Mamiya RB67 (and the MF rite of passage)

I thought I was the only one using a Mamiya RB 67 camera with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens. Now Dawid Loubser has dazzled me with his picture of the spiral staircase in the library and I thought I'd put up one of my own by way of "fisheye solidarity".

Geoff Goldberg's suspicion of fisheye picture is well justified. The results often ride on the novelty of distortion which becomes ad nauseum about 6 frames into the viewing. Dawid Loubser shows it is possible to nice work and I'm inspired.


Gelatin-silver photograph on Freestyle Premium Reserve VC FB, image area 16.4cm X 21.2cm, from an Ilford 120 format SFX 200 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB 67 camera fitted with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens and #25 red filter.

Maris Rusis said:

I thought I was the only one using a Mamiya RB 67 camera with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens. Now Dawid Loubser has dazzled me with his picture of the spiral staircase in the library and I thought I'd put up one of my own by way of "fisheye solidarity".

Geoff Goldberg's suspicion of fisheye picture is well justified. The results often ride on the novelty of distortion which becomes ad nauseum about 6 frames into the viewing. Dawid Loubser shows it is possible to nice work and I'm inspired.

Click to expand...

+1.

Re. your photograph Maris, I think that your inspiration is working. I hope you will show more in time.

Hi Dawid,

Dawid Loubser said:

...

[/CENTER][/CENTER]

These were taken at Kimberley. The interior is of the very old, and supposedly haunted, Africana library. What a wonderful place it was...

On a technical note, the dynamic range of even Pan F (developed in diluted D76-equivalent developer, 1+1) blows my mind. The skylight at the top left is in full "sunny 16" bright sunlight, whereas the area underneath the tables in the extremely dark library were almost pitch black to the naked eyed (this was a very dark library, and the image is a 4-minute exposure). This is at least 12 stops of range.

It was also an attempt to produce an interesting composition using a full-frame (37mm) fish-eye lens of an angular, architectural subject. I love how much more "natural" fish-eye distortion is than a rectilinear ultra-wide: Jam your nose into the image (or my big print and you don't even notice it. But the big, lovely RB67 finder made it a joy to spend 10 minutes playing with the subject until I was happy. Everything that you can see in the photo? I was in almost every conceivable spot trying to find the "right" angle... Ended up in a very contorted position on a tiny, tiny spiral staircase.

Click to expand...

This is a clever way of using the fisheye lens to compose effectively, kudos. Did you remain all 4 minutes on the staircase while the exposure was being made? If so, how did you prevent shaking the staircase and hence the camera?

Thank you, gentlemen, for the kind words - it's nice to receive affirmation that my compositional adventures with the fisheye was successful.

~~ Maris, "fish-eye solidarity" received loud and clear Your image also manages to minimise the fish-eye effect. This was another (more "boring") print from Kimberley, which also does not look like it was produced by the 37mm fisheye on the RB67:


I tried to "isolate" the giant man-made hole, and the entire town, against the desolate wide open space and ominous sky surrounding it. When you stand here, the scale of the scene before you really enevlops your vision - but the 37mm has made it possible to pull the whole scene out in front of me, and isolate it, without weird distortion. Not even a 12mm lens on 35mm - not nearly as wide as the 37mm on the Mamiya - could do this as naturally. The corners would be stretched into oblivion.

~~ Cem, I did not remain on the (rickety) staircase - I hopped off after I opened the shutter (after "untangling" myself from the Tripod legs, etc) - and hopped back on to close the shutter. A couple of seconds of vibration means nothing in a 4min exposure I am *so* in love with Ilford Pan F in this format.

Now, fish-eye or not, RB67 or not, this is a great picture:

For landscape work in extremely confined spaces, I continue to derive great joy from the RB67 and 37mm Fisheye lens, using Ilford Pan F film exposed at ISO32 (from last week-end, a spontaneous and lovely road trip with my wife):


Pan F is, in general, lovely for high-key images, with astounding resolving power in 6x7cm format:


After more than 4 years of using the RB67 (and starting this thread!) I have to admit that I am curious about getting a digital camera again, but every time I look at digital monochrome imagery I am sorely disappointed at the "plasticky", linear look. I wonder if it is possible to, using some sort of tone mapping on HDR imagery (for a single exposure from any digital camera cannot have the dynamic range of either images above) achieve the Pan F "look" without ending up with the over-cooked HDR look?

