RBT and the Realist Custom - yet again !!

[P3D <jarrow@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you to George Themelis and Eric Goldstein for their help with the Realist/RBT comparison.

>>>> George writes >>>>>

> Second, there is the film factor... If his images appear more contrasty,
> perhaps you should ask him what film he is using... I would not be
> surprised to hear that he is using the current contrasty E-6 films (Velvia,
> etc).

After the presentation of David's show I was very keen to talk to him about
films, technique etc - you know, the sort of questions you ask when you have
blown away by a presentation and am looking for a "how to" session. The film
is Fuji Sensia. I have been using the same for most of last year.


> Regarding the image size, I brought this subject for discussion a few
> months ago.  Larger image (7p or full-frame) does have a slight advantage
> over the more narrow Realist (5p) size.  If the screen is set to fill the
> full frame and the Realist is projected together with larger formats, then
> the wider formats have an advantage over the Realist.  Some subjects (like
> scenics, national parks, etc.) can be better recorded in a landscape
> format.  But many subjects are captured very well in a square format and I
> crop many of my full frame SLR stereos in 5-p mounts.

Agree, the 7 perf look really works for sceneics. I still feel I can make 5 perf
work well on sceneics if I look at the scene as a challenge. Work a little
harder to make the image more than a one minute point and shoot.



> Regarding contrast, I have found my Realist lenses to be as constrasty
> as the SLR lenses... I use the same film in both cameras and cannot say
> that the SLR lenses result in more contrasty pictures.

I have attached a Realist skylight filter to the camera to protect the lens
and to ( hopefully ) contrast up the image. An interesting note on camera
and contrast - I use a Realist and a Kodak camera. At Echuca both were
used on the same scene ( the Kodak also has skylight filters fitted ) and
IMO it looks like the Kodak is producing a more "punchy" image. I have
assumed that the Kodak lens well, acting as a hood, helps. I am
interested in finding a pair of Realist sunshades ( already sent a message
to Dalia ) to see if lens shading makes any difference. Either way, the
sunshades look handy.


> To improve your photography with your Realist I'd recommend that you
> experiment with different films and shooting situations.  The lens' shades
> will not improve contrast to the degree you would expect... Polarizing
> filters, maybe, but I have not felt a need for using them.

Do the polarizing filters ( I assume series 5 ) work with the Realist
sunshades ? Do you have any filters available for sale ?


>>>> Eric Wrote >>>>

> I'll add exposure to the list. Bracket a shot with an exposure a third or
> two thirds of a stop under, and suddenly you've added lots of snap,
> saturation and "romance" to that flat, lack-luster slide you used to blame your
> camera lens for (which was probably a third of a stop or more overexposed in the
> first place!). The soup you get the slides processed in makes a difference,
> too. As does even the slightest amount of flare in those 50s lenses.

I'm using 3 labs to develop. As far as I am aware they are all doing a good
job. My Kodak slides were processed at the same labs. I'll try the under
exposure idea - at the moment I only do multi shots when the lighting is
difficult and I really....really want the images.

> That being said, my testing and my work leads me to state that some lenses
> are contrastier than others. Lens design (and execution) does make a
> difference, and images from my Planar, Summacron, Xenotar, Tessars, Xenar,
> Xenons, Canon FDs, Ektars, David Whites, Cassars, Anastons, Amatons, etc etc
> all look different on a any number of different indicies, contrast included.

I have a feeling that this is the heart of the question. Were Realist Custom
lens as variable in quality ( read contrast ) as the majority of 50's cameras ?
I have understood that the lens were hand picked and checked and hoped that
maybe - just maybe, the lens was the pick of the crop. The lens resolution
seems fine to me, the contrast is my concern.



        George, could I ask you to have a look at one the slides taken by
the Realist and see how it compares with your images. At the Echuca
slide show there was quite a variation in image contrast across the
various formats. May be the guy behind the camera, may be the camera,
 could even be the choice of projector as there were several in operation.
Any help greatly appreciated.

        John Arrowsmith
        Australia




------------------------------