Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-06-2018, 05:12 AM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,446
My first camera (about 1950) was a 127 roll film Baby Brownie, 8 exposures per roll. I used various 127 cameras through the 1950s, even making a plexiglass underwater housing for one. With 8 shots per roll you get very selective. My first 35mm was a Stereo Realist slide camera, then got a Pentax H1a early in college. It seemed to take forever to use up 36 shots, so I usually bought 20 exposure rolls (film switched to 24 as a short roll later).
Now I bulk load my own short rolls, and process a roll every week or two.
I shoot digital the same as I do film - still trying to get the best capture I can for each shot.
I don't make great pictures, but I sure enjoy the process, and am glad I started with film to train my habits.

04-06-2018, 05:30 AM   #47
Veteran Member
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 1,185
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I’d say ‘no cropping’ is a step too far; in my living memory I could walk from my office to a professional lab on my lunch hour, select exposures from a contact sheet and the next day mark up test prints with a grease pencil with a lab printer looking over my shoulder

My wife could take prints of her ancestors to a lab - even 11 x 1 7 art prints - and have them reproduced on her selection of paper, retouched to fix age spots and marks, tinted to her pleasure, and have multiple prints made for her siblings (and the Colorado History Museum).
Sure but, as you said, we had to go to a professional lab with a previously printed copy or contact sheet to have the cropping done. It's not something we could easily do ourselves. Although it was possible to unmount a slide, slightly crop it with scissors, and mount it back. But it wasn't for the faint of heart since even a slight mistake could totally ruined the picture, no going back was possible.
04-06-2018, 09:09 AM - 1 Like   #48
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranchu Quote
Kodak's new Portra 400 film - On Landscape And anything you do, like adding an s curve, will increase contrast somewhere from linear, 1stop=1stop, in that case in the midtones. Negative film has an s curve already, and lower contrast in the midtones 1stop=.7stop. You won't be lowering contrast with digital, no matter how much you want to. That has real consequences for the way your pictures look, dsmithfx's picture I posted above as an example, there's no reason to even attempt this picture with digital, it would look so bad, imo. On film, it's magic.


Magic? Not really.

If an s-curve is continuous and starts from the same points, it will have to be steep in the middle to connect the curvy ends. Otherwise, you’d have very objectionable tonal crossovers. If the curve extends away from a shallower middle, then that curve has greater dynamic range, at least at some signal/noise ratio.

The author of the article you linked was comparing very grainy (even in the base exposure—I can see it on my iPhone) fast film with digital technology that is now 13 years old. I’m not sure that is illuminating, to be honest. The 645z has 14.5ish stops of usable dynamic range, meaning range that has a usable signal/noise ratio, according to carefully done tests at DXOMark. Having tone that can be brought up isn’t the same thing as showing real detail distinguishable from grain/noise. None of his images looked good to me—flat in the mid-tones even on my forgiving iPhone.

That photo with the muddy mass of a guy standing in front of a sunset would be very easy on the latest sensors, where shadow detail that looks black on the camera’s LCD can be brought up in post without the excessive graininess of these images. Most reviewers of the latest cameras, particularly the 645z, comment on the extreme ability to recover usable images out of what looks black on the camera display. Here are just four examples of reviews from working pros that highlight shadow recovery:

http://starvingphotographer.com/pentax-645z-real-world-dynamic-range/

http://thephotofundamentalist.com/pentax-ricoh/pentax-645z-review-opinion-part-2/3/

https://www.photigy.com/pentax-645z-review-part-3-comparisons-of-the-dynamic-range/

https://www.aarondickson.co.uk/single-post/2017/05/09/Pentax-645Z-Review

The last one includes this picture:


The image on the right is what could be recovered from the image on the left. No grain, noise, or loss of detail there.

We also have to think about the display medium, too. What do you do with a color negative? There are only two choices left (and, increasingly, only one) that are generally available. You could make a C-print, which will have an even narrower range, or you can scan it. And if you scan it, you have a range of choices:

1. Consumer flatbed—needs the one real advantage of color negatives: they compress all that range into a narrow density range. I have to scan into the ProPhoto color space not to clip the histogram when scanning negatives. But that flatbeds mortals can sustain are low resolution. My Epson 750 adds no detail when the scan resolution exceeds about 2400 spi. I find that scanner can support good prints up to about 4x enlargement. I use it for 4x5.