After maintaining the discipline to process - by hand - hundreds of 6x7cm and 4x5in negatives, digital is sometimes tempting again, but I suspect I will just be disappointed with the monochrome output. I am barely shooting any 35mm anymore though - the RB67 is simply to great a tool, it commands most of my photographic attention at this time.

Jerome Marot said:

Now, fish-eye or not, RB67 or not, this is a great picture:

Click to expand...

Jerome,

Yes, this is impressive and I do like it too.


Dawid,

I think that Maris would say you won't be able to reproduce this in digital, at least not yet.

To deal with the soft tones of the rocks and buildings, I'd not choose that harsh black rim of frame. I sense imprisonment. Rather I'd suggest reposting this without the film's black border. It creates a tight steel restricting band and this picture needs open space to get air in ints nostrils!

Doing this in digital? There would be a tendency, as a start, to have this ultrasharp. Fore tonalities, you, yourself are in the best position to find curves in separate pictures to build some approach to this from digital shots.

Asher

Asher, I do agree on the black frame. I'll get around to posting a version with a white frame. I sometimes batch-output my images with either a white or black frame, where I really should be more picky.

If/when I do get a digital camera again, you can be certain that I will do a lot of experimentation with tone-mapping to try and achieve this look - perhaps starting with HDR images. The difference is subtle, but I have not quite yet seen Pan F or Adox CHS 25 replicated in digital yet.

I'll keep you posted (but not in this thread

Dawid

Nice to see you about. I hope that you are well, and understand the tension between film and digital that I suspect underlies your recent posts.

I like the picture of Kimberley and your South African origin reminds me of a conversation I had with my girls about The Eye of Kuruman the other day. I arrived after a month in Namibia and a drive across the dry season Kalahari (in 95) and the sense memory transformation in environment and the cool air around the 'eye' remain with me today. I don't know if I have any slides, but I suspect htey wil not do justice to the experience of arriving as a desert traveller.

Best

Mike

Dawid Loubser said:

I wonder if it is possible to, using some sort of tone mapping on HDR imagery (for a single exposure from any digital camera cannot have the dynamic range of either images above) achieve the Pan F "look" without ending up with the over-cooked HDR look?

Click to expand...

It is probably possible to get that look on screen, the dynamic range of digital camera is not really smaller than the one of film. But I am not sure it would make much sense to try: you have a setup that works and bring you great pleasure, there is no reason to change.

And there is another reason not to change: even if it would be possible to get the look on screen, printing would give different results (unless you go to the trouble of making a negative and print that, maybe). In exhibits in museums, sometimes high-end inkjet prints (from scans) are presented next to analog enlargements. The results are recognizable to the educated eye. Not that the inkjet prints are worse, just slightly different.

Jerome Marot said:

It is probably possible to get that look on screen, the dynamic range of digital camera is not really smaller than the one of film. But I am not sure it would make much sense to try: you have a setup that works and bring you great pleasure, there is no reason to change.

And there is another reason not to change: even if it would be possible to get the look on screen, printing would give different results (unless you go to the trouble of making a negative and print that, maybe). In exhibits in museums, sometimes high-end inkjet prints (from scans) are presented next to analog enlargements. The results are recognizable to the educated eye. Not that the inkjet prints are worse, just slightly different.

Click to expand...

see this is the issue

a silver print is a silver print - scan it an put it on a computer makes it a led (or what ever type of viewing system you have) print/image. they are different and consequently look different and also are read in different ways.

Davids images have an led range (within the colour space) and to the viewer - there is no bloody silverprintness to the image.... its only within his imagination - or other viewers....

the print - well thats a different story.

nice work btw.

Secrecy of the Knysna forest

A recently produced image that I am most happy with. The compositional experience of a fish-eye with this large waist-level viewfinder continues to be such a joyful experience, and it allows me to capture the feeling of an (organic) space better than any other system I have known.



P.S. I say "organic" space, because man-made spaces with straight lines are exceptionally difficult to capture naturally with a fish-eye.

