domagojs
Established
Hi all Electro friends,
I have one and I really like the camera and it's handling. However, my photos are not anything like some others i have seen around. So, I'd like to ask if the sharpness and color-cast of these is similar to what your cameras produce, or is there something wrong here?
The film was Kodak-gold 200 ASA. I shot the same film with my nikon gear and results were far more pleasing.
Here's the set on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33710543@N04/sets/72157623369987295/
Thanks!
I have one and I really like the camera and it's handling. However, my photos are not anything like some others i have seen around. So, I'd like to ask if the sharpness and color-cast of these is similar to what your cameras produce, or is there something wrong here?
The film was Kodak-gold 200 ASA. I shot the same film with my nikon gear and results were far more pleasing.
Here's the set on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33710543@N04/sets/72157623369987295/
Thanks!
Attachments
Mablo
Well-known
Sharpness looks like alright to me.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
If differences in processing and scanning can be ruled out, then it seems that there is something the matter with this camera. I must point out, though, that these three photos do not have the same colour balance.
domagojs
Established
NickTrop
Veteran
Yeah - something is off with these. Could be anything... I would suggest getting another sample, they're cheap. And yes, a properly working GSN is easily capable of the results posted with your Nikkor.
domagojs
Established
music for my ears - i already wrote i really liked the camera and would like to use it more. i'd like that it gets to be my "fun with the film" camera. however, i have nikon film setup and the results, at least to me, are by far superior to the electro, so i was wondering if there was something wrong with the camera (lens)...
thanks for looking and sharing your experiences...
thanks for looking and sharing your experiences...
petronius
Veteran
The Nikon shot was done in lightning conditions that are much easier to handle in the lab. The GSN shots have a much higher contrast which is still a problem for some labs.
In the last years I noticed a decrease in processing skills here in Germany. Although the processes should be completely automatic, there seems to be room for mistakes.
Test your GSN and the Nikon in similar lightning conditions, The best you can do is to expose a film half in the GSN and the other half in the Nikon. So you have a direct comparison.
The Yashica should bring as sharp pictures as the Nikon lens.
In the last years I noticed a decrease in processing skills here in Germany. Although the processes should be completely automatic, there seems to be room for mistakes.
Test your GSN and the Nikon in similar lightning conditions, The best you can do is to expose a film half in the GSN and the other half in the Nikon. So you have a direct comparison.
The Yashica should bring as sharp pictures as the Nikon lens.
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Several questions. Did you develope yourself? Did you scan from negatives or prints? If you had the film developed commercially, did the same place develope the film for the Yashica and the Nikon? Did you upload the pix from a picture CD?
Reason I asked is that I have ran a few rolls through my GSN over the past months and had the film developed commercially - Walgreens since they are closest to me. The prints have always lacked the sharpness associated with this camera. I just figured something was askew with my camera. This past time, I happened to opt for a picture CD since there was a special and it was free. Again the prints looked bad is a slightly fuzzy focus way which sort re-inforced the idea that camera focusing was off, something was wrong with the glass, or I was doing something wrong. I happen to load the picture CD on a whim and have a look at the images. Well - nothings wrong the camera. The photo clerk or printer had a user malfunction. The sharpness is there.
If you're having the film developed commercially through a drugstore, Walmart or the like and basing your results off their prints - try a picture CD. If none of this applies to your situation - then ignore it.
Reason I asked is that I have ran a few rolls through my GSN over the past months and had the film developed commercially - Walgreens since they are closest to me. The prints have always lacked the sharpness associated with this camera. I just figured something was askew with my camera. This past time, I happened to opt for a picture CD since there was a special and it was free. Again the prints looked bad is a slightly fuzzy focus way which sort re-inforced the idea that camera focusing was off, something was wrong with the glass, or I was doing something wrong. I happen to load the picture CD on a whim and have a look at the images. Well - nothings wrong the camera. The photo clerk or printer had a user malfunction. The sharpness is there.
If you're having the film developed commercially through a drugstore, Walmart or the like and basing your results off their prints - try a picture CD. If none of this applies to your situation - then ignore it.
