I love my K1000

jgredline · 03-21-2008, 06:14 PM

I must say, they did not come out to bad for a camera that is ''OLD'' I mean I am really pleasantly surprised. They seem to have a lot of noise and are a tad soft, but then again .99 cents film....Thoughts?.

Last edited by jgredline; 06-28-2008 at 04:27 PM.

woof · 03-21-2008, 07:18 PM

Who scanned those? Just wondering... did you or was that a part of processing to get them on a CD?

woof

jgredline · 03-21-2008, 07:25 PM

Woof
Simply put, I took the roll to CVS and they processed the film and put it on a cd for me. I do have a film scanner, but for $2.50, it is easier to have them do it. By the way, at CVS, you do not have to get the prints. So for the negatives, $2.50. cd $2.50 extra.Not bad I think.

woof · 03-21-2008, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

Woof
Simply put, I took the roll to CVS and they processed the film and put it on a cd for me. I do have a film scanner, but for $2.50, it is easier to have them do it. By the way, at CVS, you do not have to get the prints. So for the negatives, $2.50. cd $2.50 extra.Not bad I think.

No not bad at all.

But just the same try scanning them yourself. I'll bet they are less noisy. I've always noted a noise in CDs mastered in this way. Stopped doing it because of that and the color rendition just did not seem good either. See how somehow there is a pink cast to the sky in the first pictures..? I've seen that before. That's why I asked. I suspected it was processed for you.

I shoot a lot of film still. Like you I love my old manual cameras. I think I've already recommended Fuji Superia Reala to you. Not that expensive and well worth it for things that means something to you. By all means, use cheap stuff to play around, but also get some good stuff for once you are checked out. If you like the results with the cheap stuff...

Looks like your K1000 meter is spot on. Feed it some good film and keep up the good work.

woof

The following were taken with a 1957 Pentax using Fuji Reala and subsequently scanned by me.

jgredline · 03-21-2008, 09:50 PM

Woof. Those are some gorgeous photos!!! Tomorrow I will try scanning the negatives and see what happens. I suspect your right, because the first roll I took was not noisy at all.. This is what surprised me about this last roll. I also noticed that this second roll seemed a tad over saturated. ...By the way, I did pick up a 3 pack of Fuji Superia..Thanks!! I will be trying it out this weekend.

jgredline · 03-21-2008, 09:52 PM

Woof...I was just looking at those images again...Wow...1957 Pentax...I would say it has more to do with the fellow behind the lens though.

woof · 03-22-2008, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

Woof...I was just looking at those images again...Wow...1957 Pentax...I would say it has more to do with the fellow behind the lens though.

Thanks... I appreciate that... but more than anything I chose those pics because I love the color rendition and I wanted to show you what good film looks like in these old manual cameras...

Looking forward to you positing more from your K1000... Let us know how the scanning goes in comparison with the CD processing. I know it's a pain and sometimes a quick hit is more than worth the $2.50. On the other hand, at least when that really great shot comes along you'll know what to do... ;-)

Best,

woof

séamuis · 03-22-2008, 05:29 AM

I love mine as well. I don't think Pentax could reproduce a hit like the K1000 again if they tried. I actually use my K1000 more than my superA. One question though, what scanners do yall use to scan negatives? Ive been looking into purchasing a scanner specifically for this. Ive been looking at the Canon Canoscan 4400F and 8800F as well as the Epson Perfection V500 this being the one Im leaning towards, mainly because I don't much care for having canon equipment near my camera.

but do yall have any suggestions on which of these or maybe another that might be good? Im not really looking to spend any more than I have to but $200 is about the range I'm looking at.

jgredline · 03-22-2008, 08:13 AM

Woof...I was actually bothered by all that saturation. The people look orange to me, but as you pointed out, the problem is, CVS scanned the negatives for me and put them on a cd. The software they used over saturated the images...Same as my HP used to do before the Silver fast...Here is the same image I posted above, but with Silverfast software....I also noticed the image is sharper and not so soft...I don't know, to me it looks better.. What do u folks think?

jgredline · 03-22-2008, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by seamuis

I love mine as well. I don't think Pentax could reproduce a hit like the K1000 again if they tried. I actually use my K1000 more than my superA. One question though, what scanners do yall use to scan negatives? Ive been looking into purchasing a scanner specifically for this. Ive been looking at the Canon Canoscan 4400F and 8800F as well as the Epson Perfection V500 this being the one Im leaning towards, mainly because I don't much care for having canon equipment near my camera.

but do yall have any suggestions on which of these or maybe another that might be good? Im not really looking to spend any more than I have to but $200 is about the range I'm looking at.