Dawid Loubser said:

A recently produced image that I am most happy with. The compositional experience of a fish-eye with this large waist-level viewfinder continues to be such a joyful experience, and it allows me to capture the feeling of an (organic) space better than any other system I have known.

P.S. I say "organic" space, because man-made spaces with straight lines are exceptionally difficult to capture naturally with a fish-eye.

Click to expand...

Dawid,

This is one of the most remarkable tree pictures I've come across! There's a sense of reaching outs to the sky in such a human way with hope and passion. I hope you make huge prints and start selling them! I wonder whether this would look as good with a 15 mm Canon fisheye or is it that the MF geometry makes this particular picture work so well?

Asher

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I wonder whether this would look as good with a 15 mm Canon fisheye or is it that the MF geometry makes this particular picture work so well?

Click to expand...

I wondered as well. The picture is so impressive that I feel tempted to look for my old russian fish eye and go into the forest, but I would not know how to emulate the very delicate midtones.

Of course, I would have to cut the 3:2 small format rectangle to 7:6.

Thank you all for the compliments for my tree image above. It has been universally well received elsewhere also, and I am genuinely considering making a huge darkroom print of this one and selling it, as soon as I have access to a large-enough darkroom again.

In the meantime, I have produced some further images which also have either symbolic or anthropomorphistic undertones, to contribute to this thread of the great RB67 as a photographic visioning tool:

And a couple of more conventional recent images:



The technical and aesthetic qualities of the ancient 250mm lens (that I got for free with the body so to speak) has always impressed me. A combination of qualities quite similar to the Zeiss Sonnar tele lenses for the older Hasselblads, in a lens that - though a heavy beast - can be had for free almost.

I always gut such a kick out of not having to spend megabucks on a Zeiss or Leica short tele (something in the 120mm f/2.2 range would be equivalent) to try and get the results I am after in 35mm or Digital. The closest I have is the Zuiko 90mm f/2.0 Macro for the Olympus OM system - the only lens I did not sell when I decided to get out of the system - but with its mystical qualities and all, it can't hold candle to the output of the RB and this old junker 250mm lens.

Hence my continued show of love for the system in this thread I know that some members here have, in the past year to two, started to use the RB system also after some exchanges of personal messages. I'd love to hear from you in this thread!

Dawid Loubser said:

In the meantime, I have produced some further images which also have either symbolic or anthropomorphistic undertones, to contribute to this thread of the great RB67 as a photographic visioning tool:

Click to expand...

Dawid,

This is so strong yet open to much interpretation and musing that it has a long life ahead for folk to enjoy. Kudos.

Asher

"Stranglehold" is indeed very symbolic. I like "Domain of the crab", but I should say that I missed the crab at first, maybe the image could be cropped a bit to change the composition.

On technique, I am a bit surprised by the bokeh on "Nature's outlines". Is that a common occurrence with that lens?

Finally, I got around to trying the Reflecta MF5000 scanner (also sold under the name Pacific Image Primefilm 120). It seems to work reasonably well. Click on the picture for the full 8561 x 6840 resolution.



(and since people seem to care about details: Kodak T-Max 100ISO developed with Tetenal Neofin blue, 16 min at 19°C with 1 min agitation, Mamiya C 50mm f/4.5 lens and a Russian selenium cell posemeter of unknown origin).

Mamiya RB67 Pro S Purchase

After reading your over two years of posts on the Mamiya RB67 I am pleased with my purchase of a Mamiya RB67 Pro S today. Stuck in digital for almost ten years (Nikon D70 and D300) I was convinced to try film again after visiting a local "hole-in-the-wall" camera repair shop here in Seattle. I came away with a classic Nikon FE and then a week later a Nikon F4. For the last few months I have shot nothing but film, quite a learning experience (http://63alfred.smugmug.com/Shootingfilm/Film). Now I know how much digital spoils one and lets poor habits creep in. Of course I quickly wanted to try medium format. I started off looking at the Pentax 645 Nii (mainly for the autofocus) but quickly realized that if I wanted to experience full medium format I would be better off with a 6x6 or 6x7 camera. I finally settled on the Mamiya RZ67 but unfortunately my local shop did not have one in stock. I like to buy local, if you buy everything off the web there will eventually be no more local. Also, I like to look the person in the eye and develop a relationship with them. My local camera repair shop only had a Mamiya RB67 Pro S. I also looked at a Hasselblad 500CM he had, but to tell the truth he would not sell it to me as he said I would like the Mamiya RB67 Pro S better (even though he was charging much more for the Hasselblad).

