First time with full manual - expectations vs reality

Major

Major

Suspended / Banned
Messages
403
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello folks.

Finally most my orders have arrived! Came back from work and spotted 2 boxes and one envelope, which contained Pentax Spotmatic SP1000, Helios 44M-4 f/2.0 58mm and roll of Agfa Vista 200 :D


DSC_2337
by Tom Major, on Flickr

First thing that was very noticeable was weight of the set, this camera surely makes my Nikon feel flimsy :). After quick check I determined that little Pentax works as it should - with small exception of light meter switch - it keeps sticking when shutter is released, but I found way around it. I've cleaned the lot a little and loaded film into camera. Original plan was to go out, take 24 snaps quickly and come back home - after all it can't be that difficult to twist two rings and press the button ;). Came back after nearly 3 hours. Focusing isn't as easy as I expected, playing with exposure took me a while too, but I couldn't find any interesting subjects at all - ended up with shots of flowers, few cars and my little village (not that I mind, it was supposed to be test roll anyway, to determine how body will behave). Other than that I forgot to cock it fairly few times too :D

Tomorrow I am going to the local lab to process the film and make some prints, but even without seeing the result I know I am hooked. It was completely new experience, very different to shooting with DSLR. Lack of instant preview, no post processing and small capacity of 'memory' actually made me think and adjust composition few times, then check focus over and over again, then exposure, focus again before every shutter release.

I would never think I will like it that much. 45 quid well spent! ;). It was also funny to see reaction of my 8 yo daughter after I took photo of her - "what do you mean I can't see it now dad?" :D :D
 
Major said:
but I couldn't find any interesting subjects at all
Click to expand...

..and that's my problem, so no point getting a super duper £1000 digi camera when it takes me 6 weeks to get thru' a 36 exp roll of film...and 12 shots of those were doing a pano of my back garden. :D
 
Usually when I go out I don't struggle with subject as such. Today however was different as I only wanted to go through one roll, but had no idea what to picture. Mind you, my garden was first place I went to :D :D
 
Major said:
Usually when I go out I don't struggle with subject as such. Today however was different as I only wanted to go through one roll, but had no idea what to picture. Mind you, my garden was first place I went to :D :D
Click to expand...

Well I know what you mean as when I pick up cameras or lenses from the bootie, I can get through a roll of film quicker checking\testing, but then would only take about 8 shots and wind the film back and put in another camera....if there is a light leak why ruin the whole roll.
 
Which Spottie is that, Tomasz? Looks very nice, but I was expecting to see a model name on the left of the prism. My first SLR was a Spotmatic, a lovely black one, yum!
 
Its tough after coming from a digital background to shoot I think, without inhibition.
Garry Winogrand when asked why he shoots said that he wanted to see what things looked like photographed, on the other hand, he left a stupendous amount of exposed film unprocessed when he kicked the bucket, so he can't have been in much of a rush to see em.
I think we shoot digital the way we do partly because it doesn't matter, there is no cost to wastage, but also because we want to see what things look like in a photo, and you can do that instantly with digital, testing cameras aside, we don't always shoot something because we think it will be a good capture.
I'm doing that a lot with 35mm, shooting lots of nothing, it feels good at the time but once its been on the scanner and it is exactly what I shot......nothing.....I feel a bit empty.
I don't do that with 6x6, sometimes I go out to shoot and don't shoot anything at all, but if the scene/conditions whatever are right, I can rattle through a few rolls in no time.
 
I was startled to read that you had trouble focussing, Tomasz, but then maybe you've only known autofocus till now, which might explain it? I never found focussing a problem with an analogue slr, even with a plain screen without focussing aids. I hope that you enjoy the journey.
 
Maybe not troubble as such, but it was a little bit more involving than on DSLR. I did try manual focus on my Nikon (once or twice, so concept wasn't new to me), but it still doesn't come close when one uses live view and 100% magnification :). I think all photos I took should be in focus, and I feel like I nailed it few times, but have to wait for results :)

Perhaps another thing is lack of diopter? I'll have to check with lenses.
 