Sea,
I did spend allot of time researching this very thing and found that HP makes ''great'' scanners but lousy software. The trick is in the software...The two best softwares I found are Silverfast SE and Vue Scan...I have the G3010 HP i believe, but I should have got the 5040HP (NOTE: I am going off memory on these two models) but both have a slot for film negatives in them.

séamuis · 03-22-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

I don't know, to me it looks better.. What do u folks think?

I concur, it looks much better, absolutely sharper.

Quote:

I did spend allot of time researching this very thing and found that HP makes ''great'' scanners but lousy software. The trick is in the software...The two best softwares I found are Silverfast SE and Vue Scan...I have the G3010 HP i believe, but I should have got the 5040HP (NOTE: I am going off memory on these two models) but both have a slot for film negatives in them.

Thanks for the information I hadn't even looked at HP and my PC is an HP

I have heard of Vuescan but not Silverfast, but I will be checking all of that out in the next week, as I want to spend the time researching to make sure I get the best scanner for my money.

Mike Cash · 03-22-2008, 04:39 PM

The big difference between the 8800F and some of the down-line Canon models is that the 8800F handles medium format and the 35mm holder does two negative strips at a time. If you don't need medium format scanning ability, you can save yourself a bit of money, as they tend to be very similar/identical in other specs.

séamuis · 03-23-2008, 05:28 AM

thank you very much for the info I certainly don't need MF scanning capability I guess its down to the 4400F, HP 5040 and the Epson V500.

jgredline · 03-23-2008, 07:43 AM

Seamus. This is the Scanner I was speaking about. Buy HP Scanjet G4050 Photo Scanner direct from the HP Home & Home Office Store
Problem with buying this scanner would be you will need to buy additional software...Either Silverfast SE which makes ''specific'' software for scanner models or vue scan that works with most scanners. ...

Sea. Look at this thread Pentax Forum: Picture Of The Week 3-16-08 - photo.net lOOK for Justin Serpico's images. He uses the G4050 scanner / silverfast.

jgredline · 03-23-2008, 07:51 AM

Sea
This is the scanner that I have. I feel it does a very good job.
Buy HP Scanjet G3010 Photo Scanner direct from the HP Home & Home Office Store
It scans what it see's and it works great vue scan.. Total cash outlay was $150.00 . You will not need the professional version of Vue Scan, but can always upgrade the software for the difference.

03-21-2008, 06:14 PM	#1
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	I love my K1000 I must say, they did not come out to bad for a camera that is ''OLD'' I mean I am really pleasantly surprised. They seem to have a lot of noise and are a tad soft, but then again .99 cents film....Thoughts?. Last edited by jgredline; 06-28-2008 at 04:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I Use A K1000	Pioneer	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	83	11-19-2022 11:41 AM
Who has a K1000?	Matthew Roberts	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	183	02-26-2010 01:14 AM
For Sale - Sold: K1000 bodies, ME Super Body, Damaged K1000 SE Body	Rustyoldbug	Sold Items	7	11-11-2009 08:48 AM
My k1000	BlueEyes	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	1	07-22-2009 09:42 PM
Taken with my K1000.....	WJW	Post Your Photos!	0	08-20-2008 08:10 PM

03-21-2008, 07:18 PM	#2
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Who scanned those? Just wondering... did you or was that a part of processing to get them on a CD? woof

03-21-2008, 07:25 PM	#3
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Woof Simply put, I took the roll to CVS and they processed the film and put it on a cd for me. I do have a film scanner, but for $2.50, it is easier to have them do it. By the way, at CVS, you do not have to get the prints. So for the negatives, $2.50. cd $2.50 extra.Not bad I think.

03-21-2008, 09:14 PM	#4
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by jgredline Woof Simply put, I took the roll to CVS and they processed the film and put it on a cd for me. I do have a film scanner, but for $2.50, it is easier to have them do it. By the way, at CVS, you do not have to get the prints. So for the negatives, $2.50. cd $2.50 extra.Not bad I think. No not bad at all. But just the same try scanning them yourself. I'll bet they are less noisy. I've always noted a noise in CDs mastered in this way. Stopped doing it because of that and the color rendition just did not seem good either. See how somehow there is a pink cast to the sky in the first pictures..? I've seen that before. That's why I asked. I suspected it was processed for you. I shoot a lot of film still. Like you I love my old manual cameras. I think I've already recommended Fuji Superia Reala to you. Not that expensive and well worth it for things that means something to you. By all means, use cheap stuff to play around, but also get some good stuff for once you are checked out. If you like the results with the cheap stuff... Looks like your K1000 meter is spot on. Feed it some good film and keep up the good work. woof The following were taken with a 1957 Pentax using Fuji Reala and subsequently scanned by me.

03-21-2008, 09:50 PM	#5
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Woof. Those are some gorgeous photos!!! Tomorrow I will try scanning the negatives and see what happens. I suspect your right, because the first roll I took was not noisy at all.. This is what surprised me about this last roll. I also noticed that this second roll seemed a tad over saturated. ...By the way, I did pick up a 3 pack of Fuji Superia..Thanks!! I will be trying it out this weekend.

