Analog and chemical photography, films, darkroom
Discussion Last answer Replies / Clicks
Royalrat

Zorki 4 review

Quote: Royalrat 19.08.11, 14:14My friend and colleague Leonid, an old-school photographer, brought from Russia a magnificent collection of cameras. One item he agreed to sell, was the Zorki4, which he had a few in his stock. Leonid told me a lot about these cameras, and how much he loved them. Totally analogic, the Zorki4 is indeed a work of art, built with precision and ingenuity – could be because it’s a replica of the Leica II. While the Leica is very expensive, the Zorki4 is easy to find and much more affordable. As for the quality – after more than 50 years in use, I was eager to try and shoot with it.

The camera was manufactured in Russia at the late 50th by Krasnogorskiy Mechanicheskiy Zavo. The camera includes a Range-finding mechanism, which means you can handle the focus easily while looking inside the viewfinder. The view is not straight through the lens, since this is not a reflex camera and has no mirror, but you get some kind of double picture you need to combine inside the viewfinder.

The real problem is sensing the scale of the lens. With a rangefinder camera, you need to use a turret viewfinder (this device you see on top of the camera) that comes with 5 different changeable lenses. I used a 35mm Jupiter lens, so every time after focusing, I had to look through the turret viewfinder for fixing the composition. I admit it’s a little bit frustrating going through this process, but after a while you get used to it.

Another important thing you should notice when handling this mechanic camera, is not to change the shutter speed (4) before cocking the knob of the film position (1). Doing otherwise may damage the delicate mechanism, and I don’t think you’ll find a costumers service to fix it for you.
I was scheduled for reserve duty in July 2011, so I thought it was a good idea to take the Zorki4 for testing in the hot & sunny weather of the southern Gaza strip. Since this camera does not include a light meter, I chose a Fuji 100asa film, and took advantage of the bright daylight of the desert.

Here are the results:
http://royalrat.wordpress.com/2011/07/2 ... l-zorki-4/

Nice insights on the shooting experience, especially the rangefinder workflow. Did you find the focus accuracy consistent over time, or did the calibration drift given the camera’s age?
26.03.26, 05:06
Quote: Royalrat 19.08.11, 14:14My friend and colleague Leonid, an old-school photographer, brought from Russia a magnificent collection of cameras. One item he agreed to sell, was the Zorki4, which he had a few in his stock. Leonid told me a lot about these cameras, and how much he loved them. Totally analogic, the Zorki4 is indeed a work of art, built with precision and ingenuity – could be because it’s a replica of the Leica II. While the Leica is very expensive, the Zorki4 is easy to find and much more affordable. As for the quality – after more than 50 years in use, I was eager to try and shoot with it.

The camera was manufactured in Russia at the late 50th by Krasnogorskiy Mechanicheskiy Zavo. The camera includes a Range-finding mechanism, which means you can handle the focus easily while looking inside the viewfinder. The view is not straight through the lens, since this is not a reflex camera and has no mirror, but you get some kind of double picture you need to combine inside the viewfinder.

The real problem is sensing the scale of the lens. With a rangefinder camera, you need to use a turret viewfinder (this device you see on top of the camera) that comes with 5 different changeable lenses. I used a 35mm Jupiter lens, so every time after focusing, I had to look through the turret viewfinder for fixing the composition. I admit it’s a little bit frustrating going through this process, but after a while you get used to it.

Another important thing you should notice when handling this mechanic camera, is not to change the shutter speed (4) before cocking the knob of the film position (1). Doing otherwise may damage the delicate mechanism, and I don’t think you’ll find a costumers service to fix it for you.
I was scheduled for reserve duty in July 2011, so I thought it was a good idea to take the Zorki4 for testing in the hot & sunny weather of the southern Gaza strip. Since this camera does not include a light meter, I chose a Fuji 100asa film, and took advantage of the bright daylight of the desert.

Here are the results:
http://royalrat.wordpress.com/2011/07/2 ... l-zorki-4/

Nice insights on the shooting experience, especially the rangefinder workflow. Did you find the focus accuracy consistent over time, or did the calibration drift given the camera’s age?
8,360 clicks
johnjones4

Built an f-stop enlarger timer and want honest feedback

Hey everyone - I've been working on a DIY f-stop enlarger timer for my home darkroom and recently put together a 10-minute walkthrough video of it in action. I'm sharing it here because I'd genuinely love to hear what the darkroom community thinks. This is not a sales pitch. I'm still very much in the development and feedback stage, and I want to know whether this solves a real problem for other printers, what features matter most to you, what I've missed, and whether a kit or assembled version is something you'd actually want. If you have thoughts - positive, critical, or otherwise - please share them. That kind of honest input is exactly what I'm looking for at this stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNQ6Frt7SIs
87 clicks
ilkadj

Take Part In The Analogue, Digital and You Questionnaire

Quote: RethaKoch99 29.10.25, 03:30Quote: ilkadj 06.09.12, 16:20Hi there friend!