Frontman
Well-known
There are quite a few variables at work here. One variable is the rangefinder, there is always the possibility that it's out of adjustment. Then there is the meter, on some of these old Yashicas the meter can be off quite a bit one way or the other. Another thing is the processing. As Ken Smith suggested, many commercial film processors give inconsistent results. I sent a few rolls of Portra to my local lab a few weeks ago and one of the rolls was poorly processed, with the images looking very grainy and under-exposed. All rolls were the same, shot with the same camera, but one came back like crap.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I just had a bad roll from my local shop as well......seems to be happening more and more.
domagojs
Established
Hi all, thanks for your answers! I think I have it figured. 
I think that there's a problem with the meter and that these photos are underexposed and that, in turn, causes strange effects on the film and brings this lack of sharpness.
I noticed earlier that the yellow lamp works very strange, while the red one seems to work OK (at least the results are close to my DSLR's matrix metering). I thought that yellow lamp itself had a problem, but now I'm starting to believe that the lamp is OK, but the meter is way of when the shutter should be slowish, resulting in few stops underexposure. This explains why some photos look OK (those which were shot around 1/500) and why some look strange.
Now I have to fix this issue, or get another camera and see how it works. I really like the handling of the camera so I'm not giving up on it.
How does this sound for a theory?
I think that there's a problem with the meter and that these photos are underexposed and that, in turn, causes strange effects on the film and brings this lack of sharpness.
I noticed earlier that the yellow lamp works very strange, while the red one seems to work OK (at least the results are close to my DSLR's matrix metering). I thought that yellow lamp itself had a problem, but now I'm starting to believe that the lamp is OK, but the meter is way of when the shutter should be slowish, resulting in few stops underexposure. This explains why some photos look OK (those which were shot around 1/500) and why some look strange.
Now I have to fix this issue, or get another camera and see how it works. I really like the handling of the camera so I'm not giving up on it
. How does this sound for a theory?
btgc
Veteran
I have another theory - get Lynx 5000 and free yourself from yellow light, POD, meter fooled by tricky scenes. It's not a joke. Electro is fine when it works, yes; you can send it for service instead of gambling ebay for countless other Electros until you hit one serviced (old saying says all old unused cameras need some work done on them). And Lynxes have far better ergonomics.
Sorry guys, I just had to say this. Lynxes are better. I own Electros, but only I use is small bodied one because it is very small and has no rangefinder and lights to stare at.
Sorry guys, I just had to say this. Lynxes are better. I own Electros, but only I use is small bodied one because it is very small and has no rangefinder and lights to stare at.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
looking at the images the photos look like the Kodak film was stored improperly or it was old. Kodak Gold, fresh from the shop is a wonderful thing. Your images are so small it's hard to determine if you have focused correctly they all look fuzzy.
ully
ully
Agree with Jan
Agree with Jan
Old film look.
Agree with Jan
Old film look.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I noticed earlier that the yellow lamp works very strange, while the red one seems to work OK (at least the results are close to my DSLR's matrix metering). I thought that yellow lamp itself had a problem, but now I'm starting to believe that the lamp is OK, but the meter is way of when the shutter should be slowish, resulting in few stops underexposure. This explains why some photos look OK (those which were shot around 1/500) and why some look strange.
Now I have to fix this issue, or get another camera and see how it works. I really like the handling of the camera so I'm not giving up on it
How does this sound for a theory?
Hello --
I can see you know how to look for the yellow light coming on in the correct conditions. Similarly, look for the red light.
The GSN depends on a set of resistors and sliding switches. It is quite possible for the camera to give good exposures at one f-stop and bad exposures at another. I had one that over-exposed at f/16 by 2+ stops, but otherwise was fine.
I have an article about how to test the Yashica Electros. I tried several times to get a $20 bargain, but they never worked. But, once serviced, it is an excellent $100 camera.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I have found Kodak Gold does have a yellowish cast. I use it but it is a "cheapo" film. Try Ektar if you can for different results.