2. Consumer film scanner. These range from the current models that struggle to achieve usable resolution much above a flatbed to vintage Nikon models that have been out of production for nearly a decade. It’s what I use, but I pray a lot. The 8000/9000 scanners get the job done for negatives, using Vuescan and the ProPhoto color space. I’m happy up to 8 or 10x enlargement.

3. Laser scans. $75-$100 a pop last time I checked. That puts them out of reach for me.

4. Photographing the negative with a digital camera—may be all we’re left with soon enough. My 21mp 5DII has the same resolution at 1:1 as the Nikon scanner. The apparatus and the lighting requirements are not trivial. Here’s something I built several years ago as an experiment to test the concept:



The 5D (2800 spi at 1:1) in the picture lacked the resolution, and aliased the grain. I need to try it again with the 5DII.

5. Getting the lab to scan it for you. I have had poor experience with this—clipped histograms, noise, etc. But this works fine for most purposes, and is certainly good enough for web display.

Black and white is a whole separate topic.

For me, I put up with narrow range to get size and image control. I made this photo using 4x5 Fuji 160C color negative film, but ended up converting it to a sepia-colored monochrome print. Scanned in the Epson, but printed to 16x20, where it is tack-sharp:

Saltbox Staircase, Fuji 160C, Sinar F2, 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon, f/45 at 16 seconds.

I keep my Nikon scanner going just so I can use my Pentax 67.

My point is that one is not better, but a photo made is better than a photo that wasn’t because the process was too inconvenient. Each medium can explore boundaries unavailable to the other, but those boundaries may be farther away than we realize. I love both mediums because I can make them work for me.

Rick “who has done this for more than a couple of weeks” Denney

---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 09:27 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
As someone who has been doing it far longer then you, I can only warn you to stay away because you might end up like me - totally immersed . . .







If you're coming into film (C41 negatives, E6 slides or true b&w) completely new with only digital experience then the first obvious difference will depend on the film type. Likely you may try color negatives first - since it is more commonly available, so the first thing you will notice is the near impossibility of blowing out the highlights. Digital has an advantage - a necessity, of having an LCD to show you a histogram - and twinklies, to help you keep from blowing out the scene. Below you can see how digitals and color negative films react to overexposure.











Rick, If you have the 645Z, I would appreciate it if you can do the same test I did above. Simply get a perfect exposure then simply increase exposure up a stop until it is blown out. TIA.



Knowing this film characteristic, I came upon a scene that my meter recommended a 1/60 shutter speed at my selected aperture using Kodak Ektar 100. I wanted 1/2 shutter speed to smooth out the waterflow and I confidently shot the scene - even though I didn't have any ND filters with me, knowing I will get the results I wanted with no issues at all.







Another thing I discovered in my immersion was that I finally found the only camera that can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes - all the while monitoring the scene for changes in lighting conditions and changing exposure accordingly - the Pentax LX. Using this capability, I autoexposed this scene on Kodak Ektar 100 that took about 45minutes to complete.







Have fun and enjoy the exploration!


I don’t have the 645z yet—expecting it next month.

The key is to think of a modern digital camera as having the range of negative film (it’s actually more at base iso), but otherwise behaving like slide film. It’s far easier to blow highlights on slides than on digital, and there’s no hope of highlight recovery. I expose to control highlights.

You will recall that in the past, we exposed negatives for the shadows and developed for the highlights. With slides, we had to choose what part of the image we wanted in the contrasty middle. With digital, we expose for the highlights and process for the shadows. Those who do JPG only are truly using slide film, but from raw files there are much greater shadow recovery opportunities.

Getting slow shutter speeds on purpose is a challenge with highlight-sensitive media like digital and slides. More people have trouble getting fast enough shutter speeds, and underexposed shadows on a negative are as blankly transparent as overexposed highlights on a slide.

There are certainly some images that would be difficult on digital, particularly older digital. But it’s wrong to characterize one medium as being generally superior to the other, though the activities involved to the best that is possible with each are very different (and more involved than most are willing to undertake).

I never needed to immerse myself in film—I have been swimming in that ocean for many decades. I had to immerse myself in digital when it came along. Each has its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. None are as important as the photographer’s eye.

