first roll from my ql17

[ampguy]

pics are from the photocd low res directory (let me know if anyone wants the high res version of a specific image).

The film was ASA 400 print film, and from the looks of these pictures, very very grainy. It could be that the film is old, maybe many years old.

In the outdoor photos, the camera seems to do well with a lot of light.

Indoors, it seems the grain is pretty intense.

I have a brand new roll of Fuji 200 in there now, so we'll see how that comes out in a week or so.

Definitely has a nice film look to it, and I need to work on some exposure stuff in some of them, but I first need to iron out the high grain stuff.

FWIW, the .JPG image sizes, even in the regular high res directory, equate to the about the sizes in my daughters 2 megapixel canon digicam in 2meg/fine res setting, and that camera has much less grain, and increased sharpness (though less film-like)

I asked the photo developing folks if they could tweak at all, and they said they had no control of the the .JPG compression from the negatives. Maybe I should select a couple out of here and print in 5x7 or larger, but I will probably wait and see how the grain is with new 200 ASA film.

http://www.tedm.com/photos/ql3/20060528

So these aren't stunning yet. But wait until next week or so!!

 

[Spyderman]

I also have bad experience with scanning in labs. That's why I bought a film scanner Minolta DSD III. Much better, but still negative films have much more grain than slide films. Or at least the grain is different - on negs it is random color (more like digital noise), on slides it tends to be the same color as surroundings, but just different lightness I think.

Canonet is a great little camera. No digicam compares to it. It's because digital compacts usually have much deeper DOF even wide open. I have a Canon G3, and somewhere I read that at all focal lengths it has about 3.5 stops deeper DOF. I mean that for example with G3 at f/2 the DOF is the same as with film camera at f/6.7 ... 🙁

 

[ampguy]

Wow

Wow

That is very interesting. I've noticed that the small digital cameras had more DOF, and even the manual ones often don't let you go less than ASA 100, but I didn't realize it was about 3.5 stops deeper. That explains a lot of what I've seen. Thanks!

I also have bad experience with scanning in labs. That's why I bought a film scanner Minolta DSD III. Much better, but still negative films have much more grain than slide films. Or at least the grain is different - on negs it is random color (more like digital noise), on slides it tends to be the same color as surroundings, but just different lightness I think.

Canonet is a great little camera. No digicam compares to it. It's because digital compacts usually have much deeper DOF even wide open. I have a Canon G3, and somewhere I read that at all focal lengths it has about 3.5 stops deeper DOF. I mean that for example with G3 at f/2 the DOF is the same as with film camera at f/6.7 ... 🙁

 

[Ash]

I really like your pics. I'm not usually into colour photo's, but yours have a really nice bright appeal.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words Ash.

I really like your pics. I'm not usually into colour photo's, but yours have a really nice bright appeal.

 

[willie_901]

Welcome to the club.

It looks like you've gotten a hold of a pretty nice example of the Canonet.

I really enjoy using mine. I learned a lot about selecting exposure and about zone focusing from shooting with this camera.

The graininess you refer to might be due to old film. The grain may also be due to under–exposed negatives. I found that it is easy to underexpose shots with the Canonet.

I set the ISO on my Canonet for one-stop over exposure (I shoot ISO 800 film with the meter set to 400). Also, the Canonet meter is from an era when the meters were not very selective.

I find my best exposures come from aiming the camera at the darkest part of my intended frame and then using that setting in manual mode. Alternately you can meter for the darkest part of the scence and hold the shutter half-way down to lock the aperature while composing the shot. By the way, I use an Weinn air cell so the voltage should be correct.

For me, this type of meter's only utility is to give you the minimum information you need to start thinking about what aperature to use. After shooting a lot of rolls of the same film, you can evaluate the light and set the aperature manually after a quick read with the meter.

I mostly use only a couple of shutter speeds and set the lens aperture based on the light and the film. I always guess on the side of over exposure because this gives the least grain . For a low-light social event, I realized I would encounter only three types of light (EV 3,4 or 5) . I shot three rolls of Ilford 3200 ISO B&W in manual mode and didn't miss a shot. It's really pretty easy to use this camera in manual mode. I wish I could focus it with more accuracy..

Keep shooting.

willie

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Willie

Thanks Willie

Wow, thanks for all the great information. I haven't thought about the graininess being related to underexposure.

Since that first roll was definitely with very old film, and I now have fresh 200 ASA film, I will know very soon how the grain is at standard exposure levels.

The aperture lock on the ql17 is like many of my other cameras, so I have been using it regularly to lock in a faster aperture, especially in backlit scenes, etc.

I haven't regularly been taking the aperture dial off of 'A', I've been kind of lazy, and pointing the camera in dark areas and locking it at the exposure I've wanted to get that extra stop or two, but I should probably more consciously manually set the exposure rather than simply adjusting the programmed AE.

I typically use 30 or 60 shutter speeds indoors and try to keep a keen sense of DOF, and ask my subjects to stay still at 30. :bang:

I haven't yet experimented with 800 or faster film. I'm worried a little about grain with color print film, and also it costs a bit more, but I'm now intrigued, and I don't plan on ever using flash with the canon, so I'll have to get some 400+ film at some point. Maybe all the grain is from me blurring the photos... 😛

I also find the focusing a little slow on this camera, but I hope to get faster with it.

Thanks very much for the tips, and ideas.

Welcome to the club.

It looks like you've gotten a hold of a pretty nice example of the Canonet.

I really enjoy using mine. I learned a lot about selecting exposure and about zone focusing from shooting with this camera.

The graininess you refer to might be due to old film. The grain may also be due to under–exposed negatives. I found that it is easy to underexpose shots with the Canonet.

I set the ISO on my Canonet for one-stop over exposure (I shoot ISO 800 film with the meter set to 400). Also, the Canonet meter is from an era when the meters were not very selective.

I find my best exposures come from aiming the camera at the darkest part of my intended frame and then using that setting in manual mode. Alternately you can meter for the darkest part of the scence and hold the shutter half-way down to lock the aperature while composing the shot. By the way, I use an Weinn air cell so the voltage should be correct.

For me, this type of meter's only utility is to give you the minimum information you need to start thinking about what aperature to use. After shooting a lot of rolls of the same film, you can evaluate the light and set the aperature manually after a quick read with the meter.

I mostly use only a couple of shutter speeds and set the lens aperture based on the light and the film. I always guess on the side of over exposure because this gives the least grain . For a low-light social event, I realized I would encounter only three types of light (EV 3,4 or 5) . I shot three rolls of Ilford 3200 ISO B&W in manual mode and didn't miss a shot. It's really pretty easy to use this camera in manual mode. I wish I could focus it with more accuracy..

Keep shooting.

willie