Leica M3 : Roll 2,3,4 and 5

NicoM

NicoM

Well-known
Local time
8:40 PM
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
498
About a month ago, I started a thread sharing my disappointment/dissatisfaction with the first roll that I shot with the Leica M3 that I had just aquired. Here is the original post: http://goo.gl/jP3xJ

The things that I mentioned I did were:

Shot without a meter
Used an expired roll of film
Developed and scanned the roll in CVS

After sharing some of the photos, you all gave some awesome feedback as to what the problems might be. I wanted to try to change up the variables one by one to try to determine what the true source of the problem with my first roll was. I shot 4 more rolls - one expired roll, with the intention of seeing if it was CVS that did a bad developing job. I also shot 3 brand new rolls. I shot with and without a lens hood that I purchased to reduce flare (some of you mentioned that this may have been a problem as well). The one thing that I did not change was shooting without a meter. I'm a a little bit short on cash, so I did my best with the sunny 16 rule.

I had all of the rolls developed this week, this time at a Kodak store. I'm surprised with how much of a difference it made to get my film processed in a good lab! I'm very happy with how it all turned out. Even the expired roll of film turned out nice. I think I also did pretty well in trickier lighting situations, even without a meter.

Here are some of the shots from my latest rolls. I'd love to hear some feedback!

8257587309_f92befc544_z.jpg


8257590167_34481a7fc8_z.jpg


8258664846_1043e5ec73_z.jpg


8258633352_4aa7857bdf_z.jpg


8258799448_436524eb57_z.jpg


And here are some from the expired roll, similar to the roll that I shot in my previous thread.

8258801814_a6e0db4885_z.jpg


8257572749_d4187576e8_z.jpg
 
Sunny 16 works outdoors about 85% of the time and about 40% of the time indoors. Your shots reflect this. But your composition is quite good. You probably need a meter until you really get better at guessing exposure, but you should be encouraged that you are definitely in the right direction.
 
NicoM said:
.... I shot with and without a lens hood that I purchased to reduce flare (some of you mentioned that this may have been a problem as well). The one thing that I did not change was shooting without a meter. I'm a a little bit short on cash, so I did my best with the sunny 16 rule.... /quote)

Hi Nico,
always nice when someone gets feedback and obviously sees some improvements !
I would always have the lens hood on. If you have one, what's the point of not putting it on?
Apart from the reduce flare you mentioned, it also gives additional machanical protection for the front lens.

And ultimately you want to get a meter at least until you get to that stage when your guesstimated exposure is not more than 1 stop away from what a meter would tell you. This will give you the best possible result and not just an acceptable result.
A proper exposure will also reduce the grain in you your prints. Having acceptable prints doesn't necesssarily tell you that your negative was properly exposed or if just the printer adjustment worked really well.
Keep shooting.
Click to expand...
 
You're on your way!

Good job!

With negative film I have found it is better to error on the side of over exposure and with slides better to error a wee bit with under exposure. Film has a lot more latitude (forgiveness) than slides.

Keep up the good work.
 
icebear said:
Hi Nico,
always nice when someone gets feedback and obviously sees some improvements !
I would always have the lens hood on. If you have one, what's the point of not putting it on?
Apart from the reduce flare you mentioned, it also gives additional machanical protection for the front lens.

And ultimately you want to get a meter at least until you get to that stage when your guesstimated exposure is not more than 1 stop away from what a meter would tell you. This will give you the best possible result and not just an acceptable result.
A proper exposure will also reduce the grain in you your prints. Having acceptable prints doesn't necesssarily tell you that your negative was properly exposed or if just the printer adjustment worked really well.
Keep shooting.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I use my hood all the time now. I just wanted to see if my result without it would greatly vary from my results with it. That's all :p
 
When it doubt, overexpose. Most films deal with overexposure better than underexposure.

Do you happen to have a smartphone like an iPhone? If so, there are cheap apps like LightMeter that you can use. They're generally good enough to get you some info.

Sometimes you can find a working old light meter for a few dollars. You don't need something extremely fancy, just enough that it gives you a hint about the lighting conditions. If you have a digital camera (or know someone with one) which can meter, you can check a handheld meter to see if it looks accurate.

Alternatively, you can keep shooting as you are and try to refine your estimates about light condition. Its not easy and feedback is a bit slower with film but its certainly possible once you learn to recognize over exposed/under exposed negatives.
 
Brian Legge said:
When it doubt, overexpose. Most films deal with overexposure better than underexposure.

Do you happen to have a smartphone like an iPhone? If so, there are cheap apps like LightMeter that you can use. They're generally good enough to get you some info.

Sometimes you can find a working old light meter for a few dollars. You don't need something extremely fancy, just enough that it gives you a hint about the lighting conditions. If you have a digital camera (or know someone with one) which can meter, you can check a handheld meter to see if it looks accurate.