Rick “for whom brightly lit bridges at night are a rare subject” Denney
04-06-2018, 09:42 AM - 1 Like   #49
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
Sure but, as you said, we had to go to a professional lab with a previously printed copy or contact sheet to have the cropping done. It's not something we could easily do ourselves.
?????

This is only the case if one uses a print service (aka service bureau) to produce high quality optical enlargements from a negative or slide and is no big deal. If needed, one can indicate crop from a reference print. The process is not much different from working with an online print service with an digital image. If one is doing their own enlargements or working from a scan, cropping is simplicity itself.


Steve

04-06-2018, 09:50 AM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,912
QuoteOriginally posted by 24thNomad Quote
. Are there benefits/lessons to gained from playing around with a film era camera when you're only experience is digital?
It might make you appreciate the wonders of digital I'm one of those who abandoned film as soon as possible (ist DL2) and have never been tempted to open a film canister since. The one thing I do miss is the alchemy of the darkroom but that's about developing a set of skills that can't be duplicated in the digital world.

By all means buy the gear but don't be disappointed if you find the experience less than thrilling, there are quite a few on here who, like me, started off in the film era but have never gone back.
04-06-2018, 10:45 AM   #51
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
I still use film and have a freezer full of it. But for me, the format size has to have the advantage to overcome the other constraints. 6x7 is on that boundary, 4x5 for sure, particularly with the image management capabilities of large format. But if they ever made a true 4x5 sensor usable in my view camera, I will want it.
This is a telling comment. While not particularly inexpensive, film opens the door to larger formats that are inaccessible to native digital capture short of a scanning back.* There are many rationals for working with film capture, but this is one where the reasoning is particularly compelling. On that note, I will share my personal reasons (very few technical) why, along with digital, I still create in the film space...
  • I really like the cameras. There I said it. There is a certain allure to well-made tools and even less-than-well-made tools, if they are fun.
  • While claims of technical superiority for 35mm are dubious (there, I said that too), there are some tasks for which I strongly prefer my 35mm film cameras. Those include:
    • Street photography. At some point, I may get a digital GR and fit it with an optical finder. Until then, my 35mm rangefinders reign supreme with my compact SLRs being close behind. As an added benefit, people are mildly amused and curious about the old gear and less prone to anger or threats of violence
    • Tasks for which I want FF crop from my FF lenses. No, I can't afford a K-1. I spent that money years ago on other stuff.
    • Fun...With the possible exception of my two working Exakta Varex bodies, my 35mm film cameras are fun to use. Even the Exaktas are fun in their own way, if for no other reason than the control layout is left-handed and the ergonomics suck.
  • The fun factor. There is the "F" word again. There is a certain degree of fun associated with working the craft. With a single exception (Pentax Super Program), my film cameras offer less exposure automation than my K-3. The side effect is a higher degree of engagement on my part. The same is true for lack of auto-focus. I love the "looking through a big window" aspect of the traditional SLR viewfinder. I love playing with cranky Soviet rangefinder cameras. The technical complexity of putting the view camera through its paces is exhilarating, if somewhat frustrating at times.
  • Lower cost access to medium format. I don't operate in that space, except for using 6x7 roll film holders with a view camera and an antique Mamiya Six folder, but the logic of going that direction is sound.
  • Access to formats and techniques inaccessible to native digital capture. Translation: I have a 4x5 field camera that goes where no widely available digital camera can follow.
  • Where archival capture is a prominent concern
  • Where using batteries or external power source for my K-3 are not viable options. A good example might be an extended off-the-grid wilderness experience.
I liken the "film vs. digital" discussion to the realm of making art with a brush. There are many traditional mediums with oils being the most prominent. That being said, some very impressive work has been done using tempera and acrylic paints that rival oil's traditional strengths of expression. A painter chooses the medium appropriate to the subject, the artist's intent, and what "resonates" with the creative process. Strangely, those that paint with oils are OK with this as are those who choose other media.

I can't say with any certainty, but I truly doubt that an inquiry on dry-brush tempera posted to an painting forum would bring a sprinkling of disparaging comments from those painting with oils.


Steve

* Yes, scanning backs have existed for a number of years, but they are very expensive, slow, and require a full-blown computer for initial data capture, processing, and storage. Field use requires support at the expedition level.

