dwr
Senile User
Haven't posted for a while, been busy taking pictures - surprisingly, I'm a rather slow picture taker, average about 2 rolls per month so far - but now the second roll is developed and I would like to see what the knowledged community says about them, crap, okay or nice, the rawest comments - like if you were taking the picture how would you approach it, in what other way would you compose the shot, etc. - are welcome because they would help me get better.
I didn't post the prints from the 1st roll because it was a total disaster: I didn't load the film right and it somehow got tangled up without me knowing it, so I opened the chamber thinking it was rewound properly only to found out that it was not, so those exposure that did took photos were exposed to the light so none of them got a single image. A lesson learnt.
I'm now about 1/3 into the 3rd film, would probably finish it in a week or two, I'll post them as soon as they got developed. I scanned the prints on a cheap Canon flatbed I bought several years ago so they don't look like the originals, the colours tend to be a bit different than the prints, odd, so in later photos I tried to adjust a bit the gamma or something and they managed to look more like their physical counterparts.
Encountered are some of the RF problems typically mentioned - parallax for example. Although Minolta Hi-Matic 7S has parallax correction in its viewfinder, sometimes I just forgot to notice it when I was focusing and refocusing, realised that only when I got the prints, but it should be an easy fix by just paying more attention. I do tend to pay more attention to the results of the combination of aperture and shutter speed because of the lack of live feedback in the viewfinder as in SLR or DLSRs, which I do consider a fine attribute, but bit more work to be honest, but I like it, feels more in control, to put it in some way. And I think it would be good for me photographically in the long run.
One thing, however, that still puzzles me is the depth of field. Yes, I've spent quite some time reading about it, I know theoretically how to get the DOF I want, and have some very limited practice of trying to achieve the desired effect, but the thing is (and this might sound stupid): why is it so important? I mean people talk about it all the time, but what's about it that's so fundamental? Maybe I'm missing some important point during my reading? And when I show my friend the pictures he said "oh you got not bad depth of field in this one", while I just didn't see it! I didn't actually quite understand what he was saying regarding not bad depth of field because I was shooting wide open and the background's just blurry. Hope someone might help me out here.
Also I took out some of them because they were just so shockingly bad that I couldn't bear to put them online (well, it's not that the rest are so good either), and the rest of them are just left for your criticisms.
By the way, I got some Ilford Pan 100s - bought them because they were cheap, about 2 dollars, but my friend recommended me using 400 instead of 100, would you say the same thing? Should I ditch the Ilfords?
I didn't post the prints from the 1st roll because it was a total disaster: I didn't load the film right and it somehow got tangled up without me knowing it, so I opened the chamber thinking it was rewound properly only to found out that it was not, so those exposure that did took photos were exposed to the light so none of them got a single image. A lesson learnt.
I'm now about 1/3 into the 3rd film, would probably finish it in a week or two, I'll post them as soon as they got developed. I scanned the prints on a cheap Canon flatbed I bought several years ago so they don't look like the originals, the colours tend to be a bit different than the prints, odd, so in later photos I tried to adjust a bit the gamma or something and they managed to look more like their physical counterparts.
Encountered are some of the RF problems typically mentioned - parallax for example. Although Minolta Hi-Matic 7S has parallax correction in its viewfinder, sometimes I just forgot to notice it when I was focusing and refocusing, realised that only when I got the prints, but it should be an easy fix by just paying more attention. I do tend to pay more attention to the results of the combination of aperture and shutter speed because of the lack of live feedback in the viewfinder as in SLR or DLSRs, which I do consider a fine attribute, but bit more work to be honest, but I like it, feels more in control, to put it in some way. And I think it would be good for me photographically in the long run.
One thing, however, that still puzzles me is the depth of field. Yes, I've spent quite some time reading about it, I know theoretically how to get the DOF I want, and have some very limited practice of trying to achieve the desired effect, but the thing is (and this might sound stupid): why is it so important? I mean people talk about it all the time, but what's about it that's so fundamental? Maybe I'm missing some important point during my reading? And when I show my friend the pictures he said "oh you got not bad depth of field in this one", while I just didn't see it! I didn't actually quite understand what he was saying regarding not bad depth of field because I was shooting wide open and the background's just blurry. Hope someone might help me out here.
Also I took out some of them because they were just so shockingly bad that I couldn't bear to put them online (well, it's not that the rest are so good either), and the rest of them are just left for your criticisms.
By the way, I got some Ilford Pan 100s - bought them because they were cheap, about 2 dollars, but my friend recommended me using 400 instead of 100, would you say the same thing? Should I ditch the Ilfords?
Last edited:
Thardy
Veteran
DOF is important as a means of artistic expression.
