:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots

stevebrot · 01-19-2017, 08:47 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Arvid

Wow. Many of these shots you posted lately look like movie stills.. in a good way - really atmospheric.

What he said ^^^^

Steve

g026r · 01-19-2017, 08:54 PM - **5 Likes**

Originally posted by Helios 1984

Exactly. Here's the original image with Auto-Focus ON.

Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off.

At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it.

Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in?

Pentax K2.
smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4.
Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired).

dsmithhfx · 01-20-2017, 03:39 AM - **2 Likes**

dsmithhfx · 01-20-2017, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by g026r

Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off.

At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it.

Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in?

Pentax K2.
smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4.
Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired).

This looks reasonably sharp for wide open, low light, very limited DOF.

cooltouch · 01-20-2017, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by g026r

Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off.

At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it.

Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in?

Pentax K2.
smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4.
Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired).

I think you're being a bit to hard on your lens. I looked at this image with max zoom over at flickr and I'm seeing good sharpness, especially with the buildings along the left side of the photo. Take a look at that five-story building with reflections of the sky in its windows. There's a window unit air conditioner in the second from the left, top row. I can see some detail in this A/C unit. I can almost read the text in that billboard sign, but it looks like you've reached the film's resolution limit with your scan. That is, I see what looks like grain to me. Good scan. What did you use?

g026r · 01-20-2017, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by cooltouch

Good scan. What did you use?

Whatever the local lab has.

(And I may be being a bit hard on the lens. I've been known to do that.)

Arvid · 01-20-2017, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by g026r

Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off.

At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it.

Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in?

Pentax K2.
smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4.
Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired).

I also think that this is as good as it gets. Don't know if you rated the film (which is not too fast) even lower, as it was expired, forcing you to open the lens wider or choosing a lower shutter speed, but to me it looks reasonably sharp enough under these conditions.

I have the M 50 1.4, but I guess its optical qualities are comparable to the A-version. It tends to have a slight glow when opened wide, especially when it comes to backlit situations, add to this marginal handshake due to low shutter speed (if you look too closely, even 1/60 can be a little too slow, sometimes) and this might explain how the rendition of the wires above the street look for example, or the reflections off the cars parked on the side of the street.

Often, when I'm not satisfied with the technical aspects of a photo I took and all the small shortcomings ruin it for me before I can even start to think about whether or not it could have been an interesting picture to begin with, I realize that 1) few people notice the technical flaws in it as much as I (or you, the shooter) do and 2) I should really force myself to simply take a little more time the next time, even if all that means is that I steady my breath and make sure that camera shake is not a thing to worry about.

**onlineflyer** · 01-20-2017, 01:23 PM - **2 Likes**

Here's one from back in 1980, shot with KX and M 50/1.7

Swift1 · 01-20-2017, 01:23 PM - **4 Likes**

Fujifilm Klasse
Fujinon 38/2.6
Kodak Portra 400
Epson V750-M Pro

**arnold** · 01-20-2017, 06:06 PM - **4 Likes**

The little house that wouldn't go.
Pentax SV, SMC Tacumar, Kodak400

---------- Post added 21-01-17 at 11:10 ----------

[IMG]

Inside the bookshop. A sunny 16 guess, wide open Pentax SV K400

dsmithhfx · 01-21-2017, 05:38 AM - **1 Like**

**Jacquot** · 01-21-2017, 06:16 AM - **5 Likes**

Slowly getting back into some film usage. This is from a Maine island, Monhegan, that has a splendid eastern shore. There are some spots on this image that do not appear on others, not sure why, but I did not do the processing. Pentax LX with K50/1.2 and Ektar. Just starting to download the files, with a few more rolls coming from a mix of cameras and glass...

Swift1 · 01-21-2017, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Jacquot

Slowly getting back into some film usage. This is from a Maine island, Monhegan, that has a splendid eastern shore. There are some spots on this image that do not appear on others, not sure why, but I did not do the processing. Pentax LX with K50/1.2 and Ektar. Just starting to download the files, with a few more rolls coming from a mix of cameras and glass...