Alternatively, you can keep shooting as you are and try to refine your estimates about light condition. Its not easy and feedback is a bit slower with film but its certainly possible once you learn to recognize over exposed/under exposed negatives.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely happy with how my exposures came out! It really give you a boost of confidence knowing that you can somewhat read the light around you. I am, however, planning to invest in a light meter when I can afford one. I want to save up a little bit because I don't want to have to buy twice. I'm also planning to use it on studio strobes, so it'll need to have support for that!
 
I second the advice to over expose. Generally, in the evening, I'll just expose as much as I can for an acceptable shutter speed. This may end up with some shots 4 or 5 stops over, but with negative film, I find I get away with it just fine. Especially colour negative, vs. black and white negative.
 
kshapero said:
Sunny 16 works outdoors about 85% of the time and about 40% of the time indoors. Your shots reflect this. But your composition is quite good. You probably need a meter until you really get better at guessing exposure, but you should be encouraged that you are definitely in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I'm very happy with how my exposures came out. I feel like the photos reflect the lighting of the environments very well. None of the highlights are blown out. I will eventually invest in a nice light meter though!
 
thegman said:
I second the advice to over expose. Generally, in the evening, I'll just expose as much as I can for an acceptable shutter speed. This may end up with some shots 4 or 5 stops over, but with negative film, I find I get away with it just fine. Especially colour negative, vs. black and white negative.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that advice! I really hate blown out highlights, which is why I try to guess a good estimate rather than over exposing too much. Might give it a try though!
 
Until you start processing your own film, you won't really know where you are in terms of exposure. The person doing the scans is working to get you an acceptable print, but you can't know from looking at the prints how great the error is or in which direction.
This batch looks under-exposed to me for the most part. as you say, the highlights don't appear blown, but the shadows look muddy to me. Try shooting a roll of (fresh) film at half the ISO of the box speed, i.e. shoot ISO 400 film at 200, using 1/250 as your basic sunlight speed in daylight. Don't worry about the highlights, they'll take care of themselves and won't blow out. Remember, the detail is there, one just has to print it in.
 
Vics said:
Until you start processing your own film, you won't really know where you are in terms of exposure. The person doing the scans is working to get you an acceptable print, but you can't know from looking at the prints how great the error is or in which direction.
This batch looks under-exposed to me for the most part. as you say, the highlights don't appear blown, but the shadows look muddy to me. Try shooting a roll of (fresh) film at half the ISO of the box speed, i.e. shoot ISO 400 film at 200, using 1/250 as your basic sunlight speed in daylight. Don't worry about the highlights, they'll take care of themselves and won't blow out. Remember, the detail is there, one just has to print it in.
Click to expand...

I'll try that with my next roll. So if I overexpose by a stop, the detail will still remain in the highlights? Also, I do have a few questions. Which photos in particular are the most underexposed? It's hard for me to tell, because I feel that the photos have accurately captured the specific conditions of the scene. Also, I don't develop my own colored film, but I do scan some of my rolls. Does scanning software make adjustments to negatives automatically? We have Epson V750s at school, which is what I use. I'm to intimidated by the higher-end scanners. With the software that I used, I scanned and didn't use any of the levels/curves and all that stuff that you can do afterwards. Does that mean that the scans were neutral? Sorry for bombarding you with these questions, just looking to improve.
 
Vics said:
Until you start processing your own film, you won't really know where you are in terms of exposure. The person doing the scans is working to get you an acceptable print, but you can't know from looking at the prints how great the error is or in which direction.
This batch looks under-exposed to me for the most part. as you say, the highlights don't appear blown, but the shadows look muddy to me. Try shooting a roll of (fresh) film at half the ISO of the box speed, i.e. shoot ISO 400 film at 200, using 1/250 as your basic sunlight speed in daylight. Don't worry about the highlights, they'll take care of themselves and won't blow out. Remember, the detail is there, one just has to print it in.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention in the original post, but these are straight scans from negatives, not printed. I am starting to see the "muddy" quality you wrote about in a few of the photos. Also, I think the subject might benefit from a highlight at the brightest point to give a little more dimension. I'll definitely give the overexposing method a go to see if I like it. Thanks for the feedback! I also took a look at your flickr and you have some great work! The colors in your later photos really POP! I hope to be able to achieve similar results with time.
 
Meter

Meter

NicoM said:
I'm extremely happy with how my exposures came out! It really give you a boost of confidence knowing that you can somewhat read the light around you. I am, however, planning to invest in a light meter when I can afford one. I want to save up a little bit because I don't want to have to buy twice. I'm also planning to use it on studio strobes, so it'll need to have support for that!
Click to expand...

If you have an iPhone the light meter ap is only a couple of dollars and it works really well. I've used it with my Fed and it was spot on.
 
errorlogin said:
Not sure, but did you check your Summicron for haze inside? This aura around the lamp does not look normal for a DR Summicron for me. Just a thought, I am not sure.
Click to expand...

It looks clear to me, but I'm no expert. I might have it checked/CLAed by a pro if I can put some cash together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom