Zuiko-logist
Well-known
May be a true manual camera in the future. Something like the film era GR series would be great. In the meantime, this attempt by Pentax is admirable and, I expect, a future classic.
More on the Pentax film camera project
- Thread starter splitimageview
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 278
- Views 18K
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I think I understand @Godfrey's issue with the 17 now. I think he and perhaps a lot of us on this board were hoping for a simple film camera where we could manually set exposure and focus. What Pentax gave us was a camera where we have to decide which of the various auto modes will come the closest to giving us the exposure settings we want, and where the full auto mode even overrides the manually set zone focus. Looking at it that way, I can see why he's disappointed.
(Personally, I didn't have any expectations and I'm impressed with the results I'm seeing online from this camera, so I'm not disappointed.)
(Personally, I didn't have any expectations and I'm impressed with the results I'm seeing online from this camera, so I'm not disappointed.)
Pioneer
Veteran
There are an awful lot of us experienced photographers, and @Godrey is certainly one, who are bringing their own expectations for this camera to the table. Like Godrey I do not find this camera particularly simple or elegant. But in my mind there are very, very few cameras that actually meet that standard anyway.
Mind you this is the guy who throws his phone across the room in frustration once or twice a week. Whose youngest granddaughter picks it up off the floor, figures out what is wrong and fixes it. I don't think my grandchildren think of simple and elegant in the same way that I do. 😀
Mind you this is the guy who throws his phone across the room in frustration once or twice a week. Whose youngest granddaughter picks it up off the floor, figures out what is wrong and fixes it. I don't think my grandchildren think of simple and elegant in the same way that I do. 😀
shawn
Veteran
I disagree that it is the same.
Before you shot your M6 you have already decided on the film speed for the next 36 images. Decided if they are black and white or color. You have already decided if it is negative or reversal film. If it is reversal you have already locked in your color profile, tone curve, white balance and locked in your exposure. With negative you have mostly decided on the color profile (it can be tweaked a little later on but not nearly as much as a RAW file), you have already (mostly) decided on white balance (daylight, tungsten...etc...etc), exposure is more locked in than RAW but less than reversal. If it is black and white you have to decide at capture if you are going to use filters to differentiate certain colors or not.
Shooting RAW you haven't commited to any of that (except ISO and not even that if you are shooting invariant) ahead of time and pushed all those 'settings' into post. Yes, you may have pre-visualized it but nothing is set in stone.
Setting up lighting with instant feedback is dramatically quicker and easier than putting a meter all over someones face while taking measurements and adjusting lighting. Even more so if it is a group you are shooting. I spent many hours in the studio doing this.
Learning/using flash photography is *sooo* much easier with instant feedback no matter if it is a polaroid or hitting play.
Likewise, being able to get instant feedback from a client can be very useful.
My bet is that they are trying to differentiate themselves from the many film cameras already available used at low cost. If someone builds the same thing as an existing model it is going to be a tough sell at multiple times the cost of a used model, unless your name is Leica.
That or they are either reusing existing engineering/parts or thinking ahead and building a base to expand on later.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I’ve just been offered 10% off a Pentax 17
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
You kind of lost me here, Shawn:
"Before you shot your M6 you have already decided on the film speed for the next 36 images. Decided if they are black and white or color. You have already decided if it is negative or reversal film." I'm with you so far.
But then you say: "If it is reversal you have already locked in your color profile, tone curve, white balance and locked in your exposure. With negative you have mostly decided on the color profile (it can be tweaked a little later on but not nearly as much as a RAW file), you have already (mostly) decided on white balance (daylight, tungsten...etc...etc), exposure is more locked in than RAW but less than reversal. If it is black and white you have to decide at capture if you are going to use filters to differentiate certain colors or not."
I don't think with an M6 anybody is locking in color profile, tone curve, white balance -- with film all you're doing is choosing the film and finding the exposure you want (and yes, whether you're using a filter or not, if black and white). And with film it's all RAW, as it were.
"Before you shot your M6 you have already decided on the film speed for the next 36 images. Decided if they are black and white or color. You have already decided if it is negative or reversal film." I'm with you so far.
But then you say: "If it is reversal you have already locked in your color profile, tone curve, white balance and locked in your exposure. With negative you have mostly decided on the color profile (it can be tweaked a little later on but not nearly as much as a RAW file), you have already (mostly) decided on white balance (daylight, tungsten...etc...etc), exposure is more locked in than RAW but less than reversal. If it is black and white you have to decide at capture if you are going to use filters to differentiate certain colors or not."
I don't think with an M6 anybody is locking in color profile, tone curve, white balance -- with film all you're doing is choosing the film and finding the exposure you want (and yes, whether you're using a filter or not, if black and white). And with film it's all RAW, as it were.
shawn
Veteran
Sure you are, by the choice of film that you loaded.
