My Ciro-Flex Film Pictures

eric-holmes · May 15, 2011

Fujifilm Neopan 100 developed in coffee.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Pgeobc · May 15, 2011

Some of the photos are a little "soft," but then a couple are better. Maybe you need to test the camera at different apertures to find the sharpest one(s). I don't know about the reputed quality level of the old camera, but the dreamy rendition is pleasant. I'm going to have to give Caffenol-C-M a try, I guess, as I've seen some other pics done lately that were excellent--mostly with ISO100 type films like you did.

eric-holmes · May 16, 2011

Pgeobc said:
Some of the photos are a little "soft," but then a couple are better. Maybe you need to test the camera at different apertures to find the sharpest one(s). I don't know about the reputed quality level of the old camera, but the dreamy rendition is pleasant. I'm going to have to give Caffenol-C-M a try, I guess, as I've seen some other pics done lately that were excellent--mostly with ISO100 type films like you did.

I'll see about doing that. I thought they turned out pretty good considering the camera is so old, I have never developed film before and I had to adjust the viewing lens to focus with the taking lens.

compur · May 16, 2011

Good job!

altitude604 · May 16, 2011

really nice work! your developing looks pretty nice too.

how long did you develop in the caffenol?

Derrel · May 16, 2011

I'm wondering if the lens might not be a bit dirty, perhaps inside the camera...seems like it is flaring quite a bit.

Pgeobc · May 16, 2011

You will love this link--assuming you have not seen it before LINK

eric-holmes · May 16, 2011

compur said:
Good job!

Thanks!

altitude604 said:
really nice work! your developing looks pretty nice too.

how long did you develop in the caffenol?

It develops for 15 minutes with agitation every 30 seconds.

Derrel said:
I'm wondering if the lens might not be a bit dirty, perhaps inside the camera...seems like it is flaring quite a bit.

Like from inside the camera or inside the lens elements? I tried cleaning them inside and out as best as possible.

Mike_E · May 16, 2011

Nice. I think a lens hood might be of help too, or at least shooting away from the sun. I doubt that the lens is as well coated as a new one might be.

Paul Ron · May 16, 2011

Nice job!

The flare is because you are shooting into a bright background. Typical for old cameras.

I'll bet those are scaned negs n not scanned prints.. so you can't really judge from that. Print em and you'll be pleasantly suprised at the results and how much contrast you'll gain. Scaned B&Ws always suck.

.

Proteus617 · May 17, 2011

Nice job with the the old Ciro-flex. Looks like you are well on your way to dialing in the classic look of that old triplet. You really need to keep the sun well away from the axis of the lens. Sometimes I shoot my old TLRs "sideways" so the shadow of my body falls across the camera. Instant lens hood.

Alex_Holland · May 17, 2011

Nice pictures! You might could push a minute or two on the caffenol for more contrast... maybe? Anyways, good to know the Ciro is ticking normally. How much did you pay again? If I may ask.

eric-holmes · May 17, 2011

Paul Ron said:
Nice job!

The flare is because you are shooting into a bright background. Typical for old cameras.

I'll bet those are scaned negs n not scanned prints.. so you can't really judge from that. Print em and you'll be pleasantly suprised at the results and how much contrast you'll gain. Scaned B&Ws always suck.

.

Yes, these are scanned negatives. Why is it that scanned negatives suck? So I could take what I have here, send it to be printed and it would look different?

Proteus617 said:
Sometimes I shoot my old TLRs "sideways" so the shadow of my body falls across the camera. Instant lens hood.

Good idea!

Alex_Holland said:
Nice pictures! You might could push a minute or two on the caffenol for more contrast... maybe? Anyways, good to know the Ciro is ticking normally. How much did you pay again? If I may ask.

I am still working on the times. The times I used were what I found on the internet. Maybe I will add a minute next time. I paid $35.

Proteus617 · May 17, 2011

eric-holmes said:
Yes, these are scanned negatives. Why is it that scanned negatives suck? So I could take what I have here, send it to be printed and it would look different?

Very different. Scanners have trouble with shadow detail and dither on grain.

Paul Ron · May 18, 2011

Sending your pics out to be printed will be just as bad as scanning em, they will still suck, just a bit differently.

Print em yourself, adjust your exposures, use a variety of papers, play with contrasts, burn n dodge, play with different developers, fit what you feel is right for the subject as the photographer.

You've only done half the job, now take it to the end.. the photograph. That's what makes you a photographer.

Anyone can make a print, but only a photogrqpher can make a phtograph.