First roll from K1000 questions

jcdeboever · Mar 14, 2016

Facts, first time using this camera back in July, didn't have a clear understanding of what I was doing other than the exposure needle was dead center. I kind of remember back in the 80's I had similar results but can't be certain. These two are good examples of how the whole roll turned out, using a Pentax K1000, 50mm 1.7, NO filter. Would a yellow filter have corrected these? They seem hazy and lack contrast? I will say there was a great deal of smoke in the air most of the day. They clean up nice in post, real easy. Developed at Dwayne's.
My guess is that a yellow filter would have helped? The film was Kodak T-Maxx 400 ISO. Is it in development? I was O.K. with them once I seen how easy I could fix contrast in GIMP.

Unedited, straight from scan. Very gray. f/8, 1/100s

Unedited, straight from scan. Very gray. f/8, 1/100s

smithdan · Mar 14, 2016

Always found that t max didn't have the contrast that I was used to from tri x. Tried to make up for it in the printing stage, same as you have found correction methods in post on the scans. Switching film to Ilford HP5 helped. Hope others answer the filter question, I use a yellow filter to make clouds more pronounced as it darkens blues but that's all. I have read that a yellow helps with haze but haze would be more of a factor in landscape shots.

The K1000 has a fairly reliable meter but just to be sure, take readings with another light meter and compare them to what the Pentax says. f8 @ 1/100 seems about one stop over for 400 ISO on a "cloudy/ bright" day.

jcdeboever · Mar 14, 2016

smithdan said:
Always found that t max didn't have the contrast that I was used to from tri x. Tried to make up for it in the printing stage, same as you have found correction methods in post on the scans. Switching film to Ilford HP5 helped. Hope others answer the filter question, I use a yellow filter to make clouds more pronounced as it darkens blues but that's all. I have read that a yellow helps with haze but haze would be more of a factor in landscape shots.

The K1000 has a fairly reliable meter but just to be sure, take readings with another light meter and compare them to what the Pentax says. f8 @ 1/100 seems about one stop over for 400 ISO on a "cloudy/ bright" day.

Thanks. Will do. They look great on my phone...lol

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Derrel · Mar 14, 2016

In general yes, the classic filter for panchromaric B&W was the old K-2, or medium yellow, which will improve blue sky color by quite a bit, and gives a better tonal separation on panchromatic film. Anyway...I think what these are lacking is really just the proper tone curve...the blacks need to be a bit blacker. What's a bit alarming is the pattern that appears in the details...the scans are not very good, what with that weird pattern to them.

The shot of the girls making lemonaid, has a long tonal scale, just needs the contrast set properly for some SNAP! to it.

The shot of the guys handling the logs--that is a classic case of where backlight from a bright sky, with subject in open shade can lead to lessened contrast in-camera due to 1) back-lighting and loss of contrast unless the lens is shaded very,very carefully and with a compendium type hood and 2) general under-exposure of the majority of the actual picture are, the men in open shade.

Yet still, with all that said, the log-handling shot does have good detail, even in the shadowed areas, and there **is** some detail in the sky too; this photo really would have benefitted from having a filter over the lens when the shot was made. It's a very nice scene. Both shots have a nice, wide tonal range captured in he scan--now all they need if the proper post-processing adjustment to set the black point and the other tones so there's a good feeling of SNAP! to the pictures.

timor · Mar 14, 2016

This seems like under exposed or under developed material. . Possibly use of somewhat exhausted developer cannot be also ruled out. How looks negative ? TMY is capable of stunning results, but it's handling is a bit more challenging than most other films.
The problem here is, that it wasn't you, who developed the film. In case of both pictures use of yellow, orange or red filter wouldn't be justified much. There is enough contrast in subject itself. Those filters main task is to block blue light and prevent over exposure of the sky.. Red filter may also change the perception of colours by the panchromatic film. but contrast in b&w film is controlled by combination of exposure and development.

jcdeboever · Mar 14, 2016

Derrel said:
In general yes, the classic filter for panchromaric B&W was the old K-2, or medium yellow, which will improve blue sky color by quite a bit, and gives a better tonal separation on panchromatic film. Anyway...I think what these are lacking is really just the proper tone curve...the blacks need to be a bit blacker. What's a bit alarming is the pattern that appears in the details...the scans are not very good, what with that weird pattern to them.

The shot of the girls making lemonaid, has a long ton al scale, just needs the contrast set properly for some SNAP! to it.
The shot of the guys handling the logs--that is a classic case of where backlight from a bright sky, with subject in open shade can lead to lessened contrast in-camera due to 1) back-lighting and loss of contrast unless the lens is shaded very,very carefully and with a compendium type hood and 2) general under-exposure of the majority of the actual picture are, the men in open shade.

The log-handling shot does have good detail, even in the shadowed areas, and there **is** some detail in the sky too; this photo really would have benefitted from having a filter over the lens when the shot was made. It's a very nice scene. Both have a nice, wide tonal range captured in he scan--now all they need if the proper post-processing adjustment to set the black point and the other tones so there's a good feeling of SNAP! to the pictures.

Thanks Derrel. I wanted to make sure I was understanding. Sometimes I read too much and get a little confused. Great tip on that scene, I will try and remember it.

timor said:
This seems like under exposed or under developed material. . Possibly use of somewhat exhausted developer cannot be also ruled out. How looks negative ? TMY is capable of stunning results, but it's handling is a bit more challenging than most other films.
The problem here is, that it wasn't you, who developed the film. In case of both pictures use of yellow, orange or red filter wouldn't be justified much. There is enough contrast in subject itself. Those filters main task is to block blue light and prevent over exposure of the sky.. Red filter may also change the perception of colours by the panchromatic film. but contrast in b&w film is controlled by combination of exposure and development.

The negative looks pretty much the same. I will develop next roll myself and see where I stand in comparison. The one of the girls is definitely somewhat different than what's on the CD though. There are two others not in the OP that are different looking than what's on CD. I may call them when I get time. It's about 10 bucks a roll (total cost) to develop. What's stupid is they give you a separate CD for each roll, very wasteful. I guess they make more money that way.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

timor · Mar 14, 2016

If you are going to develop TMY or TMX, remember, that well developed material will look like one stop under exposed comparing to films with cubical grain.

jcdeboever · Mar 14, 2016

timor said:
If you are going to develop TMY or TMX, remember, that well developed material will look like one stop under exposed comparing to films with cubical grain.

What is TMY? TMX?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk