First foray back to film...
billseye
Registered Users Posts: 847 Major grins
Just got the results of my first film work in at least a decade. Just for giggles I picked up an Olympus OM-1 on Craigslist.
I must say, it's been even longer since using a fully manual film camera - kinda fun, but I've got to get my film legs back if this is gonna work.
There are some more shots from the first roll here. I invite anyone to take an look and share any feedback or direction to get back up to speed.
The returned images were pretty inconsistent in exposure and focus - usually out of carelessness on my part, but some I'm just not sure what happened. Anyway... I'm having fun regressing to my younger days (started with a Minolta SRT-101 and a home darkroom in 1972)
1. This surly bird is owned by the local barber and spends his days on the sidewalk outside the shop.
2. The people are reflected in a mirror that's part of a large-scale mosaic installation in one of our city parks.
3. My wife and golden retriever through the door of an abandoned, roofless building in the wilderness area of the same park.
Shot on Tri-X at 400 ISO. 50mm f/1.4 lens. Processed at a local lab, returned negatives with large jpegs on CD. PP with Aperture and Nik Silver Efex Pro.
I must say, it's been even longer since using a fully manual film camera - kinda fun, but I've got to get my film legs back if this is gonna work.
There are some more shots from the first roll here. I invite anyone to take an look and share any feedback or direction to get back up to speed.
The returned images were pretty inconsistent in exposure and focus - usually out of carelessness on my part, but some I'm just not sure what happened. Anyway... I'm having fun regressing to my younger days (started with a Minolta SRT-101 and a home darkroom in 1972)
1. This surly bird is owned by the local barber and spends his days on the sidewalk outside the shop.
2. The people are reflected in a mirror that's part of a large-scale mosaic installation in one of our city parks.
3. My wife and golden retriever through the door of an abandoned, roofless building in the wilderness area of the same park.
Shot on Tri-X at 400 ISO. 50mm f/1.4 lens. Processed at a local lab, returned negatives with large jpegs on CD. PP with Aperture and Nik Silver Efex Pro.
0
Comments
I think #1 and #3 are my favorites of the series. #1 I just can't get that bird saying "OPEN" out of my head. And #3 has a nice serenity feeling to it I like. I actually enjoy the hard focus on the brick leaving the person/dog soft in the background. I like the angle of the shot that forces my eye to the person/dog as well.
#2 is a tad bit busy for me to get my head around so other than that, no other comment.
On a related note, it's kind of fun shooting film again, huh?
.
Since you invited feedback...When we go back to film from digital we have to remember the same thing we had to remember when we went from film to digital...it's just another capture medium.
Remember, unless you are shooting film to produce silver prints in a wet darkroom, you have to devote as much Photoshop time and attention to it as you do to your images produced in digital.
And isn't that OM-1 a neat little camera? If only Olympus had built them to last, they would have taken over the film market - the OM 4 may, interms of its metering alone be the best SLR ever built. But allas, when subjected to serious hard use they fell apart. (When the OM-1 hit the market UPI bought them for all their DC-based photographer. After all, they were so compact an entire outfit could be fit in a relative small shoulder bag. But within 6 months of hard PJ use they were all useless, and the wire service went back to the standards. (However, it was the introduction of the OM-1 that pushed Nikon and Canon to put their SLRs on diets, so the camera had a lasting impact.)
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Uh, no. Not unless you would produce prints in a darkroom without making any adjustments, including selection of paper grade. Some day take a look at Ansel Adams negatives versus Ansel Adams prints - they are virtually unrelated. Or look at Eugene Smith negatives v. Eugene Smith prints. Certainly each film has its own characteristics, it's own distinct look; you wouldn't want to shoot with a contrasty film like Tr-X if your goal was to produce smooth, creamy images. But shooting with film is not excuse for producing images that are too dark, or too blown out, or, for that matter, too damn constrasty.
Again, film and digital are simply different capture media. The question is what you do after the capture. If you are a photographer who believes that all the work should be done in the camera, then that should apply to both digital and film. On the other hand, if you're someone who does allot of darkroom work, why wouldn't you do that work with Photoshop, and vice versa?
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one that enjoys shooting film. I was at a club meeting once and the speaker asked if anyone still shot film. I was the only one that raised my hand. It was like I was on the Group W bench! The all started to move away from me!
I sure did invite feedback and want to start by thanking you for taking the time to provide so much of value that could be of value to me.
As an aside, my daughter just completed her art and animation degree. Her biggest complaint about college was the difficulty in getting professors to provide honest, challenging feedback. The world we've created in the past few decades could use a dose of skin-thickening. I'm here to learn. I'm capable of understanding the difference between opinion, art and information; capable of filtering advice and using it when and where appropriate to hone my craft. Thanks again for this specific response - and your role here overall. My daughter would have loved to have a professor like you... but I digress.
PP is an area of growing interest an facility for me. The images were returned (incorrectly) from the processor without prints, only large jpegs on CD. Several were poorly exposed and not salvageable at all. These were among about 12 of 23 exposures that I could manage to correct. With jpeg only and highly contrasty negs, I don't know how much further correction I can make with my PS skill set.
Regarding your assessment of the three images... I agree that there's not much to the first image. If the contrast was better, you'd be able to see more of the details from within the barbershop, including the barber and a customer (on the lower left) and some of the accoutrements of his craft. [I can see now that a stop or two down on the aperture might have helped with that, too!
The third one is an example of needing to "see" in B&W. The woman (my wife) is wearing a black outfit, the background is dark green and the dog is a darker-colored golden retriever. Separation from the background might have been easier in color or in a b&w conversion that retained color channels. It's also a case where another stop down might have helped.
Yes... it's very cool! Such an nice size and feel - and I love the shutter control at the lens mount!
So... after all the rambling, a question: I mentioned that the returned images were inconsistent (beyond what I would think were my obvious goofs in settings while going fully manual). You mention that the OM-1 fell apart. I don't think the one a bought had seen heavy use, but can you tell me what "falling apart" would mean in terms of camera function?
Check out billseye photos on SmugMug
It IS way fun shooting film again. Especially with a fully manual camera. Really forces you to slow down and think. I just started a certificate program in digital photography through a local university extension classes. The first thing the prof had everyone do was reset all the auto functions on the digital cameras to manual.
So... I'm taking B. D.'s advice to heart and gonna try to reprocess a bit.
Thanks for the comments!
Check out billseye photos on SmugMug
Don't let me discourage you about the OM-1, or any of the OMs - the OM-3, by the way, the 'all mechanical' OM, is absolutely spectacular. That said, the OMs simply were not built to take the kind of beating - abuse - that newspaper photographers gave them, dropping bags filled with gear on the ground, having them banging together, throwing them onto car seats on top of other gear. The Nikon Fs and Canon F1s and their successors could take that kind of beating. However, with normal care, the OMs did just fine. My OM4 went to Somalia - 130 degree heat, dust, grit, etc., and did just fine. I never had a mechanical problem with it.
In terms of processing black and white film. I can highlyrecommend Images Black and White Lab - www.mylab.com, in, of all places, Tuscon. Bill and Sue - honest
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
No discouragement implied or taken. I really like this little camera and I really appreciate your help!
Thanks for the tip about the processing in Tucson, too.
Check out billseye photos on SmugMug
Okay B.D. - If you're willing, I'd like your critique on exposure with the original three adjusted in PS for less contrast and more brightness. I also added a few others that I'd appreciate your eye on contrast/brightness.
Am I making progress?
An aside - I suppose I'm a bit out of the range of street and PJ. If this is in the wrong place, my apologies. I'll wrap it up with this post. Thanks, B.D. and other commenters.
1a (original)
1b (adjusted)
2a (original)
2b (adjusted)
3a (original)
3b (adjusted)
4
5
6
Check out billseye photos on SmugMug