If you get bored with your 58mm lens...I can recommend these screw lenses that I have...no 28mm but anyway am not sure a 28mm screw lens is up to the sharper later common 28mm....also screw zoom lenses are a bit iffy and not as good as later ones
35mm super Tak, 35mm CZJ Flektogon, 135mm super Tak, 135mm CZJ Sonnar, 135mm Meyer or Pentacon, 135 Fujinon, 200mm Meyer or Pentacon, 200mm fujinon...there are plenty of other makes to play with and was surprised from the results of an old Galaxy 135mm and Palinar 135mm (both manually f-stop down only).
Have fun
 
joxby said:
Its tough after coming from a digital background to shoot I think, without inhibition.
Garry Winogrand when asked why he shoots said that he wanted to see what things looked like photographed, on the other hand, he left a stupendous amount of exposed film unprocessed when he kicked the bucket, so he can't have been in much of a rush to see em.
I think we shoot digital the way we do partly because it doesn't matter, there is no cost to wastage, but also because we want to see what things look like in a photo, and you can do that instantly with digital, testing cameras aside, we don't always shoot something because we think it will be a good capture.
I'm doing that a lot with 35mm, shooting lots of nothing, it feels good at the time but once its been on the scanner and it is exactly what I shot......nothing.....I feel a bit empty.
I don't do that with 6x6, sometimes I go out to shoot and don't shoot anything at all, but if the scene/conditions whatever are right, I can rattle through a few rolls in no time.
Click to expand...
Some of the great old photographers left their exposed films undeveloped for a longer period of time to distance themselfes from the experience and mood when doing that particular roll. That way they could evaluate and print images without bias from the shooting experience
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always find these write-ups of people trying film fascinating

Having had around 25 years of film before moving to digital I can honestly say the film process was no enjoyment whatsoever, and its certainly not something I'd ever wish to go back to

I was chatting to a waitress at Saturday's Wedding who had just completed her Art degree where photography was a significant part, and she too loved using film

Weird innit :D

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I can honestly say the film process was no enjoyment whatsoever
Click to expand...

Like you, I don't enjoy using film. Film cameras, yes; they are better designed for the way I work. But film per se, with the developing, scanning etc., no. But unlike you, I can't get the results I want with digital; the prints from large format (and even medium format) film have a quality that digital can't match. (I'm using a Sony a7r11 as my basis for print quality). So I'm sticking with film.

If you don't need instant results, and are happy to send film off to be processed etc. then for my usage/subjects, film has no downsides and digital many.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I always find these write-ups of people trying film fascinating

Having had around 25 years of film before moving to digital I can honestly say the film process was no enjoyment whatsoever, and its certainly not something I'd ever wish to go back to

I was chatting to a waitress at Saturday's Wedding who had just completed her Art degree where photography was a significant part, and she too loved using film

Weird innit :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, not everyone has the skills and patience to get the best from film and probably the ease of using digital suits these people better. I actually enjoy the whole process of using film, including the developing and scanning. Weird innit. :D
 
Andysnap said:
I actually enjoy the whole process of using film, including the developing and scanning. Weird innit. :D
Click to expand...

Very :D

I only went into a darkroom twice. The first was to see what all the fuss was about, the second was by mistake lol

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Very :D

I only went into a darkroom twice. The first was to see what all the fuss was about, the second was by mistake lol

Dave
Click to expand...

I do intend to have a darkroom one day, although there is a part of me that thinks I'll go in, trip over something, bang me 'ead and then leave, locking the door forever. :)
 
DG Phototraining said:
I always find these write-ups of people trying film fascinating

Having had around 25 years of film before moving to digital I can honestly say the film process was no enjoyment whatsoever, and its certainly not something I'd ever wish to go back to

I was chatting to a waitress at Saturday's Wedding who had just completed her Art degree where photography was a significant part, and she too loved using film

Weird innit :D

Dave
Click to expand...
I like film. Its so simple, archiveable and a physical media. Very enjoyable to me.
 
Loretta, thank you for lens recommendation. Will deffo need to try something wider. So far I used 50, 58, 55-200, 70-300 and missed that short range and wide field of view.

Dave, I found film photography fascinating :). Maybe because it requires a bit more from the camera operator than DSLR? Or because like Soeren says, it is much more physical? I found it amazing that camera older than my mother is still able to take pictures, and very good ones at that - looking from technical side of course, as that first roll does not have any artistic value at all ;)

Not long ago came back from the lab with my photos :D :D :D

What can I say, pictures are nice and sharp, evenly exposed, with that certain feel, colours look like film was used decades ago (I shot Vista 200), but most amazing thing was actually putting few photos into the album! :D

Out of 24 shots I had two with blown details (white flower surrounded by dark green weeds), one slightly underexposed ( done into the sun) and three with missed focus - not by much, but still enough hide them instead of putting on the wall. I nailed focus in more pics than I initially thought too. If I find a way of sharing them here I will, but can't think of anything now.