Portra doesn't look the same as Ektar or Velvia, or Gold. etc. Or shooting Tungsten balanced film.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Certainly different films can have different looks to them. But you know that going in. That's about the extent of the manipulation (other than some darkroom dodging, say). My point is that people aren't "thinking digital" when they load film in a camera. (And they don't talk about "capture," they talk about "taking the picture." 🙂)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL! You are such a digital advocate you don't even realize when you are saying things that make no sense when it comes to working with a film camera.
When I shoot with my M6, M4-2, Retina IIc, Hasselblad 500CM, et al, the farthest thing from my mind is "what color profile do I want, what ISO should I use, what white balance need will I encounter, and all that folderol. I look in my film box, see I have some 400 and some 100 speed film, pick whichever one makes sense for the camera I'm using (it doesn't make sense to pick 400 film for a daytime walk with a camera that only has 1/250 second shortest exposure time...), load, and walk out the door to see what I can see. I twiddle the ASA setting on the camera depending on what EI I want to use for a given shooting scenario, fairly often in fact.
The fact that I can change the ISO setting (and meter calibration together) on the M-D on a frame by frame basis is an advantage of the digital camera over the film camera. It doesn't imply that I'm thinking about it very much when I'm configuring the camera. In fact, I often have the camera set to AutoISO and let it figure that part of the exposure equation for me.
I'm certainly never thinking about the rendering phase of making photos when I'm getting ready to start shooting with a digital camera except on the rare occasions when I'm doing something highly specific and technical (like copying/digitizing negatives, what I was doing yesterday), and in those cases I set up everything ONCE, beforehand, and don't look at it again until I reset the camera to my usual shooting parameters later.
I've only been doing photography for 62 years, and only had digital capture as an option the past two decades. Forgive me for forgetting to think about all the things that you seem to be concerned about.
Ach, you don't really understand how to meter if that's what you're doing. Or that, once you make a setup and have done it once, you rarely need to take the meter out again at all.
I agree that flash photography is much easier with a digital camera because you can just pop a test exposure, adjust, and forget about it after that. Can't do that with instant film, unfortunately, because instant film response curves are SOOO much different from negative/positive film that you have to spend a good while testing both together to see how response curves on one match to response curves on the other. It actually slows down the process of making good exposures by quite a bit.
None of the several hundred subjects I worked with over the years *ever* wanted to see an immediate feedback result. They hired me because they accredited me with knowing how to get what they wanted, and picking the right exposure and the right framing/moment, rendering it to their needs, and delivering it on time. Occasionally, on a shoot with an art director, the art director and I would discuss the lighting he/she wanted, do a test setup and a couple of exposures to be sure it was right, and then they would disappear and let me and the subject work.
I suspect that if Nikon re-introduced the F2, or Pentax the K1000, they'd have no problem selling it at double to triple the cost of a used example. Leica is just the only company brave enough to do so, or, said another way, they are well aware that the audience is there and willing to pay beforehand. 🙂
Be all that as it may, the Pentax 17 is likely a good camera. It just doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm waiting for the MiNT Rollei 35AF to be available for ordering... and for my Vitessa and Vito II to return from service ... etc. 😀
G
shawn
Veteran
Exactly my point. You have made the decision for speed, color or B&W, the color response, tonal response, white balance and even something like sharpness (grain) by what film you loaded into the camera before taking any pictures. With reversal you have locked in exposure too when you shoot as you can't do anything about that later. You may not think of it this way but you are still making these decisions. If you are a JPEG shooter you have to make the same decisions before shooting, hence the need for these settings on a digital camera.
That is nothing like RAW where all of those decisions are commited after you shoot. While RAW is, by far, the most flexible, it is also the furthest away from shooting film in this regard.
Closest to reversal film is shooting JPEG and using the files SOOC. What you see if what you get.
For negatives it is shooting JPEG and editing. You are limited in how much you can push the file, just like one is limited in what they can do with a negative when printing.
shawn
Veteran
I worked in a film lab for years and have seen tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of prints from film.
Maybe you didn't consider what film to use before shooting, but others most certainly did.
Likewise, learning specific film(s) so that one understands how it responds in different situations.
That you think this makes me a digital advocate is hysterical. The camera I went out with this morning was my Bronica. I enjoy both film and digital and understand the correlations between the two.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I think it says a lot about the whole film versus digital thing that it causes arguments among those on the same side where they fight about the basis for their positions.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
"You have made the decision for speed, color or B&W, the color response, tonal response, white balance and even something like sharpness (grain) by what film you loaded into the camera before taking any pictures."
You're giving me way too much credit here. Beyond black and white or color, and film speed, I pay no attention to any of that, and assume a good film will deliver on all the rest. (White balance? Is that an analog thing, even?)