I purchased the Mamiya RB67 Pro S but had some buyers remorse soon after. Now that I have read your lengthy thread on this camera I know my purchase was worthwhile (though there will be a learning curve with the manual focus to get the best out of this camera). I still do not have the camera as the shop is getting a new viewfinder and lens for me, but the kit is going to include the following:
Mamiya RB67 Pro S
220 Back
120 Back
WAISTLEVEL LATE (SINGLE ACTION) viewfinder
MAGNIFIER HOOD RIGID viewfinder
90 F3.8 (don't know if it is a C or not)

Any suggestions one what else would be useful? Accessories seem cheap. I was thinking I would use the my Nikon FE as a spot light meter to start. For landscape I guess I could also use my F4 or digital cameras with matrix metering for light meters also. This of course will not help for macro work.

I was thinking of:

CDS MAGNIFIER FINDER (would work good for macro work in tide pools I would think, plus it has a light meter)
CDS PRISM (again mainly for the light meter, I am going "old school" but not full "old school!")
50 F4.5 C (77) for both landscape work and 1:1 macro

Thanks

John

John Kossik said:

Mamiya RB67 Pro S
220 Back
120 Back
WAISTLEVEL LATE (SINGLE ACTION) viewfinder
MAGNIFIER HOOD RIGID viewfinder
90 F3.8 (don't know if it is a C or not)

Click to expand...

That's fine for a start, although you will probably never use the 220 back as film has become impossible to find. Maybe you can the shop whether they could convert the 220 back to 120 film or buy another 120 back. Having a spare magazine is very convenient.

Any suggestions one what else would be useful?

Click to expand...

A developing tank with a 120 spiral. If you use black and white film, developing it yourself is fairly simple. Often simpler than trying to find a lab. Maybe a scanner or an enlarger, then.

For landscape I guess I could also use my F4 or digital cameras with matrix metering for light meters also.

Click to expand...

A hand meter is simpler to use and often more accurate as it measures incident and not reflected light.

This of course will not help for macro work.

Click to expand...

Nobody with common sense would consider the RB67 for macro. You are welcome to try, since it appears that it is one of your main motivations, but I bet that you will quickly find out that the larger the sensor size and the less automated the camera, the more difficult it is to shoot macro.

Thanks for the input on the RB67

Thanks for the input on the RB67. I knew that 220 film was difficult to find but the guy at the repair shop wanted me to take it anyways. Once I get some experience is this the place to post some of my results?

thanks again

Dawid Loubser said:

For landscape work in extremely confined spaces, I continue to derive great joy from the RB67 and 37mm Fisheye lens, using Ilford Pan F film exposed at ISO32 (from last week-end, a spontaneous and lovely road trip with my wife):

Bridal Veil Falls

(Ilford Pan F @ ISO32, Sekor-C 37mm f/4.5 lens, Mamiya RB67)​

Pan F is, in general, lovely for high-key images, with astounding resolving power in 6x7cm format:

Long Tom Cannon

(Ilford Pan F @ ISO32, Sekor-C 140mm f/4.5 Macro lens, Mamiya RB67)​

After more than 4 years of using the RB67 (and starting this thread!) I have to admit that I am curious about getting a digital camera again, but every time I look at digital monochrome imagery I am sorely disappointed at the "plasticky", linear look. I wonder if it is possible to, using some sort of tone mapping on HDR imagery (for a single exposure from any digital camera cannot have the dynamic range of either images above) achieve the Pan F "look" without ending up with the over-cooked HDR look?

After maintaining the discipline to process - by hand - hundreds of 6x7cm and 4x5in negatives, digital is sometimes tempting again, but I suspect I will just be disappointed with the monochrome output. I am barely shooting any 35mm anymore though - the RB67 is simply to great a tool, it commands most of my photographic attention at this time.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend using a digital back on your RB (a friend of mine uses one "AFD-fit" via a dedicated adapter), it will simply restrict your imaging area too much… Never the less, I am sure you can achieve the desired DR of Pan-F using digital.