03-21-2008, 09:52 PM	#6
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Woof...I was just looking at those images again...Wow...1957 Pentax...I would say it has more to do with the fellow behind the lens though.

03-22-2008, 05:16 AM	#7
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by jgredline Woof...I was just looking at those images again...Wow...1957 Pentax...I would say it has more to do with the fellow behind the lens though. Thanks... I appreciate that... but more than anything I chose those pics because I love the color rendition and I wanted to show you what good film looks like in these old manual cameras... Looking forward to you positing more from your K1000... Let us know how the scanning goes in comparison with the CD processing. I know it's a pain and sometimes a quick hit is more than worth the $2.50. On the other hand, at least when that really great shot comes along you'll know what to do... ;-) Best, woof

03-22-2008, 05:29 AM	#8
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	I love mine as well. I don't think Pentax could reproduce a hit like the K1000 again if they tried. I actually use my K1000 more than my superA. One question though, what scanners do yall use to scan negatives? Ive been looking into purchasing a scanner specifically for this. Ive been looking at the Canon Canoscan 4400F and 8800F as well as the Epson Perfection V500 this being the one Im leaning towards, mainly because I don't much care for having canon equipment near my camera. but do yall have any suggestions on which of these or maybe another that might be good? Im not really looking to spend any more than I have to but $200 is about the range I'm looking at.

03-22-2008, 08:13 AM	#9
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Woof...I was actually bothered by all that saturation. The people look orange to me, but as you pointed out, the problem is, CVS scanned the negatives for me and put them on a cd. The software they used over saturated the images...Same as my HP used to do before the Silver fast...Here is the same image I posted above, but with Silverfast software....I also noticed the image is sharper and not so soft...I don't know, to me it looks better.. What do u folks think?

03-22-2008, 08:17 AM	#10
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by seamuis I love mine as well. I don't think Pentax could reproduce a hit like the K1000 again if they tried. I actually use my K1000 more than my superA. One question though, what scanners do yall use to scan negatives? Ive been looking into purchasing a scanner specifically for this. Ive been looking at the Canon Canoscan 4400F and 8800F as well as the Epson Perfection V500 this being the one Im leaning towards, mainly because I don't much care for having canon equipment near my camera. but do yall have any suggestions on which of these or maybe another that might be good? Im not really looking to spend any more than I have to but $200 is about the range I'm looking at. Sea, I did spend allot of time researching this very thing and found that HP makes ''great'' scanners but lousy software. The trick is in the software...The two best softwares I found are Silverfast SE and Vue Scan...I have the G3010 HP i believe, but I should have got the 5040HP (NOTE: I am going off memory on these two models) but both have a slot for film negatives in them.

03-22-2008, 09:52 AM	#11
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Quote: I don't know, to me it looks better.. What do u folks think? I concur, it looks much better, absolutely sharper. Quote: I did spend allot of time researching this very thing and found that HP makes ''great'' scanners but lousy software. The trick is in the software...The two best softwares I found are Silverfast SE and Vue Scan...I have the G3010 HP i believe, but I should have got the 5040HP (NOTE: I am going off memory on these two models) but both have a slot for film negatives in them. Thanks for the information I hadn't even looked at HP and my PC is an HP I have heard of Vuescan but not Silverfast, but I will be checking all of that out in the next week, as I want to spend the time researching to make sure I get the best scanner for my money.

03-22-2008, 04:39 PM	#12
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	The big difference between the 8800F and some of the down-line Canon models is that the 8800F handles medium format and the 35mm holder does two negative strips at a time. If you don't need medium format scanning ability, you can save yourself a bit of money, as they tend to be very similar/identical in other specs.

03-23-2008, 05:28 AM	#13
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	thank you very much for the info I certainly don't need MF scanning capability I guess its down to the 4400F, HP 5040 and the Epson V500.

03-23-2008, 07:43 AM	#14
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Seamus. This is the Scanner I was speaking about. Buy HP Scanjet G4050 Photo Scanner direct from the HP Home & Home Office Store Problem with buying this scanner would be you will need to buy additional software...Either Silverfast SE which makes ''specific'' software for scanner models or vue scan that works with most scanners. ... Sea. Look at this thread Pentax Forum: Picture Of The Week 3-16-08 - photo.net lOOK for Justin Serpico's images. He uses the G4050 scanner / silverfast.

03-23-2008, 07:51 AM	#15
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Sea This is the scanner that I have. I feel it does a very good job. Buy HP Scanjet G3010 Photo Scanner direct from the HP Home & Home Office Store It scans what it see's and it works great vue scan.. Total cash outlay was $150.00 . You will not need the professional version of Vue Scan, but can always upgrade the software for the difference.