Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-08-2012, 06:02 PM   #16
Veteran Member
kaiserz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NoVa The "burg"
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 899
Original Poster
Just an update guys (:

I think the camera is working fine. I only got 19 photos out of 24, I'm thinking it's my fault for opening the film door when I was trying to take out the film for the first time. Or it can be the local walgreens.

Flash was also working flawlessly, I need to get used to focusing with the catzeye like screen, but overall I'm very very happy (:




Also do you guys have any cheap suggestion on how to get film to digital? My local walgreens charged me 9 bucks for this...

04-08-2012, 08:54 PM   #17
Senior Member
average-guy's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 102
QuoteOriginally posted by kaiserz Quote
Also do you guys have any cheap suggestion on how to get film to digital? My local walgreens charged me 9 bucks for this..
I recently purchased and Epson v500 photo from Epson, they had them on clearance for $99 US with free shipping and a 1 year warranty. I replaced my Minolta negative scanner that died. The Epson works well and does medium format negatives. For web and smaller prints up to 8X10 (maybe a little bigger), I think it will do fine, for anything larger or if I'm in need of max resolution/control I print optically using an enlarger. If you have a Wal-Mart available, my local Walmart charges me $3 for develop only and another $3 for a CD if I want one. The second picture shows a light leak, could this frame been on the end of the roll where you accidentally opened the camera back? Sometimes light leaks can be cool looking.

Edit: I forgot to include the link to Epson's website, the clearance sale is off, but they are still a little cheaper than normal.
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-16223
04-08-2012, 09:28 PM   #18
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
QuoteOriginally posted by kaiserz Quote
Ohh CLA ic ic (: that's a new word for me. Thanks. So far I'm very happy with the camera I just don't know if it has any leaks and stuff like that but I'll find out when I get the film developed. Also where's a good place to hace this developed? the only palce I know is walgreens.

Particle accelerator hehehe (:
Short of a full CLA, you should at least consider replacing the light seals and mirror bumper foam. My Super Program (similar vintage) required both when I got it. The main issues are potential light leaks at the film door and damage to the mirror and/or focus screen. The last point is not particularly obvious until you see a bad bumper. The foam degenerates into a gooey sticky mess that gets flung around the mirror box during mirror travel. It is difficult to remove from the (very) fragile mirror and focus screen surfaces, so an ounce of prevention is very useful here.

To check the foams take a toothpick and touch the inside of the light trap groove at the top or bottom of the film chamber opening. You should feel springy foam. If you feel nothing or if it is sticky, the foams need replacing. You can do the same thing with the mirror bumper. It is at the top of the mirror box where the leading edge of the mirror rests during an exposure.

Replacement of the foams can be done as a DIY project and inexpensive kits (about $10 USD) are available from a fellow named Jon Goodman. He used to sell on eBay as interslice, but now operates from e-mail referral only. PM me and I will give you his address.


Steve
04-09-2012, 09:15 AM   #19
Veteran Member
kaiserz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NoVa The "burg"
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 899
Original Poster
@average-guy Thank you sir (: I will look into that. Also do you develop your own film? or have your local walmart do it for you? cause I'm afraid that they might not do a good job. And yes sir I believe that, that was a leak from me opening the film door, I also think that it's cool. It makes me feel that this was shot by a film camera(which it is XD ). Is there a way to purposely do this kind of effects?

@stevebrot Thank you sir, I'm going to check once I finish this roll of film (:

04-09-2012, 04:02 PM   #20
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
Normally one adds funky lighting effects in post processing rather than messing up the negative, unless its a multiple exposure sort of thing. If you really like playing with film, find one of the near free darkroom setups that always seem to turn up on craigslist and load some black and white film into your camera, then you can make whatever strange effects you like in the darkroom on the paper. Its very satisfying to go from a roll of new film to a finished print all by yourself. You could do color yourself too, but to say its a bit fiddly is an understatement. Many people have the color developed and then use a scanner but at that point I'd just use the DSLR as you've killed most of the film quality scanning it anyways.

Something you may find useful:
chromogenic.net - How To Develop Your Own Film
Darkroom | BH inDepth
04-09-2012, 05:36 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 579
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
Many people have the color developed and then use a scanner but at that point I'd just use the DSLR as you've killed most of the film quality scanning it anyways.
Really? What is your basis for this statement? Exactly what aspects of colour film quality are "killed" by scanning?

I do agree that use of a DSLR is a more direct route to high quality colour than scanning, but it is entirely possible to produce excellent scans from film if you know what you are doing.

I would certainly not recommend film to beginners in photography. On the other hand, I would not dismiss film, particularly medium and large format, as a medium for high-quality colour work. You are not doing anyone a favour by making very confiident comments in an area where your experience is obviously limited.

