Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-13-2015, 05:48 PM   #16
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
I struggle with B&W. It takes me a lot longer to finish a B&W roll compared to color. I typically prefer looking at color photos too, but realize when a B&W is good, it's good. Maybe I've just never developed my eye for that style...

Developing your own photos is great. It's been a really long time, but at least I tried. Maybe one day I'll get back to it.

07-13-2015, 06:00 PM   #17
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,870
As was said - these are 35mm lenses first and foremost, so yeah, there'll be a lot to look at. In my experience, as good as they are on APS-C, they all perform far better on 135 - the fringing that is so common and beleaguered by some is practically non-existent on film comparatively. I have had all three for a couple years now and the 31mm for a couple more than that. Browse through my Flickr (won't post a ton here) and most of the 35mm images will have been made using one of them, broken up with the odd Pentax-A or M 50mm shot and a few other stragglers - I thinned out my lens collection considerably after I got all of them eventually - they really do cover the needed range. I love'm ... here are a few....

The 43:



The 31:


The 77:
07-13-2015, 06:08 PM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
Just curious why you wouldn't process your own b&w because after the first successful roll it gets too easy. Hardest part really is deciding which film and developer to use.
I have to say that I did develop a few rolls of film before. I was in Jr High school and in the only photography class I have ever taken required us to develop our own film and make our own prints.

All that said I don't know where I would get chemicals to develop film or now much they would cost.

On one hand it would be cool to have a full on dark room to be able to mess with stuff on a whim, but it's not practical for me.

Then for me personally I doubt I would be shooting that much film to make it worth it. That said if chemicals are cheap enough, why not?

---------- Post added 07-13-15 at 08:11 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
As was said - these are 35mm lenses first and foremost, so yeah, there'll be a lot to look at. In my experience, as good as they are on APS-C, they all perform far better on 135 - the fringing that is so common and beleaguered by some is practically non-existent on film comparatively. I have had all three for a couple years now and the 31mm for a couple more than that. Browse through my Flickr (won't post a ton here) and most of the 35mm images will have been made using one of them, broken up with the odd Pentax-A or M 50mm shot and a few other stragglers - I thinned out my lens collection considerably after I got all of them eventually - they really do cover the needed range. I love'm ... here are a few....

The 43:



The 31:


The 77:

You SERIOUSLY just posted pictures that explain exactly why I want to go into film.

Those look awesome.
07-13-2015, 06:14 PM   #19
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,003
This is my leveller.....43 on a K1000



I find shooting rolls of 36 quite exciting. By the time I get them developed I've forgotten most of what I shot......so getting the prints back is like opening a box of chocolates.

I reckon you need at least two bodies as well....one loaded with B&W etc

I play with longer lenses a bit....300mm

Shooting something like this Egret on film can be quite amusing....I'll get so close then take a shot in case the Egret flies away.....then I'll take another ten steps toward it......8 frames later, it hasn't moved, you get the correctly framed shot.....and then have 7 "Egret regrets"..... after a while I now don't bother shooting if I can't get the composition I want (I'm not aiming for world piece with my photography!)




Last edited by noelpolar; 07-13-2015 at 07:07 PM.
07-13-2015, 06:22 PM   #20
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,870
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
You SERIOUSLY just posted pictures that explain exactly why I want to go into film.

Those look awesome.
Hey thanks man. It's a funny thing for me personally. I learned on film and had a full fleshed out kit of Nikon glass and a Nikorrmat my dad gave me 2 decades ago but I was still learning when (sigh) it was stolen (the whole bag) out of my car. Didn't shoot much of anything for a while and then eventually got a Fuji digicam and a few years later a Pentax DSLR... and then figured out what the hell I was doing and slowly but sure my kit got nicely fleshed out again so back to film I went. And voila. I still shoot my digis occasionally but honestly, my poor K-3 probably thinks it did something wrong. I still do digital adjustment to my heg scans in Lightroom, I just find that the amount of time I spend working on an orginal film image is probably 1/8 or less than the time I spend on a RAW file or JPG from the digitals. Less time behind a computer screen is better for my money. I could wax for quite a while, as could many, but I'll stop there. Yes, the 3 amigos are fantastic on 35mm...
07-13-2015, 06:25 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
This is my leveller.....43 on a K1000



I find shooting rolls of 36 quite exciting. By the time I get them developed I've forgotten most of what I shot......so getting the prints back is like opening a box of chocolates.

You are SOOO trying to talk me into doing the film thing aren't you

Yeah that to me would be awesome. Forgetting what you shot and then be 'oh wow look at that'... The part about just going slow (no choice) and taking quality shots would be extremely rewarding.
07-13-2015, 06:26 PM   #22
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,870
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
That said if chemicals are cheap enough, why not?.
They're not *that* cheap. Depends on the emulsion and how much you're developing but unless you reach a fairly sizeable volume it's usually a wash or maybe just a *tad* more expensive to just take it to your local lab for processing-only, and scan the results.. It's prints and scanning that add up.

