the International Rollei Club

Hello all!

I'm brand new to the Rolleiflex space, and I have two questions (at the moment!). Both may be answered somewhere, but after an hour or two of searching on each I cannot find definitive answers. Thanks in advance!

1. Usage: When I look at Rollei flikr groups and things, all of the pictures have that lovely vintage look. The colors and everything have those muted, beautiful tones. I'm wondering what is responsible for this? Obviously each print is a complicated combination of factors, but if I take my Rolleiflex and put in some normal 120 film, and have it developed in the standard way, will I be seeing these vintage-esque colors and things? Or is it special film, special developing, after-effects? I hate to say this, but it's like a very subtle "instagram" filter effect, and i'm just wondering what is contributing most to it? An example of a shot I think is beautiful: https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamad ... 00033@N21/

2. Restoration: The Rolleiflex MX-EVS I ordered seems to be in great shape. Seller said it had a recent CLA, and works flawlessly.... Only thing I noticed is a little 'browning' of the leather on one side. Very minimal. Had a hard time finding information online about fixing that. Is it an effect of the leatherette aging? Or rust from the metal underneath? How does one 'clean' those brown spots? Here is the listing for reference: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolleiflex-Auto ... SwtnpXiHTT

The look? Beats me. Maybe it is just the look of scanned film, maybe post processing. Looks "normal" to me Maybe the newish way people process their digital images is just different from not processing too much? Maybe the person who took and processed the pic could tell you more about it.

The leather? Now the camera is some 60 years old ... what should one expect? Compare it to a 60 year old "unrestorde" car or lady! The paint is rubbing off a bit. Just leave it that way, don't try to improve the looks with silicon, injections or heavy make up (she still looks great! Compare her to other used 3,5B / MX-EVS!).

I may not have been clear. That was just one example photo amoung hundreds of thousands in the groups. It seems to me if you take all those photos and compare them to a modern DSLR photo, there is an undeniable difference. There is a vintage quality. I'm hoping it has to do with the camera, maybe the film.... If it's just common practice to photoshop everything before you put it online, that would be disappointing.

As for the 'look', I don't think wanting to clean up a camera is a bad thing. As for this particular issue, my understanding was that the leatherette was dyed in some way, not 'painted'. Can you clarify?

The leather (not leatherette, leatherette came some ten years later) was "blackened" in some way,, some 60 years ago. This blackening didn't go all the way through, so call it paint or dye or whatever.

If (in case) you "re-do" anything like it now, you are running the risk of not getting the look right (blueish purpleish black, leather like new but rest of camera still old, ...) and you are running the risk of having this new black ending in your very best white shirt in a few days (when the camera rubs onto your belly).

I don't think it is wrong to clean such a camera, but I would not "re-black" it.

Lens design plays a big part in the image quality. Modern lenses are all very contrasty and give the impression of sharpness and vivid saturation. The older European lenses seem atmospheric by comparison. I think you might find the image quality of your new camera is more subtly sharp and smoother in tonal separation than modern digital lenses. It will be only a subtle difference. Some of it will be because of the older single coated or uncoated lenses vs the modern multi coated. My multi coated HFT Planar on the 2.8FX is definitely contrastyer than my older 2.8F.