Tag: Pentax 6×7

For Warmer Weather

Pentax 6×7 – Lomo 100

Sewing projects – summer blouses of 100% cotton are nearly impossible to find these days. Everything has spandex. I hate buying clothes these days because of it – all it does is make me sweaty. I guess it’s time to learn how to make pants, too, because of all that crappy spandex. Or start wearing dresses.

This is another metered image from the Pentax 6×7 on Lomo 100.

For a Quiet Moment

Pentax 6×7 – Lomo 100

Recently I acquired a Pentax 6×7, probably from the earliest manufacturing date of 1969. It came complete with a 135mm f4 macro lens and an eye-level viewfinder. Of course, other lenses are available, as well as a waist-level viewfinder.

The first roll of film I shot was rubbish. Only 3 of 10 images emerged, and all were dreadfully under exposed. Having read that the loading of the 120 into the Pentax 6×7 could be tricky at times, I loaded up Lomo 100 color negative film into it twice. Light meter and tripod.

The results were very good. I had a very limited number of images as the goal was to bracket and see how upping the f/stop and dropping the exposure all worked. I am of the opinion that the shutter needed to be warmed up simply because all my images were exposed.

I took this picture to capture the light falling on a table, a couple of books, and a shawl early in the morning. There are 3 or 4 images of this, bracketed, so I decided it would be fun to merge them into an HDR. Photomatix did the trick. Composition isn’t great, but the colors are good. The sharpness of the lens also becomes evident.

The end result is the camera is being kept – I seriously considered returning it. Now I see adventures ahead for the two of us!

The Rock


No, not “the rock” known as Alcatraz, but a rock in the park down the way.

This is only one of three images that were exposed on a roll of Portra 400 on my new-to-me Pentax 6×7 with an 135mm f4 macro lens. First roll of film is very disappointing. Apparently, rumors on the ‘net say, there can be issues loading the film.

It also looks as if there could be exposure issues with 7 missing pictures, but let’s ascribe that to user error until I get a second roll through it, logged for subject and exposure, to see what’s up.

This roll was Portra 400, and it’s a sad statement at the present. Sooooo underexposed, and the pictures are essentially worthless except to see what happens.

I am not happy. I have another fortnight within which I can return the camera . . . but I did test the sounds of the exposures and they seem okay. Thus, let’s wait to see what happens in this next roll.

To even make this image somewhat presentable, I messed with it rather a bit – doesn’t even resemble Portra, much less the original image!