I think the friend liked the shot since he said (NOT bad DOF in this one). Blurring a part of a photo can add a bit of interest that would not have been there if the whole frame was in focus.
I think the friend liked the shot since he said (NOT bad DOF in this one). Blurring a part of a photo can add a bit of interest that would not have been there if the whole frame was in focus.
snausages
Well-known
Don't worry about depth of field. For your next roll, how about challenging yourself to shoot people, and not from behind them? Look for eyes, action, character, story. Get closer. There are a million ways to take a good photo without any of what I'm describing, but it might be a rewarding exercise to force yourself to engage with people more.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
In most situations, ASA 100 film is as usable as ASA 400. I'd say that matters like depth of field should come long after you have mastered film loading and rewinding, correct exposure, correct focussing. If your camera viewfinder has parallax correction, there is nothing to pay attention to other than the marked boundaries of the frame.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
In most situations, ASA 100 film is as usable as ASA 400. I'd say that matters like depth of field should come long after you have mastered film loading and rewinding, correct exposure, correct focussing. If your camera viewfinder has parallax correction, there is nothing to pay attention to other than the marked boundaries of the frame.
charjohncarter
Veteran
DOF is a composition tool and an important one, but shooting more than 2 rolls a month will also accelerate your learning curve. Buy 10 rolls of cheap film (C-41) and blast though them. Maybe even keep a note or two if bracketing exposure or doing something out of the ordinary (backlighting). You will get so that frame line is second nature along with finding the control of your camera without thinking or looking.
Your first shots look good to me, I think you are are the road to success.
Your first shots look good to me, I think you are are the road to success.
dwr
Senile User
Yeah, that's one of the problem I've noticed in this batch of photos snausages, there's not a soul in most of them! It's not that I haven't encountered a person that spurred me enough to shoot, just that I don't quite know how to approach a person with a camera pointing at him/her, some people tend to get a bit annoyed, so I guess I'm somewhat afraid and therefore avoided doing that altogether. Perhaps you're right, I should try to challenge myself.
charjohncarter, what do you mean by cheap film (C-41)? A little search on google showed that it's a developing process rather than a type of film. I'm glad that you liked the pictures, let's just hope that the next ones won't give us a nasty surprise.
It's awesome knowing that I don't have to put the 100 films on an auction site or something. And just one more question that's been on my mind, I've noticed that the readings of the meter vary when composed horizontally or vertically, with the latter getting a hugh amount of EV boost. Is that normal? Does it mean that when you compose vertically the camera receive more light?
charjohncarter, what do you mean by cheap film (C-41)? A little search on google showed that it's a developing process rather than a type of film. I'm glad that you liked the pictures, let's just hope that the next ones won't give us a nasty surprise.
It's awesome knowing that I don't have to put the 100 films on an auction site or something. And just one more question that's been on my mind, I've noticed that the readings of the meter vary when composed horizontally or vertically, with the latter getting a hugh amount of EV boost. Is that normal? Does it mean that when you compose vertically the camera receive more light?
Last edited:
xxloverxx
Shoot.
Ilford Pan is a B&W film that uses the B&W process for development, which, these days, is more expensive than C41 (colour negative) processing. Also, colour negatives are usually cheaper than true B&W films or slides (which use E-6) or Kodachrome (K14 I think. Or some K process anyway).
I suggest going with 400 film, and save the 100 for still subjects or places where there's going to be a lot of light. It just helps at night, and the grain is very pleasant (on Tri-X at least. I don't like the grain on C41 films; it's just different. Bit "bumpier" is how I'd describe it). Also, in places with a lot of tall buildings, like in most areas in HK, you don't get a lot of light…so faster film helps, esp. when shooting moving subjects (people being themselves)
You shouldn't be getting a different reading with the meter when the camera's held vertically, because the meter spot is right above the lens, almost in the centre.
If the meter was next to the rangefinder window, it'd be a different story.
You do not get more light when holding the camera differently (unless you mean to the sky vs to the ground), so don't let that fool you. I'd say get a hand-held incident meter, which will remove all doubt.
DOF is a creative thing…until you get into low-light situations, where, unless you use a flash, you're gonna have to shoot wide open if you're hand holding it. It's good for isolating subjects from other distractions. The closer you get, the shallower your DOF will be.
It's only important if you want it to be.
I suggest going with 400 film, and save the 100 for still subjects or places where there's going to be a lot of light. It just helps at night, and the grain is very pleasant (on Tri-X at least. I don't like the grain on C41 films; it's just different. Bit "bumpier" is how I'd describe it). Also, in places with a lot of tall buildings, like in most areas in HK, you don't get a lot of light…so faster film helps, esp. when shooting moving subjects (people being themselves)
You shouldn't be getting a different reading with the meter when the camera's held vertically, because the meter spot is right above the lens, almost in the centre.