Dawid Loubser said:

And a couple of more conventional recent images:

Twisted Axle

(Ilford FP4+ [6x7cm], Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 140mm Macro at f/4.5)

Domain of the crab

(Kodak TMY400-2 [6x7cm], Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 37mm at f/22)

Secret cup

(Ilford FP4+ [6x7cm], Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 140mm Macro at f/4.5)

Nature's outlines

(Ilford FP4+ [6x7cm], Mamiya RB67, Sekor (first gen) 250mm at f/4.5)​

The technical and aesthetic qualities of the ancient 250mm lens (that I got for free with the body so to speak) has always impressed me. A combination of qualities quite similar to the Zeiss Sonnar tele lenses for the older Hasselblads, in a lens that - though a heavy beast - can be had for free almost.

I always gut such a kick out of not having to spend megabucks on a Zeiss or Leica short tele (something in the 120mm f/2.2 range would be equivalent) to try and get the results I am after in 35mm or Digital. The closest I have is the Zuiko 90mm f/2.0 Macro for the Olympus OM system - the only lens I did not sell when I decided to get out of the system - but with its mystical qualities and all, it can't hold candle to the output of the RB and this old junker 250mm lens.

Hence my continued show of love for the system in this thread I know that some members here have, in the past year to two, started to use the RB system also after some exchanges of personal messages. I'd love to hear from you in this thread!

Click to expand...

The thing with RB (or the fuji GX680) is that it's so easy to achieve great Bokeh… Can you please share how you scan your Negs Dawid?

Mamiya RB67 Pro S Purchase

B&H photo in NYC has 220 in stock (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Format_220&ci=2545&N=4294548524+4130468173). I hope my photographic skills are up to the task of a 6x7 all manual camera.

John Kossik said:

B&H photo in NYC has 220 in stock (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Format_220&ci=2545&N=4294548524+4130468173).

Click to expand...

At over 3 times the price of 120 film... Try to find another 120 back, they are not that hard to find. Keep in mind that many need their foam seals replaced, though (not difficult to do).

Jerome Marot said:

On technique, I am a bit surprised by the bokeh on "Nature's outlines". Is that a common occurrence with that lens?

Click to expand...

Hi Jerome,

What aspect of the out-of-focus rendition do you find surprising? To me, it has particularly smooth rendition, considering that that particular image is a torture-test in that regards - we all know what tree branches and over-exposed sky look like on most lenses... usually terrible.

In other situations, it's an absolute smooth delight. I think the old first-gen 250/4.5 probably does better than the newer, better-corrected versions. Anyway, it's typical yes.

Theodoros Fotometria said:

The thing with RB (or the fuji GX680) is that it's so easy to achieve great Bokeh… Can you please share how you scan your Negs Dawid?

Click to expand...

I agree, Theodoros. Even the 50mm f/4.5C lens - a 23mm-equivalent wide angle - has such smooth, gentle out-of-focus rendition that adds depth to any image.

Anyway - about half of the images I've posted here were darkroom prints on 8x10 or 11x14 paper, scanned with an Epson V700. The other half were scanned directly using that same scanner.

I started out using VueScan, and post-processing in Apple Aperture - until I switched fully to GNU Linux and open-source software, where I use xSane to scan, and Darktable to post-process.

Dawid Loubser said:

What aspect of the out-of-focus rendition do you find surprising?

Click to expand...

I asked that question over a year ago but if memory does not fail me, I found the shape of the out of focus highlights curious: round, but with some kind of five-point spiral in them. It is that picture:

Jerome Marot said:

I asked that question over a year ago but if memory does not fail me, I found the shape of the out of focus highlights curious: round, but with some kind of five-point spiral in them.

Click to expand...

Yes, Jerome is correct. Here I've blown up one of the Out-of-Focus highlights, and 'enhanced' the pattern.


It looks like a five armed starfish. Could it be caused by an irregularity in the electronic leaf-shutter, how many leaves does that shutter have?

Cheers,
Bart