But doing it yourself gives you a process to do yourself that you may love and complete control over the processing... which for many is a huge plus.
07-13-2015, 06:35 PM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
I still shoot my digis occasionally but honestly, my poor K-3 probably thinks it did something wrong. I still do digital adjustment to my heg scans in Lightroom, I just find that the amount of time I spend working on an orginal film image is probably 1/8 or less than the time I spend on a RAW file or JPG from the digitals. Less time behind a computer screen is better for my money. I could wax for quite a while, as could many, but I'll stop there. Yes, the 3 amigos are fantastic on 35mm...
I don't know the answer (for me) but I am thinking and hoping that adding film to the mix might help me jump start my creativity as well as offer other benefits. The good thing is I don't have to invest a lot. I can just get a body, some film and I am good to go.

That whole 'film look' though is pretty addictive. I am really digging it, both color and black and white. That right there is reason enough.

I am not a big post processor. If I could get away with not doing it that would awesome. I would rather not have so much computer time.

---------- Post added 07-13-15 at 09:25 PM ----------

I am curious though... is there a way to sort of mimic the 'film look' on digital? I don't think it would be perfect but is there some way to get sort of close?

07-13-2015, 07:56 PM   #24
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote

[/COLOR]I am curious though... is there a way to sort of mimic the 'film look' on digital? I don't think it would be perfect but is there some way to get sort of close?
DXO Filmpack 5.....I use it quite a bit.....free 1 month trial as well

http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/dxo-filmpack/dxo-filmpack-form-en
07-13-2015, 08:01 PM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
DXO Filmpack 5.....I use it quite a bit.....free 1 month trial as well

Download DxO FilmPack | www.dxo.com
Is that sort of like lightroom? How does it function (basically)? I will give it a 30 day trial but not right now. I want to get a few potential images first...
07-13-2015, 08:13 PM   #26
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,870
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
Is that sort of like lightroom? How does it function (basically)? I will give it a 30 day trial but not right now. I want to get a few potential images first...
In this day and age I still ADORE lightroom. I have not opened Photoshop more than once or twice a year since I started using Lightroom around 2007-08(?). Check out VSCO presets for Lightroom - they have several packs - nothing you can't do yourself in Lightroom but they've done all the legwork for different emulsion looks. I'm a cheap bastard and only have the free one, which includes presets for a Kodak Gold look and Tri-X. Certainly not the real thing (as has been proven) but it's a nice place to start for an editing direction. As I just said in another thread not long ago, I spend probably 1/8 of the time or less editing film shots (if at all) compared to digital shots in order to get to where I'm happy with an image.
07-14-2015, 12:46 AM   #27
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
Is that sort of like lightroom? How does it function (basically)? I will give it a 30 day trial but not right now. I want to get a few potential images first...
It is both a standalone program or one that you can access via Lightroom....plug in style ...... (Or via DXO's own editor)

Once your picture is in it you select from lots of film emulations and then can fine edit aspects of it from there (such as grain, micro contrast etc etc)....... DXO supposedly analysed lots of past films and created digital look a likes.....I do a lot of my stuff that way





---------- Post added 14-07-15 at 05:28 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
Forgetting what you shot and then be 'oh wow look at that'...
Mostly .... "arg ... buggar" .... for me

Last edited by noelpolar; 07-14-2015 at 12:55 AM.
07-15-2015, 04:21 AM   #28
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9
I use all three lenses only on film. Use MZ-3 of MZ-S cameras. Samples in my flickr (camera, lens and film are in description): https://www.flickr.com/photos/aiwalit/
And here: Shooting CineStill 50 Daylight Xpro film By Aivaras Sidla | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
07-15-2015, 06:10 AM   #29
Senior Member
RubyT's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: TN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 263
I am finishing up a roll on my PZ-1 with the 43 right now.

Here is a shot with the PZ-1 and the 31 at f/1.8, Fuji Superia 800:


and the PZ-1 and 77, Fuji Pro 400H:


and the PZ-1 and 43, Fuji Natura 1600, converted in LR:
07-15-2015, 12:14 PM   #30
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,808
I bought my 43 Ltd. back in 2011 for the purpose of using it with film. I've used on my MZ-S, MZ-L, ZX-5n, PZ-1, SF-10, ME, MX, KM, and K2.
For an autofocus lens it manual focuses quite well.
My favorite pairings were the 43 Ltd. on my MZ-L or the ZX-5n.
I never really was that thrilled with the MZ-S. The MZ-L has many of the same features, at 1/4 the cost. The ZX-5n or MZ-3 make a superb combo with the 43 Ltd.

Some of my favorite shots, all on film.



















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!
body, chemicals, computer, couple, fa limited lenses, film, flickr, foto, kevin, lenses, lots, post, sort, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone use this hood on their Q lenses? 6BQ5 Pentax Q 10 02-07-2014 03:14 PM
Does anyone use their Pentax lenses on another body? 6BQ5 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-18-2013 03:25 PM
Anyone use the FA 31mm F1.8 AL SMC Limited Lens on the K-X? spikebebop Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 05-30-2011 08:25 PM
Anyone use old manual lenses with the new Pentax digital cameras? TexasLangGenius Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 07-24-2010 07:57 PM
Can you use digital lenses on autofocus film cameras? beagley Pentax Film SLR Discussion 13 03-03-2009 03:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 AM. | 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