If the meter was next to the rangefinder window, it'd be a different story.
You do not get more light when holding the camera differently (unless you mean to the sky vs to the ground), so don't let that fool you. I'd say get a hand-held incident meter, which will remove all doubt.
DOF is a creative thing…until you get into low-light situations, where, unless you use a flash, you're gonna have to shoot wide open if you're hand holding it. It's good for isolating subjects from other distractions. The closer you get, the shallower your DOF will be.
It's only important if you want it to be.
dwr
Senile User
I see, now I understand why he suggested C-41 which I reckon is quite sound for a beginner. Right, I'll manage to keep the 100 films to well-lit situations, thanks for the explanation!
Yes, the meter is right above the lens, in the centre, that's why it baffled me when I got this different readings, I'll check with other Hi-Matic 7s users to see if that's normal on this particular model.
Yes, the meter is right above the lens, in the centre, that's why it baffled me when I got this different readings, I'll check with other Hi-Matic 7s users to see if that's normal on this particular model.
martin s
Well-known
I picked one -
I think it's a good shot, I like the angle and the scene - but in this case it would have worked better if you'd have waited until it's visible what it is she has in her hands / works on. Alternatively choose a different angle. From my point of view the content of her hand is what this picture is about, and I can't really tell what it is.
martin
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Your problem lies in your not having enough experience working with a manual camera. Try this exercise shoot a roll of portraits at f4 or f5.6. Then shoot a roll of landscapes at f11 & f16. Then shoot a roll of still lifes at f2.8. Adjust you shutter speeds to obtain the appropriate f-stop. Compare the backgrounds in the final images.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
If you use the Minolta 7S in auto mode, you set shutter speed and the camera sets aperture according to lighting situation. Then you must use a high speed to get shallow DOF or conversely, a slow speed if you need more DOF unless your pursue is for other light effecs.
Otherwise you should set the camera to manual which IIRC is not the fastest way to adjust exposure in that camera. In that case, and IMHO a handheld meter is f choice.
I second the opinion of leaving high grade B&W film for a close future, and using C41 ISO 400 as everyday film. I found too that ISO 400 is a good choice that lets you shoot in sunlight as well as in dim situations where you may find usefull the two extra stops over ISO 100.
Good luck and please post the results of your third roll!
Cheers
Ernesto
Otherwise you should set the camera to manual which IIRC is not the fastest way to adjust exposure in that camera. In that case, and IMHO a handheld meter is f choice.
I second the opinion of leaving high grade B&W film for a close future, and using C41 ISO 400 as everyday film. I found too that ISO 400 is a good choice that lets you shoot in sunlight as well as in dim situations where you may find usefull the two extra stops over ISO 100.
Good luck and please post the results of your third roll!
Cheers
Ernesto
dwr
Senile User
Right martin, when I was taking the shot I was too busy framing the shot to notice the little details, thanks for pointing it out! The exercise looks educative, I'll try that. Keep it coming if you have any more practicing tips!
Ernesto, I intend only to shoot in manual mode for now, it was a bit awkward adjusting the settings, but it was largely down to my inexperience, after getting a bit more familiar with the camera, it's easier now. And it's got this EV reading on the lens, so it's actually not so hard to tell if you have the right combination of shutter speed and aperture(in the sense that it's true to the meter reading)
And regarding the varied meter reading issue mentioned earlier, well, I got an answer from a fellow Hi-Matic user:
Ernesto, I intend only to shoot in manual mode for now, it was a bit awkward adjusting the settings, but it was largely down to my inexperience, after getting a bit more familiar with the camera, it's easier now. And it's got this EV reading on the lens, so it's actually not so hard to tell if you have the right combination of shutter speed and aperture(in the sense that it's true to the meter reading)
And regarding the varied meter reading issue mentioned earlier, well, I got an answer from a fellow Hi-Matic user:
gho
Well-known
I picked one -
I think it's a good shot, I like the angle and the scene - but in this case it would have worked better if you'd have waited until it's visible what it is she has in her hands / works on. Alternatively choose a different angle. From my point of view the content of her hand is what this picture is about, and I can't really tell what it is.
martin
I agree with martin here. Additionally I would have framed the shot a bit differently. Less bottle and more of her concentration and the sewing machine. Just a little shift up and right. Maybe even a vertical framing. In addition I would have concentrated more on the sharpness of her hands. Bokeh is secondary. For me it rather depends on what the light and the film can give. If in doubt I choose the highest dof that is reasonably possible when shooting hand held. It is not easy for me too, to keep all this in mind when taking a picture. But I guess it is all a matter of practie and determination.