a space and building a new studio, will be ready by mid-March - I'm bumping this topic should any Finnish Mflenses members who live in Southern Finland be interested in a "Vintage Day".

Vintage Day? Bring your old camera to my Helsinki studio and I'll sync it with flash so you can shoot studio portraits with a setup ranging from 1 to 5 flashes + 1 fresnel of course all kinds of diffusors, octas, strips, snoots, softboxes and reflectors are available. Reply here if interested!

Vilhelm


PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Say Vilhelm, I don't want to hijack your topic, but your comment really got me to wondering -- would you happen to know what all is involved in adding flash sync to a Compur Rapid shutter? It's my understanding that adding flash sync to a shutter that doesn't have it requires complete disassembly, and the drilling of a hole for the connector. Yes?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No worries, anything related to connecting modern flash with these old fantastic cameras is in my opinion within the spirit of my topic.

I have disassembled, cleaned and assembled a couple of Compur shutters and one Synchro-Compur shutter. The first time I failed, the others I succeeded and post-service shutter speeds were as accurate as they can be with 50-75 year old shutters.

I have never modified the older (pre-war?) Compur shutters - it was/is my belief that flash sync is only available with the Synchro-Compur shutters (X-sync).


PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, yes, from the factory. But it is possible to add flash sync to shutters that don't have it. But I have been told by a couple of different repair techs that it is an involved process, as I mentioned above. Perhaps I misunderstood you, though. I thought you were offering to add flash sync to other people's cameras that didn't have it.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
those are really stunning i have a similar camera 533/16 but i have never tried it with flash,


PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood you, though. I thought you were offering to add flash sync to other people's cameras that didn't have it.


Yes slight misunderstanding; I have no interest or equipment to modify or repair other people's cameras. The idea of Vintage Day was to consider if it would be worth to rally some enthusiasts and shoot film portraits with vintage cameras, I offered a studio with infinite flash setup possibilities at anyone's disposal. Has to be a Sunday though, only day of week when it can be arranged.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Colour Film Gallery
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2