Awesome to see.
It's pretty routine to need to clone out some dust spots. Those look like they could be something on the negatives.

Swift1 · 01-21-2017, 04:17 PM - **7 Likes**

I spent some time today rescanning some 35mm Kodak Gold 100 that I shot in 2011 while visiting my sister in Alaska.
I probably posted this image back then, but I thought I'd share the new version. It's amazing what 5 years of scanning/editing experience can add to the scan quality

Pentax Spotmatic SPII
SMC Takumar 50/1.4
Kodak Gold 100
Epson V750-M Pro

**arnold** · 01-21-2017, 07:30 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Swift1

I spent some time today rescanning some 35mm Kodak Gold 100 that I shot in 2011 while visiting my sister in Alaska.
I probably posted this image back then, but I thought I'd share the new version. It's amazing what 5 years of scanning/editing experience can add to the scan quality

Pentax Spotmatic SPII
SMC Takumar 50/1.4
Kodak Gold 100
Epson V750-M Pro

That is lovely and clean, very pleasing. Yes, scanning makes a difference, and I wonder how many times my scans fail the pictures.

---------- Post added 22-01-17 at 12:33 ----------

This one was waving in the breeze, but 1/500 sunny 16 managed to stop it. Pentax SV, Tac 50/1.4, K400

01-19-2017, 08:54 PM - 5 Likes	#14597
g026r Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,074	Originally posted by Helios 1984 Exactly. Here's the original image with Auto-Focus ON. Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off. At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it. Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in? Pentax K2. smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4. Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired). Last edited by g026r; 01-19-2017 at 10:05 PM.

01-20-2017, 01:23 PM - 2 Likes	#14603
onlineflyer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: NW Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,091	Here's one from back in 1980, shot with KX and M 50/1.7 Attached Images

01-21-2017, 06:16 AM - 5 Likes	#14607
Jacquot Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sun City Center, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,544	Slowly getting back into some film usage. This is from a Maine island, Monhegan, that has a splendid eastern shore. There are some spots on this image that do not appear on others, not sure why, but I did not do the processing. Pentax LX with K50/1.2 and Ektar. Just starting to download the files, with a few more rolls coming from a mix of cameras and glass... Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D test shots at Lets Go Digital	schufosi777	Pentax News and Rumors	6	04-20-2013 11:31 AM
Macro Cool Macro shots	derajjjg	Post Your Photos!	2	12-27-2009 09:36 PM
Lets see your Moon and Mars shots	Igilligan	Post Your Photos!	9	12-05-2009 08:55 AM
Way cool bat shots	and	General Talk	7	10-01-2009 02:54 AM
Cool Shots & Info	Fl_Gulfer	Post Your Photos!	0	12-10-2007 11:44 AM

01-19-2017, 08:47 PM - 1 Like	#14596
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Arvid Wow. Many of these shots you posted lately look like movie stills.. in a good way - really atmospheric. What he said ^^^^ Steve

01-20-2017, 03:39 AM - 2 Likes	#14598
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,146

01-20-2017, 08:30 AM	#14599
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,146	Originally posted by g026r Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off. At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it. Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in? Pentax K2. smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4. Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired). This looks reasonably sharp for wide open, low light, very limited DOF.

01-20-2017, 09:22 AM	#14600
cooltouch Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Houston, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 982	Originally posted by g026r Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off. At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it. Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in? Pentax K2. smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4. Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired). I think you're being a bit to hard on your lens. I looked at this image with max zoom over at flickr and I'm seeing good sharpness, especially with the buildings along the left side of the photo. Take a look at that five-story building with reflections of the sky in its windows. There's a window unit air conditioner in the second from the left, top row. I can see some detail in this A/C unit. I can almost read the text in that billboard sign, but it looks like you've reached the film's resolution limit with your scan. That is, I see what looks like grain to me. Good scan. What did you use?