I also found out that my lab of choice - Dents Photo - processes mono only on Mondays, as they do it by hand in a darkroom, but are able to get prints ready within one hour in colour. For that reason I bought a roll of Ilford XP2, so I have little bit more flexibility regarding going to the city. Glad I did as I still didn't receive HP5+ I ordered on eBay. Price wise it's not bad either. Processed film in sleeves and 6x4 prints came to total of 7 quid, so including the price of film it will come close to 15 quid for 36 exposures. Not bad at all!

All in all it is wonderful experience and I'm glad I did it. It will be nice side jump from digital for sure. Just need more lenses now :D

BTW, what would be the maximum size of print I could aim for from 35mm film?
 
@Major film has a good latitude and your lab will try their best to even out lousy exposures to give you nice shots, you need to try slide film to really find out how good your exposures are :D

I would happily argue that digital is more involving and more operator based than film, all you're really doing differently is focusing a manual lens; on that subject, only 3 with missed focus is pretty good for a first effort :) Now go try shooting a running kid and see how many you nail lol - I must have binned LOADS of blurred photos of my wee ones

While its not for me any more, I hope you have TONS of fun using that stringy stuff :D Enjoy

Dave
 
The reason why you struggled to find a subject to photograph was the pressure you put yourself under.

"I must use all this film to test the camera" would have out you on a hiding to nothing.

I started with film in the early 80's, first at school as an "option" and then parents bought me a darkroom setup for my 16th.

Great, fantastic magical days.
 
Thanks a lot :).

Any recommendations of slide film Dave? Would like to try for sure :D

So far I'd say film is more involving, but I'm not gonna argue since I only just licked it :D. Maybe it's because I'm not used to that yet.

Running kids are on to do list - I've seen fast jets shot with film so I guess with little practice it is doable - I will find out soon enough ;).


Terry,
very valid point indeed. I did put myself under little pressure as I wanted to know how to finalise transaction on ebay and if I should send the camera back or not. Otherwise I wouldn't really go out - had long day at work, little sleep night before and generally wasn't in the mood for photos. I am glad I went after all.
 
Last edited:
Major said:
Thanks a lot :).

Any recommendations of slide film Dave? Would like to try for sure :D

So far I'd say film is more involving, but I'm not gonna argue since I only just licked it :D. Maybe it's because I'm not used to that yet.

Running kids are on to do list - I've seen fast jets shot with film so I guess with little practice it is doable - I will find out soon enough ;).


Terry,
very valid point indeed. I did put myself under little pressure as I wanted to know how to finalise transaction on ebay and if I should send the camera back or not. Otherwise I wouldn't really go out - had long day at work, little sleep night before and generally wasn't in the mood for photos. I am glad I went after all.
Click to expand...

The choice of slide film is very limited. Fuji Velvia 100, there is a 50 but I believe it has been discontinued, Agfa Precisa and Fuji Provia 100 and thats about uour lot.
They are more difficult to meter for but the resilts are a bit spesh.
Have a look at the Kodak Velvia group on flickr, some lovely examples on there.
 
Andysnap said:
The choice of slide film is very limited. Fuji Velvia 100, there is a 50 but I believe it has been discontinued, Agfa Precisa and Fuji Provia 100 and thats about uour lot.
They are more difficult to meter for but the resilts are a bit spesh.
Have a look at the Kodak Velvia group on flickr, some lovely examples on there.
Click to expand...


What he said ^^^ :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Now go try shooting a running kid and see how many you nail lol - I must have binned LOADS of blurred photos of my wee ones
Click to expand...

You can get good AF film cameras as I had that problem too..e.g. Nikon F90x the AF is quite fast and for a comparison against digi is a least as fast as an older Canon 400d
 
excalibur2 said:
You can get good AF film cameras as I had that problem too..e.g. Nikon F90x the AF is quite fast and for a comparison against digi is a least as fast as an older Canon 400d
Click to expand...

Yep - my later film cameras were all autofocus and very good at it too, the OP's isn't though and that's what I was referring to :)

Dave
 
soeren said:
Some of the great old photographers left their exposed films undeveloped for a longer period of time to distance themselfes from the experience and mood when doing that particular roll. That way they could evaluate and print images without bias from the shooting experience
Click to expand...

Yeah, I binge develop, same thing but different reason.
I don't understand the race to see stuff anyway.
Can't be 4r5ed to break out all my dev gear for a couple of rolls of film, I do em in like....20's, which at the rates I shoot can put roll 1 and roll 20 months apart....which isn't that long compared with Winogrand, but then, he was a bit of a klepto for unprocessed film.
I dunno what that say's about him, that he could get so far behind, I'm not sure its all related to dispassionate evaluation.
There's also the printing angle, I mean, 1 roll of 12 could take me a week to get to the bottom of.
Film and Digi processes are so far removed from each other, there doesn't appear to be any point in comparing them.
 