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-06-2018 at 10:58 AM.
04-06-2018, 12:20 PM   #52
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
Magic? Not really.
It's better than your tree.

QuoteQuote:
If an s-curve is continuous and starts from the same points, it will have to be steep in the middle to connect the curvy ends. Otherwise, you’d have very objectionable tonal crossovers.
Yes, that's what I said.
QuoteQuote:
If the curve extends away from a shallower middle, then that curve has greater dynamic range, at least at some signal/noise ratio.
Dynamic range is a different thing. The curve you describe moves the contrast from the middle to the ends, that's all. Calling that 'greater dynamic range' is incorrect and obviously misleading.

QuoteQuote:
The author of the article you linked was comparing very grainy (even in the base exposure—I can see it on my iPhone) fast film with digital technology that is now 13 years old. I’m not sure that is illuminating, to be honest. The 645z has 14.5ish stops of usable dynamic range, meaning range that has a usable signal/noise ratio, according to carefully done tests at DXOMark. Having tone that can be brought up isn’t the same thing as showing real detail distinguishable from grain/noise. None of his images looked good to me—flat in the mid-tones even on my forgiving iPhone.
Me neither, but his point was the DR performance of the film.
QuoteQuote:
That photo with the muddy mass of a guy standing in front of a sunset would be very easy on the latest sensors, where shadow detail that looks black on the camera’s LCD can be brought up in post without the excessive graininess of these images. Most reviewers of the latest cameras, particularly the 645z, comment on the extreme ability to recover usable images out of what looks black on the camera display. Here are just four examples of reviews from working pros that highlight shadow recovery:
Working pros with shadow recovery slider websites have been a dime a dozen for the last ten years, it's a nice trick, but it's not going to get you 19 stops. Also, they can do it with one or two images, but they don't mention the exposure has to be perfect, so essentially you need a 7 shot set of brackets around an extremely nonintuitive starting point, or time+spotmeter. It sucks, and the increased contrast in the midtones you need to stick onto digital files to make them look normal sucks even more.

QuoteQuote:
We also have to think about the display medium, too. What do you do with a color negative? There are only two choices left (and, increasingly, only one) that are generally available. You could make a C-print, which will have an even narrower range, or you can scan it. And if you scan it, you have a range of choices:
Yes, great. I use a flatbed.


QuoteQuote:
There are certainly some images that would be difficult on digital, particularly older digital. But it’s wrong to characterize one medium as being generally superior to the other, though the activities involved to the best that is possible with each are very different (and more involved than most are willing to undertake).

I never needed to immerse myself in film—I have been swimming in that ocean for many decades. I had to immerse myself in digital when it came along. Each has its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. None are as important as the photographer’s eye.

Rick “for whom brightly lit bridges at night are a rare subject” Denney
I shoot film because it's a superior medium. Rare subjects are ones you want to be able to take pictures of, aren't they?


Last edited by Ranchu; 04-06-2018 at 01:15 PM.
04-06-2018, 01:38 PM - 1 Like   #53
Veteran Member
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,155
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
This is a telling comment. While not particularly inexpensive, film opens the door to larger formats that are inaccessible to native digital capture short of a scanning back.* There are many rationals for working with film capture, but this is one where the reasoning is particularly compelling. On that note, I will share my personal reasons (very few technical) why, along with digital, I still create in the film space...
I agree with pretty much everything Steve mentioned. It's more than the results, it's about the process of getting there. There may be a digital equivalent for some people, but for me it's selecting the film (you only get 36* exposure rolls so you have many films to choose), the ritual of loading the film, checking the ISO and wondering whether to set it as box speed or a little slower. All of this puts me in the right frame of mind to start shooting - snapping the back shut is the 'starting gun' that kicks me into the right mood. The cameras you use make.a difference - mechanical or electronic, manual focus or AF, motorised or manual advance all put you in different moods.

Being able to take a really beaten up K1000 into a dodgy area of town, knowing nobody will be interested in it. Being free from battery chargers and the worry of running out of juice when all you need is a couple of spare LR44s. Not looking through a peep-hole viewfinder (particularly if you wear glasses) and not struggling to see the LCD screen in full sun. Then there are the bonus shots, the last couple at the end of a roll you shoot on the way to the lab to finish the film, or the first on the roll you shoot just to make sure the film has been advanced enough.