You're giving me way too much credit here. Beyond black and white or color, and film speed, I pay no attention to any of that, and assume a good film will deliver on all the rest. (White balance? Is that an analog thing, even?)
agentlossing
Well-known
Sure; films are daylight balanced, though, unless you're buying Tungsten balanced films. I actually agree with YouTuber Sean Tucker that daylight balanced is the way to go most of the time with digital too, rather than auto.
shawn
Veteran
OK, in that case you are accepting those for whatever film you purchased. Kind of like shooting a digital on default JPEG. 😉
Realistically, we have less film options then there used to be. For example; Portra used to come in a number of different versions depending upon what you wanted from it. This is from Kodak's own documentation....
In digital speak they are describing saturation, contrast, sharpness, white balance and dynamic range.
Yes, analog has the equivalent of white balance. This same document tells you how to 'color correct' (white balance) the different versions for different lighting situations and the corrections are not the same because the response of the films are not the same.
https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sit...ROFESSIONAL-PORTRA160nc160vc400nv400vc800.pdf
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
"Kind of like shooting a digital on default JPEG. 😉"
I do that all the time. I'm not shooting images to be blown up to huge proportions, and I'm plenty happy with in-camera manipulation (exposure mainly) and frankly, the JPEGs I get look pretty darn good as is.
As for white balance, of course there are daylight films and tungsten -- but tungsten balanced is (was?) reversal film only. Not an issue if you use flash, and in any event can be addressed in printing. Can you even get tungsten based reversal film these days?
I stopped shooting slide film a long time ago, since I can't get it developed locally.
I know, I'm not a serious photographer.
I do that all the time. I'm not shooting images to be blown up to huge proportions, and I'm plenty happy with in-camera manipulation (exposure mainly) and frankly, the JPEGs I get look pretty darn good as is.
As for white balance, of course there are daylight films and tungsten -- but tungsten balanced is (was?) reversal film only. Not an issue if you use flash, and in any event can be addressed in printing. Can you even get tungsten based reversal film these days?
I stopped shooting slide film a long time ago, since I can't get it developed locally.
I know, I'm not a serious photographer.
shawn
Veteran
I use JPEGs at times too. That is only with cameras that have good JPEG/color engines, not all do, though they are generally considerably better than they were. I tend to tweak the settings to get a look I like and then just run with it. If I hit a situation that is particularly challenging (or I'm planning on doing more in processing) I also make sure I have the RAW file. I will often, but not always, shoot RAW+JPEG. Sometimes I shoot JPEG only as I enjoy the WYSIWYG aspect. It is situational for me.
There is negative film that is tungsten biased. Cinestill has one for example. You can try and correct for wrong lighting when printing but, just like white balancing a JPEG, if you push to far it can throw off colors.
That is why film specs give the filter combinations to color correcting a film base to different lighting conditions.
RAW is more flexible in this regard.
There is negative film that is tungsten biased. Cinestill has one for example. You can try and correct for wrong lighting when printing but, just like white balancing a JPEG, if you push to far it can throw off colors.
That is why film specs give the filter combinations to color correcting a film base to different lighting conditions.
RAW is more flexible in this regard.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Kodak make two tungsten balanced emulsions - Vision 3 200T and 500T, where the number is the sensitivity. They are Cine films that Cinestill (honestly) and others confection into cassettes for photography. Cinestill also remove/buy without the ramjet, which at least means that you won’t get shot if you send it out to your local C41 lab - although it should really be processed in ECN-2 chemistry.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, Shawn, I certainly don't agree with your opinions about what is or isn't similar between a digital camera and a film camera one bit. But that's okay, you're just as entitled to your opinions as I am to mine.
Nothing about the film workflow process for me or any of my clients is anything like a digital workflow other than capturing raw data and rendering the exposures afterwards. It's exactly what you do with a film camera ... all of those "film type" decisions you talk about are what you do when you buy the camera. When you buy a digital camera, you should be selecting it based upon its sensor, its basic image data handling system, and what lenses work with it that produce results you like. The rest is up to how you work the rendering process.
To think of using in-camera JPEG rendering settings as essential "choosing a film" necessities makes almost no sense at all, and just puts a huge burden on the picture taking process.
It has been many years since I touched color negative or positive films. Not interested at all. I work with B&W film only when I work with film, have since the early '00s. I choose what film based mostly on speed, but also on fundamental acutance, grain, and latitude characteristics in my standard development process. Once I find a film that works for me, I buy a lot of it and adjust its response curve by manipulating EI and processing. Makes it simple.
But back to the thread topic: I'm *still* not interested in the Pentax 17. I'm glad some other people like it.
G
Similar threads