My comments are based on over 15 years' experience doing publication/gallery quality scanning.

John
04-09-2012, 07:46 PM   #22
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
publication/gallery quality scanning
I'm quite certian you do have far more experience than me, but for the other 95% of us who don't have commercial scanners or medium format cameras I still say its DSLR or full do it yourself film.
I fully agree the best image quality possible in photography would come from a professional scan of larger format film. I should have been more specific since I was referring to the current situation of a person asking about scanning 35mm at home.
Many people do get results they like from home scanning of color 35mm, but in everything I have seen the quality is no better than a DSLR at that point so I feel it defeats the purpose of using film in the first place and the DSLR can do it much easier.
04-09-2012, 07:54 PM - 2 Likes   #23
Veteran Member
kaiserz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NoVa The "burg"
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 899
Original Poster
I don't know. There's just something about film that I enjoy. Maybe because I'm new to it? maybe because there's the thrill of me getting a great shot? The joy of seeing that I got an awesome shot? The Idea that I need to save my exposure because I only have 5 left? or just plain using manual everything on such an awesome piece of equipment that only a few people can appreciate. I dunno (: I'm happy with the 1mp or 2 mp that I got from my local walgreens. I guess I'm doing this for the love of photography (:

04-09-2012, 08:42 PM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
Many people do get results they like from home scanning of color 35mm, but in everything I have seen the quality is no better than a DSLR at that point so I feel it defeats the purpose of using film in the first place and the DSLR can do it much easier.
What you are seeing are relatively small images, so I can forgive the inaccurate perception. Part of your comment jumped out at me, though...
So? What IS the purpose of using film "in the first place"?
I scan 35mm film at home and am pretty happy with the results. Happy enough, in fact, that I do about half my shooting with 35mm film. Why do you supposed I would do such a thing? After all, I am an experienced photographer (almost 45 years at this point). You would think that something as obviously superior as current generation digital slrs would send me fleeing from those nasty film burners!

Heck! I am incredibly impressed with my K10D and with most of the current crop dSLRs. Why would I even look at a film camera? Is it so that I can build "street cred" and blend in with the hipsters? (The Kiev is super good for that...) Is it it simply for the aesthetic of working with precision tools. (Hmmm...the FED-2 is on the ragged edge of any definition of precision...) Perhaps I have too much time on my hands? Perhaps I have a strong masochistic tendency just below the surface, anxious to break out? Perhaps, I am just not too bright?

Is it to take advantage of the "FF Experience" on a budget? Even better if one moves up the scale to medium and large format. (I did...and like that world too!) Even if it means $$$ and cumbersome gear. (Ever try to focus on a ground glass with even mild presbyopia?) Aside: In all fairness, there is a hidden blessing to larger negatives; that being that even moderate scanner resolution delivers exceptional detail and tons of data.

Now to add a few comments:
  • I can do excellent landscape work with a 35mm SLR equipped with either a moderately-priced 28mm or a somewhat more expensive 24mm rather than breaking the bank for the DA 15/3.5 Limited. No purple fringing either.
  • I don't own a commercial scanner, though both my machines are capable of providing results similar to those from a traditional wet darkroom using the same negatives, perhaps even a little bit better
  • My total investment in film gear in the last couple of years could have bought me a nice new FF dSLR (should probably have not invested in the 4x5 and lenses to use with it)
  • I have never sold a photo in my life, so I am truly not a pro
  • While I actually prefer to do my color shooting with the K10D, I can, without reservation, state that a 6x7 Ektar negative from the Chamonix scanned on the V700 blows it away by at least an order of magnitude in quality. A 35mm negative with the same film is only about twice as good as the K10D, though that requires a better scanner such as the generally available, moderately priced, and very good Minolta models. I wish I could recommend the Nikon model that I use, but current street price is simply ridiculously high.

Fingers are tired...


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-09-2012 at 08:50 PM.
04-09-2012, 11:12 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 579
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
I'm quite certian you do have far more experience than me, but for the other 95% of us who don't have commercial scanners or medium format cameras I still say its DSLR or full do it yourself film.
I fully agree the best image quality possible in photography would come from a professional scan of larger format film. I should have been more specific since I was referring to the current situation of a person asking about scanning 35mm at home.
Many people do get results they like from home scanning of color 35mm, but in everything I have seen the quality is no better than a DSLR at that point so I feel it defeats the purpose of using film in the first place and the DSLR can do it much easier.
Having semi-retired, my only scanner is an Epson V700. A lot of "experts" consider that a "home" scanner. I work in a corner of one room of my home, not a big lab. My entire collection of medium format gear cost about the same as a K-5. As a salaried employee for the last 20 years of my career, I acquired a steady stream of fairly advanced gear, but I didn't get to take it home when I retired.