The results can be amazing, the first roll of Kodachrome 25 shot on an MX with M 28 & 50mm lenses, the first B&W roll you develop in the kitchen is amazing when you realise there are images on it. The first roll of 120 shot through a Lubitel which blows your best 35mm efforts into the weeds. The first roll of chrome film through an eBay special Bronica S2A - something that old & complex surely can't be expected to work properly! You get failures and annoyances too. The 'see me' stickers the labs used to stick on your prints "Image affected by camera shake - try using a faster shutter speed or flash next time...". It is a completely different experience to digital.

* Old school shooters are well aware you could squeeze 38 or perhaps even 39 exposures out of a 36 exp roll if you were careful when loading - the frame counters of the cameras kept running beyond 36.
04-06-2018, 03:08 PM   #54
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: NoVA
Posts: 635
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranchu Quote
It's better than your tree.

...


I shoot film because it's a superior medium. Rare subjects are ones you want to be able to take pictures of, aren't they?
Thank you. At least I didn't pump up my lost shadows to try to generate some color out of them, or brag about how the detail was there despite overpowering grain.

Is a nightscape with a neon-covered bridge really that rare a subject? A 25-foot tall Japanese Maple tree showing that particular shade of red backlit by the sky may be more rare.

I made a photo on 4x5 of a field of wildflowers, on an island off the Massachustetts coast several years ago. I accidentally forgot to stop down before the exposure. It was on color negative film (Fuji 160C, as I recall), and I was using a Rodenstock 210mm Sinaron-S. The negative was about 4 or 5 stops overexposed. By your assertion, I should have been able to recover that photo. But the colors were so blocked up and the highlights so halated that there was nothing I could do to make even an acceptable print out of it, even at small size.

But enough of this. With all due respect, I believe there is nothing to be gained arguing this point with you any further.

Rick "have a good day" Denney

---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 03:23 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
...

The results can be amazing, the first roll of Kodachrome 25 shot on an MX with M 28 & 50mm lenses, the first B&W roll you develop in the kitchen is amazing when you realise there are images on it. The first roll of 120 shot through a Lubitel which blows your best 35mm efforts into the weeds. The first roll of chrome film through an eBay special Bronica S2A - something that old & complex surely can't be expected to work properly! You get failures and annoyances too. The 'see me' stickers the labs used to stick on your prints "Image affected by camera shake - try using a faster shutter speed or flash next time...". It is a completely different experience to digital.
Just so, though nobody can have a first experience with Kodachrome 25 any more.

The converse is true, too, however. I've been able to make images I could never have made by using digital cameras, particularly in cases where I needed high ISO. And the first time I did so was as exciting to me as the first time I projected Kodachrome 25 or saw a print form in the developer.

I tire of those who say one is "superior". There are good photos and there are photos that are not so good. Some photos are technically exquisite, while others are just a happy pile of big mistakes. I'm not sure of the correlation between the first sentence and the second. But I would say that in a gallery showing of wonderful photographers who demonstrate exquisite technique, one will find both film based and digital photographs these days. I'm not sure even an expert will be able to tell them apart. It's not like the difference between oils and watercolors--the results will be very close to the mind of the photographer. That's what technique is for, after all. Artists choose oils or watercolors depending on what they want to express, or they specialize in one or the other and then choose their subjects to fit within the technique they want to demonstrate.

I love making photos with film, but for the most part I have to accept what it gives me.

I particularly resonated with Stevebrot's statement that he likes shooting film simply because he loves some film cameras--that is absolutely true for me.