Lomography wants to know about the role analogue and digital have in your life and how you feel about the dominance of digital technology. Is this trend positive or a necessary evil in this day and age? What do you think?
Digital technology is undoubtedly a core part of our daily lives. How comfortable are you about being constantly within reach? Do you feel naked if you leave the house without your phone? Or do you love the freedom being without technology brings? We’d love to know does shooting on film and and other analogue activities help you keep a healthy balance between being online and offline? We would really appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to fill in the questionnaire and share your thoughts.

Also, please remember to hit ‘Submit’ at the end of the questionnaire otherwise your answers will not be registered.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to do this.

Answer the Questionnaire:

Great
6,534 clicks
Andy Collier

Zone system

17.10.24, 06:54
3,646 clicks
Deleted user

[Personal Blog] Inspired by a Kids 35mm Camera Photo Contest

17.10.24, 06:53
2,104 clicks
Deleted user

tri-x 400 dynamic range

Quote: Deleted user 19.04.15, 20:38Hi.

I'm looking into shooting on film as I like the look and feel of it. So I bought a canon ae1 and a 50mm lens from ebay. Got a roll of tri-x400 film and just went out and shot the whole roll in one day. I dropped it off at a local foto store but was a bit disappointed when I got the developed and printed fotos back. Generally all shots are lacking contrast. Looking at it in photoshop the values are clipped at a dark grey and light grey. So no real whites and no real blacks. I used the zone system to expose my shots but accidentally got a few underexposed shots and even they are clipped at a dark grey. https://www.surveyzo.com/lazy-acres-survey/
I'd like to look into developing the film myself but just want to find out at which stage I made a mistake.
Am I exposing wrong? But even then whites and blacks shouldn't be clipped, right?
Did the photo store do something wrong? Looking at the negative, as far as I can tell the range looks quite all right, completely transparent and fully opaque.
Maybe the negatives got fogged?

Thanks for your help,
Fabian


Hello,

It's possible that the issue lies with the film development process or handling at the photo store. If your negatives look fine with a good range of tones, but the printed photos lack contrast and have clipped values in Photoshop, it might indicate a problem during printing. It's unlikely that proper exposure alone would cause the extreme lack of contrast you're describing. The negatives being transparent and opaque suggests they are well-exposed.

Fogging of the negatives is less likely if you didn't notice any unusual artifacts or haziness on them. To narrow down the issue, you could try another roll of film, ensuring proper exposure, and have it developed at a different lab or attempt developing it yourself. This would help determine if the problem was with the initial development process. Remember that learning to develop film yourself can be a rewarding experience and give you more control over the final results.
10.08.23, 12:27
Quote: Deleted user 19.04.15, 20:38Hi.

I'm looking into shooting on film as I like the look and feel of it. So I bought a canon ae1 and a 50mm lens from ebay. Got a roll of tri-x400 film and just went out and shot the whole roll in one day. I dropped it off at a local foto store but was a bit disappointed when I got the developed and printed fotos back. Generally all shots are lacking contrast. Looking at it in photoshop the values are clipped at a dark grey and light grey. So no real whites and no real blacks. I used the zone system to expose my shots but accidentally got a few underexposed shots and even they are clipped at a dark grey. https://www.surveyzo.com/lazy-acres-survey/
I'd like to look into developing the film myself but just want to find out at which stage I made a mistake.
Am I exposing wrong? But even then whites and blacks shouldn't be clipped, right?
Did the photo store do something wrong? Looking at the negative, as far as I can tell the range looks quite all right, completely transparent and fully opaque.
Maybe the negatives got fogged?

Thanks for your help,
Fabian


Hello,

It's possible that the issue lies with the film development process or handling at the photo store. If your negatives look fine with a good range of tones, but the printed photos lack contrast and have clipped values in Photoshop, it might indicate a problem during printing. It's unlikely that proper exposure alone would cause the extreme lack of contrast you're describing. The negatives being transparent and opaque suggests they are well-exposed.

Fogging of the negatives is less likely if you didn't notice any unusual artifacts or haziness on them. To narrow down the issue, you could try another roll of film, ensuring proper exposure, and have it developed at a different lab or attempt developing it yourself. This would help determine if the problem was with the initial development process. Remember that learning to develop film yourself can be a rewarding experience and give you more control over the final results.
11,712 clicks
To the
top