No I wouldn't :D.

I tried asking in my lab. Basically what I was told it depends on the quality of negatives. Apparently I could go very big, but I also could go 12x8 :D
 
Major said:
BTW, what would be the maximum size of print I could aim for from 35mm film?
Click to expand...

Ha, I love how you threw that in there at the end of your comment as if it could be answered simply and easily... :runaway:

The most straightforward answer—which you've probably gathered by this point—is: it depends.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Yep - my later film cameras were all autofocus and very good at it too, the OP's isn't though and that's what I was referring to :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure he knows what we all did in the old days is to have a preset focus firing zone...h'mm if you can get the kids to run into it ;)
 
RJ, I did as I thought I could get simple answer :sorry:. I will do a proper research on it as I find it interesting that there is no fixed size of prints I could make.

Thanks for the link John (y)

excalibur2 said:
Well I'm sure he knows what we all did in the old days is to have a preset focus firing zone...h'mm if you can get the kids to run into it ;)
Click to expand...

Knowing my kids they will run everywhere but not into the preset focus zone :D

Edit:
Just reading linked thread and I can honestly say I had no idea that negative can contain so much data. Surely 12x8 won't be too much to ask for and I don't intend to go bigger yet :).
 
Last edited:
You wanna watch you don't tie yourself up in knots reading some of the stuff in that thread.
I'm much more of a rule of thumb kinda geezer, if you start talking dpi in the multi thousands and silver crystals, I glaze over.
The first question is print.....optical wet.....or print from file
Then its distance to be viewed at, since I know a wet print of 35mm @ 12x8 is good to go at pretty much any distance, as long as the neg is decent, everything from here is now a digital scan question.
I'm not qualified to comment on scanning, I scan for the internet, not to print from file, the res is what it is and it either looks ok on screen or it doesn't, that's as deep as I care to go.
If I had to smash you with a rule of thumb, and its just imo, a 4000dpi by a decent dedicated scanner will make a good 12x8, maybe bigger I dunno, but the variables are numerous and the law of diminishing returns will begin to become a factor sooner or later...:)
 
A factor in how much enlargement an original can bear might be the presence and degree of what we used to call camera shake ...
 
Major said:
No I wouldn't :D.

I tried asking in my lab. Basically what I was told it depends on the quality of negatives. Apparently I could go very big, but I also could go 12x8 :D
Click to expand...



I've got 3 or 4 A3+ prints from film 3 of them from ISO400 print film where the grain is part of the attraction. Wouldn't really want to go any bigger than that (19x13 inches IIRC), although I did have some heavy crops from pushed Tri-X and HP-5 that I printed myself many years ago - again for the heavy grain. I seem to remember having seen "Blow Up" shortly before doing those prints...
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I shot motorsport in the 90's on FP4 and HP5.

Kiddies will be easy.
Click to expand...

As father of 6, I could find just SOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much to refute that suggestion!!!! Lol!

Kiddies are NEVER easy!
They start small and just keep you awake at night; make enormous amounts of work the rest of the time, whilst eating you out of house and home!
Then just get bigger problems as they get older!
Then 'Just' when you think it's all over, and they have left you to rebuild your world, and can buy that cream sofa you have always liked, but never dared have, or turn a bedroom into a hobby room, or or whatever... They hit you with a googlie or five, when you least expect it!
like a grand-child!
You may smile smugly, and say something like "Aha! now YOU know how it feels!" but they'll reply with something like "Yeah! But you WILL babysit, wont you!.. We're DESPERATE!" and dump it in your O/H's arms and RUN, quickly before you realise you've been suckered... A-G-A-I-N! lol.

What is it they say? Never work with Children or Animials! Give me an out of control rally car looming towards the drystone wall I'm perched on ANY day of the week! Lol!
 
Major said:
I will do a proper research on it as I find it interesting that there is no fixed size of prints I could make.
Click to expand...

Research in this area won't really get you very far. If you want to know the answer, you'll have to print a few photographs yourself and see what you're happy with. Even then, however, maximum print size will still vary from photograph to photograph due to film stock, camera shake, etc.
 
I agree with RJ. And I'll add in that what you're happy with will depend on your expectations and what you have to compare it with. If you've never seen a print from roll or sheet film you'll be lacking a touchstone of what quality you can get in a print. Unless you compare (say) a 6"x4" print from 35mm with larger ones and observe what happens when you enlarge the imperfections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top