Discussion in 'Film Discussion and Q & A' started by SoulfulRecover, Oct 7, 2016.
Nikon F with eye level prism, 55mm f/3.5 micro pre-ai, TriX shot at 400 using sunny 16 method, HC110 B for 6 min, rapid fix, Epson V800. It was cold, 23°
1. Rothko inspired
Nikon F, 55mm f3.5, TriX.
I have a pair of these somewhere, from the 70's. I recall them being outrageously large / heavy but good sounding.
OMG.....I had a set of those too......very heavy but man did they sound good. I use a set of Koss UR-20's now, cheap but have a great sound and are light weight.
This shot was on my Pentax K1000, Kodak Gold 200 expired film.
---_0071 by Michael Long, on Flickr
Shot on my GX680.
Phone scans from testing the new lens
First roll through my Canon AF35M. A lot of these shots turned out pretty blurry, which is a bummer because one of the reasons I picked it up was that I'd heard people rave about how sharp they are. Not sure if it's the camera, dirty lens, old film, or just my crappy scans...but anyway. I like the shadows and psychedelic feel of this one, even if it is out of focus.
The person was moving and either the focus was locked in prior to the person entering and/or shutter speed was to slow. One of the reasons I don't like AF vintage cameras, especially point and shoots. If a lot of non moving shots were sharp, kind of tells you it's the AF. Another reason, no control on a camera like this. If there was a switch to change it to manual focus and the lens had the foot marks on it, then we might be able to overcome some things.
I would rather have a zone focusing point shoot over these AF ones. At least you know if the subject falls within your zone, it will be sharp. Like the tiny Minox camera's as an example. I don't like vintage AF SLRs either, for the same reason. I end up using manual or zone focus on them as well. AF has come a long way with digital/mirrorless. With vintage AF cameras, it really leaves a lot to be desired. That has been my experience.
That's weird, because it was my understanding (based on several reviews I'd read) that this camera was super fast with the auto-focus, and specifically noted how great the focusing was for moving objects. It's also weird because the camera doesn't do the half-press for focus thing—you have to trip the auto timer and focus, then re-compose in order to focus anywhere other than dead center. I know I didn't do that for this one, and I also know if she was moving it was just barely. Do you think it could be a scan thing? I scanned these myself, and the negatives were curled enough that I had a harder time keeping them in the holder than I usually do.
One way to find out is to use a lupe and see if it's in focus. It appears to me it is not but hard to tell on here. If you don't have a lupe, a 50mm prime lens reversed will work. Set the negative on your cell phone and a all white jpeg background and inspect. You should be able to tell with this makeshift method.
You don't mention if other negatives on the roll of non moving subjects appear sharp.
Separate names with a comma.