Analog film photography and cameras

Turns out it was the lens that was the problem! This is the dinky 40 2.8 so I'll go down a youtube rabbit hole of learning to service vintage lenses...

It's not that hard with the right tools. Just with a lens spanner I've managed to get a few lenses apart to be able to clean haze (it's always the element behind the aperture blades).

This is pretty good for Pentax SMC-M lenses
https://youtu.be/pjYoDIpw_Jw

Weirdly the front of the 40 2.8 doesnt have notches for a lens spanner anywhere. Might be a bit more involved but should still be possible
I have a lovely 50 1.7 I can use in the meantime while I try not to break the pancake :)

Can anyone recommend a cheap, small as possible point and shoot 35mm camera to sling in a bum bag?

I guess the quick & dirty answer to that question is: the really good ones that are also "small as possible" are much sought-after, thus quite expensive now.
Just search eBay or classifieds for "point and shoot" in a price range you're comfortable with and see what's available.

Slight change of plan! Ended up buying an Olympus 35RC compact rangefinder on eBay for £25. Reasons being that it's got a lot more control than a point and shoot but also has auto mode. I've also never owned a rangefinder and fancied messing about with one!

Cool, have fun!

Been to Athens with a new lens (50mm f/1.8 STM) and a new flash set up, and I'm veeeeery happy with the results. This time I really feel like I've progressed, especially since it was my 2nd time using flash and 1st time using it off camera through a hot shoe cable adapter.

All of the below are Portra 400 rated at 200 through a Canon EOS Elan 7. Except the first one - this one I've rated at box speed since it was shot through a manual lens and I didn't want to mess up the metering; I just overexposed it manually by 0.5 EV.

5 Attachments

Good ! The last one is great through.

Why are you shooting Portra 400 at 200 ? If for a particular look then fair enough. Otherwise you shouldn't need to bother. Portra latitude is great and the metering in the Canon is good so need to over expose to avoid under exposure.

Mainly because I was afraid I may underexpose a shot, but I also like the look of a slightly overexposed Portra.

I don't know if 1 stop over is enough to change the look of Portra. Half a stop won't be noticeable at all. Charts like these made me realise how overexposure with negative film is a bit of a red herring

Cool photos though! 1st and last are my faves

Thanks! I'll definitely look into it. What about overexposing b/w film? I'm tempted to rate Trix at 200, seeing as I had satisfying results with Portra.

Awesome skate shots man, really like those.

Nice light / Portra looking good as well.

Shooting colour negative film one stop above is a good idea in general.
Black and white is different though, start with what it says on the box here.

Very much the same as its still a negative film. These guys do good comparisons and test exposure latitudes of most films:
https://carmencitafilmlab.com/hp5-delta400/

Even cheap colour negative film can be abused. This is Colorplus 2 stops over AND exposed for the shadows

1 Attachment

That last shot is killer.

Very much the same as its still a negative film.

Err.. sorry, but colour negative film (where the image is built through dye clouds in multiple layers) is completely different from traditional b&w film (grains of silver salt etc.).

Shooting colour negative film one stop above is a good idea in general.

It depends on the film I think. Portra, Fuji Pro and Ektar are all fine with a bit of underexposure and I shoot those at box speed.

Consumer films need a bit more light as the latitude isn't as good. Some like Superia 400 are awful with shadows going to mud with even a touch of underexposure. C200 strangely seems a lot better in that respect.

Didn't mean the film is the same. Meant that if you have a dense, overexposed negative you can shine a brighter light through it and still get detail. As opposed to reversal films that would dissapear if you tried to overexpose 6 stops

It depends on the film I think.

Yea, different films behave differently, yet still -
(with colour negative film) overexposing a bit is generally a good idea, as it gives you more detailled shadows (and you don't blow highlights so quickly, as with slide film - or digital).
And yes, the pro films tend to have more latitude so a bit of underexpose is no problem, but I'd only do this if I had to.

Anyone got any use for some massively expired 5x4 Delta 100 B+W film? I honestly have no idea how many are left in the box but whatever's in there is yours for the price of postage and an optional forum donation.

Pentax K1000, Delta 400. Might be of interest to @Turkish - these were shot with a 50mm with gunk on the blades making it sluggish on stop down. I guess they would of been over exposed anywhere up to four stops given I was shooting at f8 a lot of the time. Shows how good the latitude of film and scanning (Palm Labs) is.

5 Attachments

Look good, although I still wanna have a crack at fixing my oily pancake

A lens spanner should be arriving today. What do you reckon would be best for removing the gunk? White spirit?

Generally (I think) you want a mineral spirit that's going to evaporate without leaving a residue. I've used zippo type lighter fuel (naptha) in the past.

I dont know if the white spirit I have in the shed is this...not the cheapest lens so might buy something specific
Nor do I want to fuck up taking the lens apart so I might practice on a very fungusy Canon 70-210 I have going spare