[ivanvernon]

Another old film. Ektar 125 Gen 1

SMC-A* 300/4 on either a K1000 or ME Super.

Great image of a beautiful model with a very intriguing expression.

[timw4mail]

Another old film. Ektar 125 Gen 1

SMC-A* 300/4 on either a K1000 or ME Super.

Wow, you can't really tell that's film.

[dsmithhfx]

Another old film. Ektar 125 Gen 1

SMC-A* 300/4 on either a K1000 or ME Super.

Perspective looks like a shorter tele to me, maybe 135?

[tuco]

Perspective looks like a shorter tele to me, maybe 135?

I only have a 135mm in a M42 Takumar. And I didn't use that. I checked the minimum focus distance of the A* 300/4 on another person's head to confirm and I'm pretty sure that was it.

[tuco]

Great image of a beautiful model with a very intriguing expression.

Thanks

[stevebrot]

I am not hipster enough

Perhaps

Even when fresh, Ferrania Solaris has "distinctive" character. How distinctive depends a lot on the subject and how it is treated in post-processing. Strangely, I have found that unlike most other color films, scans from Solaris are fairly robust in post-processing in Lightroom. This allows a lot of latitude in interpreting a few of the emulsion's quirks and strengths. Here are few notes:

• It is capable of fine detail capture (high acuity), even with the 400 ISO version
• While the colors are not "natural", it works well with subjects having unnatural colors
• No, one cannot "correct" Solaris color, what is not there is not there and what is there is not particularly mutable
• The colors that are there are easily emphasized or toned down without artifact. Ditto for significant changes to contrast in post.
• The Solaris "look" is fairly hard to replicate with a digital capture

I have used Solaris for the following:

• Street photography
• Urban landscapes, industrial
• Sculpture
• Landscape, though with low expectation

Subjects that might work, though with discretion and appropriate expectation:

• Portraits
• Sports
• Animals
• Anything else where one has a low anticipation of being paid for the image

I have cache of the stuff that I bought fresh a few years back and froze. What that is gone, I will be sad. Here is a sampler...some decent, some not-so-decent...

Search: ferrania | Flickr


Steve

[stevebrot]

Here is a sampler...some decent, some not-so-decent...

...and here is a bigger sampler

Ferrania Wonderland | Flickr


Steve

[IgorZ]

...and here is a bigger sampler

Ferrania Wonderland | Flickr


Steve

Thanks! Looks like my Ferrania looks a bit more yellow and grainy than yours. I guess it doesn't age gracefully... Or does, if you like it. I would agree with you, I think it's nice for streetscapes. I haven't done any processing to the photos...

[tuco]

And still another old film example. Ektar 25 Gen 1 in 135 canister. The film is much finer than whatever lens I used.
But in this picture the wenches are down below the deck and the winches are above it.

[Jellygeist]

The last roll I shot in my KM was probably my worst in terms of "hit rate". However, the shots that worked out worked out really well, I feel.

I also really need to either get my KM overhauled, or get a new camera, depending on what would be more cost effective. It doesn't load film very well, and it gets very consistent light leaks on the top and bottom of the images. I'm able to crop around these (I tend to crop anyways), but yeah, either I get it fixed or I replace it.

Anyways, the photos. Portra 400, if you care:


Fake Eggleston (I have no originality)




Corner




Another corner in some weird apartment tower in Downtown Winnipeg:




Polo Park, Winnipeg




Chalkboard at university





That should be good for now. 13 good images out of 36 is pretty bad but that's part of the work, isn't it.

[dsmithhfx]

[cooltouch]

Jellygeist, when I bought my KM a couple years ago, I picked up a very clean example for cheap, so you'll probably be better off replacing it. But for not much more you can get a KX, which is a better camera. So I recommend you get the KX as a replacement. I really like my KX.

[ctrout]

I'll offer an opposing view. When you buy a different body to replace the current KM, you really don't know the history of the camera and you could be just picking up someone else's worn out KM with bad light seals. Rather than spending $20-30 on a gamble, I'd recommend getting the current KM overhauled, that way you can be confident that it will deliver another 20-30 years of reliable service.

[Jellygeist]

Jellygeist, when I bought my KM a couple years ago, I picked up a very clean example for cheap, so you'll probably be better off replacing it. But for not much more you can get a KX, which is a better camera. So I recommend you get the KX as a replacement. I really like my KX.

I was thinking of upgrading all the way to the LX, actually. I'm feeling ambitious, and the off-the-film metering and pro specs are calling to me.

@ctrout I'll see if I can get a quote. The camera repair place in Winnipeg doesn't do free quotes anymore so I'll see about wrangling info out of somebody. The poor thing has been to the Arctic with my uncle and the fact that it still takes pictures is a testament to how stubbornly it was built.

[dsmithhfx]

I'll offer an opposing view. When you buy a different body to replace the current KM, you really don't know the history of the camera and you could be just picking up someone else's worn out KM with bad light seals. Rather than spending $20-30 on a gamble, I'd recommend getting the current KM overhauled, that way you can be confident that it will deliver another 20-30 years of reliable service.

I've had pretty good luck with my gambles, apart from one that was probably damaged in shipment due to careless packaging, but still very usable.

If you can do a hands-on check before purchase (fire shutter at all speeds, inspect light seals, look through finder etc), so much the better. The odds of getting one with a working light meter are considerably lower than pretty much everything else, I have no expectations plus I dislike TTL metering (though it is probably more accurate).