Rick "wondering why there is so much assertion on this topic" Denney

Last edited by rdenney; 04-06-2018 at 03:26 PM.
04-06-2018, 03:42 PM   #55
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
I never saw much point in you arguing with me about this topic to begin with. I am asserting two things, that negative film has more dynamic range than any digital camera, and that it has reduced contrast in the midtones, 1stop = .7 stop with an S curve built in, and that these two things make it a superior medium for photography. I have provided dsmithfx's fine picture as proof, and I believe it is sufficient proof. You can do as you like with your time.
04-06-2018, 03:47 PM - 1 Like   #56
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
* Old school shooters are well aware you could squeeze 38 or perhaps even 39 exposures out of a 36 exp roll if you were careful when loading - the frame counters of the cameras kept running beyond 36.
Or 38.5 exposures. I always had fun picking something for the first 1/2 frame. If you load the camera carefully, the very first cock pulls about 1/2 frame of unexposed film across the film gate. It's on the left-hand side of the gate which means it gets exposed by the right-half of the scene. One good use of that half-frame was to take a quick snapshot of something very identifiable in the area such as an iconic building or street sign -- a GPS reading for the roll.
04-06-2018, 04:09 PM   #57
Pentaxian
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Driving a Mirage
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,670
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Or 38.5 exposures. I always had fun picking something for the first 1/2 frame. If you load the camera carefully, the very first cock pulls about 1/2 frame of unexposed film across the film gate. It's on the left-hand side of the gate which means it gets exposed by the right-half of the scene. One good use of that half-frame was to take a quick snapshot of something very identifiable in the area such as an iconic building or street sign -- a GPS reading for the roll.
On the other hand, sometimes it's worth wasting two frames to make sure the film is in the camera correctly.

Can't you get like 40 frames if you load a camera in a dark bag/dark box?
04-06-2018, 04:26 PM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,234
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
I never needed to immerse myself in film—I have been swimming in that ocean for many decades. I had to immerse myself in digital when it came along. Each has its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. None are as important as the photographer’s eye.
Didn't mean to confuse you, but my immersion was into the technology of film cameras. Seems we are going down the highway in two different directions as I have been into digital technology - test engineer by trade, before this film technology immersion. I was converting analog into digital back in the 80's so I simply assumed it true when a pro photog declared that a 3MP DSLR surpassed the resolution of Imacon scanned 35mm Fuji Provia back in 2001. Shortly after that I started scanning some of my long ago shot rolls of film using cheap plastic cameras that I found out that the pro photog declaration - and my assumptions then, were not close to being true. In anycase, I still keep up with technology just because I am a technologist but I use film cameras because they are great and I like it and the results I get from it.

---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 07:28 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
On the other hand, sometimes it's worth wasting two frames to make sure the film is in the camera correctly.

Can't you get like 40 frames if you load a camera in a dark bag/dark box?
I am certain I have managed to get 41 frames a few times by loading the camera in the dark as you said.
04-06-2018, 04:43 PM - 1 Like   #59
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
On the other hand, sometimes it's worth wasting two frames to make sure the film is in the camera correctly.

Can't you get like 40 frames if you load a camera in a dark bag/dark box?
But one can have one's cake and eat it, too. After inserting a bare minimum of leader of the film and placing the cartridge in the camera (but before closing the back of the camera), I lightly turn the rewind knob to remove the slack inside the cartridge and lightly tension the film across the gate and sprockets to check the security of the leader. After I close the back, the very first crank should cause the rewind knob to spin. If it spins, I know the film is securely loaded and the first half-frame is ready to shoot. If if doesn't spin properly, know the leader slipped and then I fix it.
04-06-2018, 05:01 PM   #60
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rockaway Beach NYC
Posts: 7,682
QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
On the other hand, sometimes it's worth wasting two frames to make sure the film is in the camera correctly.
I agree wholeheartedly. And don't be tempted to squeeze in an extra frame or two at the end of the roll.
That last extra negative invariably turns out to be a half image, the other half obscured by the tape securing the film end to the spool.

Film is cheap. Once in a lifetime photos are priceless.

QuoteOriginally posted by timw4mail Quote
Can't you get like 40 frames if you load a camera in a dark bag/dark box?
I wouldn't advise trying this; 36 frames plus leader is the practical limit.
When I first bulk-loaded film I tried to cram more frames into a cassette.
The result was extremely tight film advance/rewind and scratched negatives.

Chris

Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 04-06-2018 at 05:07 PM.
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!
accessories, analogy, benefits to film, camera, car, color, composition, contrast, curve, depth, dr, era, exposure, ff, field, film, film era, flash, format, images, insight, mamiya rb, op, photo, photography, photos, scan, shots, sinar, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General discussion about 50-55mm lenses - film era. cieslikowski Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-06-2016 12:42 PM
How much did film bodies and film-era lenses originally cost? Outis Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 90 12-30-2015 01:19 AM
Film-era lenses on FF cameras utak Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 04-08-2013 02:26 AM
Film Era vs. Digital Era lenses for K-x steveknj Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 08-19-2011 05:36 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:22 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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