01-20-2017, 09:43 AM	#14601
g026r Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,074	Originally posted by cooltouch Good scan. What did you use? Whatever the local lab has. (And I may be being a bit hard on the lens. I've been known to do that.)

01-20-2017, 09:56 AM	#14602
Arvid Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 168	Originally posted by g026r Oof. Yeah, that's a bit off. At first I thought this one had camera shake from a too low shutter speed. Looking closer, it doesn't appear to be shake so much as just softness, which makes me think that I probably took this with an A50/1.4 at wide open or close to it. Curious if that's an artifact of the lens normally, or just my copy. Anyone else care to chime in? Pentax K2. smc Pentax-A 50mm f1.4. Fujichrome Sensia 200 (expired). I also think that this is as good as it gets. Don't know if you rated the film (which is not too fast) even lower, as it was expired, forcing you to open the lens wider or choosing a lower shutter speed, but to me it looks reasonably sharp enough under these conditions. I have the M 50 1.4, but I guess its optical qualities are comparable to the A-version. It tends to have a slight glow when opened wide, especially when it comes to backlit situations, add to this marginal handshake due to low shutter speed (if you look too closely, even 1/60 can be a little too slow, sometimes) and this might explain how the rendition of the wires above the street look for example, or the reflections off the cars parked on the side of the street. Often, when I'm not satisfied with the technical aspects of a photo I took and all the small shortcomings ruin it for me before I can even start to think about whether or not it could have been an interesting picture to begin with, I realize that 1) few people notice the technical flaws in it as much as I (or you, the shooter) do and 2) I should really force myself to simply take a little more time the next time, even if all that means is that I steady my breath and make sure that camera shake is not a thing to worry about.

01-20-2017, 01:23 PM - 4 Likes	#14604
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Fujifilm Klasse Fujinon 38/2.6 Kodak Portra 400 Epson V750-M Pro

01-20-2017, 06:06 PM - 4 Likes	#14605
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,294	The little house that wouldn't go. Pentax SV, SMC Tacumar, Kodak400 ---------- Post added 21-01-17 at 11:10 ---------- [IMG] Inside the bookshop. A sunny 16 guess, wide open Pentax SV K400

01-21-2017, 05:38 AM - 1 Like	#14606
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,146

01-21-2017, 10:44 AM	#14608
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Originally posted by Jacquot Slowly getting back into some film usage. This is from a Maine island, Monhegan, that has a splendid eastern shore. There are some spots on this image that do not appear on others, not sure why, but I did not do the processing. Pentax LX with K50/1.2 and Ektar. Just starting to download the files, with a few more rolls coming from a mix of cameras and glass... Awesome to see. It's pretty routine to need to clone out some dust spots. Those look like they could be something on the negatives.

01-21-2017, 04:17 PM - 7 Likes	#14609
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	I spent some time today rescanning some 35mm Kodak Gold 100 that I shot in 2011 while visiting my sister in Alaska. I probably posted this image back then, but I thought I'd share the new version. It's amazing what 5 years of scanning/editing experience can add to the scan quality Pentax Spotmatic SPII SMC Takumar 50/1.4 Kodak Gold 100 Epson V750-M Pro

01-21-2017, 07:30 PM - 1 Like	#14610
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,294	Originally posted by Swift1 I spent some time today rescanning some 35mm Kodak Gold 100 that I shot in 2011 while visiting my sister in Alaska. I probably posted this image back then, but I thought I'd share the new version. It's amazing what 5 years of scanning/editing experience can add to the scan quality Pentax Spotmatic SPII SMC Takumar 50/1.4 Kodak Gold 100 Epson V750-M Pro That is lovely and clean, very pleasing. Yes, scanning makes a difference, and I wonder how many times my scans fail the pictures. ---------- Post added 22-01-17 at 12:33 ---------- This one was waving in the breeze, but 1/500 sunny 16 managed to stop it. Pentax SV, Tac 50/1.4, K400