I am able to produce large prints that very sophisticated viewers find technically excellent- from 35mm as well as larger formats. It is a matter of knowing what you are doing, not of having enormously expensive equipment. My main investment has been in time and effort learning to scan and edit images properly. I think that after over 40 years as a photographer I know what a good image looks like.

A lot of "home scanning", and nearly all scanning from labs, looks like crap because the people involved do not scan properly, do not edit properly, and have not taken the trouble to learn the difference between a technically excellent image and a crappy one.

I shoot 35mm because it's fun, takes me to my photograhic roots, and produces results that are received with respect in the fine art world. If I wasn't getting the results, I wouldn't waste my time.

I shoot medium format because it blows away any digital camera I can afford right now..

I also get very fine results with digital. I would have no problem replacing 35mm with digital if I had to. For someone entering photography, I would certainly recommend a good DSLR over 35mm film.

With my best lenses and very fine grain film, I am able to squeak out larger prints than I woud make from 15 megapixel camera files.The difference is not great and would not be noticeable to most people at "normal viewing distances." Nonethless, I can do it.

I can certainly understand why you wonder about the benefits of 35mm film vs. DSLR. You are asking a good question. I won't quarrel with your conclusion that
DSLRs are a better bet technically speaking, particularly if you get into the 24 megapixel range.

On the other hand, you are not justified in writing off 35mm film as a serious medium.

Cheers

John
04-10-2012, 07:32 AM   #26
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
I suppose I should state before I get hate mail I am still a film lover first and a digital lover far second (these finicky DSLR's are clearly making a deal with the devil). If excellent results can be had with home scanning of 35mm without using equipment that exceeds the cost of a new K5 (which I can't afford anyways) then I want in. I suppose I made my generalizations because in general as you say people really do a botch job of getting the image from the film to the file. It especially seemed obvious when a person zoomed in (or made larger) a scanned image at which point it was very obviously scanned. I need to study you people that somehow make it work for more than a little web page picture.
I won't even start on the circus that is getting the image OFF the computer and onto paper since there the DSLR's have to fight the same battle.
04-10-2012, 08:08 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,929
QuoteOriginally posted by kaiserz Quote
I guess I'm doing this for the love of photography (:
Couldn't be more eloquently stated!
04-10-2012, 09:25 AM   #28
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
I suppose I made my generalizations because in general as you say people really do a botch job of getting the image from the film to the file. It especially seemed obvious when a person zoomed in (or made larger) a scanned image at which point it was very obviously scanned.
A lot of times the original negatives are nothing to write home about. Other times it is simply lack of expertise with the scanner. As for something being obviously scanned. Visible grain is usually the big giveaway. Tons of artifact might be another. I supposed I could post a couple of shots where I have both scanned and K10D photos of the same subject. In fact, that sounds like a great idea for a new thread. Many of us carry both cameras in the bag and end up with duplicates...one film, the other full digital.


Steve
04-10-2012, 09:26 AM   #29
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
If excellent results can be had with home scanning of 35mm without using equipment that exceeds the cost of a new K5 (which I can't afford anyways) then I want in.
A used Minolta Dual Scan IV or 5400 might be your ticket. Generally less at auction than a new V700 with excellent performance.


Steve
04-10-2012, 03:13 PM   #30
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
QuoteOriginally posted by kaiserz Quote
Also do you guys have any cheap suggestion on how to get film to digital?
You've done very well with your first film camera judging by the examples you posted. But to answer your question I take most of my film to Walgreens for developing. I don't get prints, I just have them develop the film and put the scans on a disc. Take a look in their weekly circular ads, they're usually on the counter where you drop off your film. About every other week there's a coupon for film processing or scans on a CD for $0.99. I also get the bulk discount at 10% off all my photo stuff there because I have an account with them. This takes the cost to about $3-4 per roll of film developed there. I hope that helps.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, condition
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Balance between a teaching camera and a backup camera for my K-5 MSL Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 03-08-2012 08:08 PM
The 'next' camera/2nd camera that you have interest to buy? LFLee Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 10-28-2011 10:13 AM
Help me assess: Pentax Digital Camera Utility vs In Camera JPEG Arrvon Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 19 09-18-2011 10:47 AM
Camera profile in Lightroom and Camera RAW AKum8 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 06-05-2011 08:54 AM
1001 Noisy Camera's are searching for the camera of the year - Voting is open interested_observer Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 12-20-2010 07:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top