another early attempt with Canon a1 - any advice?

[dan_yell]

if you're in the 'film developing in the UK' thread I already touched on it there when talking about getting my films done by UKFilm

Used Canon A1 (which recently has its cough and film spool repaired, i don't know if they checked anything else) - Fuji superior 400iso film. As I was not confident to do settings myself, I used it on auto. In some ways i'm disappointed, but then again i could have ended up with nothing so i think it's landed somewhere in between. did i mention i'm not confident in knowing what to do The feedback from UKfilm said it's a good idea to overexpsore shots because there is more to work with for them, which i guess is a no brainer if i think about. Are there things i should think about with a less modern light meter on this camera?

Here is a link to a selection of shots, Early on in the 1st film, I think i may have moved the bit on the lens with the circle that has to be in a particular place when its on auto - so maybe this messed things up? The sunset photo, I used the exposure lock. they look grainer on my computer, than uploaded to this album, so maybe that will not help your feedback. the last photo isnt in focus, thats me obv. i havnt done anything in editing them.

of these photos, i like the 1st and 3rd waterfall photo, the rock one if i had framed it properly, the hanging fish and the lava rock with bright green at the front.

https://picsurge.com/g/5UUmkB

edited to embed some photos - 2 bad, 2 decent - from the set (the photos show when I am edited the post, but aren't loading when it's saved. humph)

 

[joxby]

Cant you paste them up in thread, Chrome ain't too keen on that link

 

[kendo1]

They look pretty well exposed at a quick glance, though you could do with using a graduated filter.
There's a limit to what you can do with film.

 

[skysh4rk]

Some are possibly a little underexposed because of the bright clouds fooling the meter in a few of these scenes, especially the ones where there is no sunlight on the foreground. Personally, I would prefer to estimate the exposures myself or, better yet, use a handheld incident meter rather than rely on the meter of an old camera, but to each his own.

Remember, there is a lot of latitude for overexposure with these films, so don't be afraid. As an example, below is a long exposure (at least 15 seconds) in the middle of the day using only a polariser. I'm probably overdoing the exposure, but it should give you the confidence that you don't need to stress so much about your exposure all the time. I mean, I don't even bother to meter sometimes, I just set the camera on bulb until I get my desired water effect.



In those scenes with the bright clouds in the sky, but shaded foregrounds, I agree with @kendo1 that a ND grad would have really helped in balancing the large subject brightness range of the scene. Other options for reducing the contrast of those scenes might be to shoot at another time of day, nearer to sunrise or sunset, or to change your positioning relative to the sun.

All in all though, these photographs are a great start. The shot with the waterfall and the feller in the parachute is fantastic.

 

[dan_yell]

oh, last time i was sure someone said it was better to have them in a link :-( sorry

 

[dan_yell]

Cant you paste them up in thread, Chrome ain't too keen on that link

there's a lot of them, so i didnt want to make the thread bulky.

 

[dan_yell]

Some are possibly a little underexposed because of the bright clouds fooling the meter in a few of these scenes, especially the ones where there is no sunlight on the foreground. Personally, I would prefer to estimate the exposures myself or, better yet, use a handheld incident meter rather than rely on the meter of an old camera, but to each his own.

Remember, there is a lot of latitude for overexposure with these films, so don't be afraid. As an example, below is a long exposure (at least 15 seconds) in the middle of the day using only a polariser. I'm probably overdoing the exposure, but it should give you the confidence that you don't need to stress so much about your exposure all the time. I mean, I don't even bother to meter sometimes, I just set the camera on bulb until I get my desired water effect.



In those scenes with the bright clouds in the sky, but shaded foregrounds, I agree with @kendo1 that a ND grad would have really helped in balancing the large subject brightness range of the scene. Other options for reducing the contrast of those scenes might be to shoot at another time of day, nearer to sunrise or sunset, or to change your positioning relative to the sun.

All in all though, these photographs are a great start. The shot with the waterfall and the feller in the parachute is fantastic.

that's a great shot!!

As i say, i don't really know what im doing, hence the use of the auto, until i am more confident, i wanted a little bit more of a chance of getting at least something - so it wasnt so much that i thought it was the ideal way to shoot, just theway i felt i would get something resembling ok at this point. obviously it's clear here thats what i need to work today. I shoot manual with my DLR, but i rely on being able to see what i've shot from my first attempt and then work from there etc so having to retrain myself. i prob should have started using exposure lock ON my holiday, rather than after wards when i was using up the film.....

i'm guessing the grain which isnt as obvious in the gallery is from the speed of the film.

I think the waterfall & paracute dude is probably my favourite too

 

[skysh4rk]

that's a great shot!!

As i say, i don't really know what im doing, hence the use of the auto, until i am more confident, i wanted a little bit more of a chance of getting at least something - so it wasnt so much that i thought it was the ideal way to shoot, just theway i felt i would get something resembling ok at this point. obviously it's clear here thats what i need to work today. I shoot manual with my DLR, but i rely on being able to see what i've shot from my first attempt and then work from there etc so having to retrain myself. i prob should have started using exposure lock ON my holiday, rather than after wards when i was using up the film.....

i'm guessing the grain which isnt as obvious in the gallery is from the speed of the film.

Well, the greater the enlargement, the more obvious the grain will be. If you've underexposed, you'll see even more grain. A bit of overexposure with colour negative, however, can reduce the appearance of grain.

If you're planning on shooting much film in the future, I highly recommend picking up a good handheld light meter. It's probably one of the most useful and important pieces of equipment I own. I don't go anywhere without one. I can't remember the last time I even used an in-camera meter.

 

[dan_yell]

oh i forgot to say thanks in the first reply @skysh4rk

 

[kendo1]

I use the in camera meters with my Contaxes all the time, but I've been using a Contax for almost 40 years

I should say, in reference to me saying there's a limit to what you can do with film, that it is easier nowadays to correct problems in PP- especially regarding lack of detail in skies.
I've never really had a problem with under/over exposure- unless I was being really dumb! It happens to us all I suppose.
Grads and polarisers are a necessity.

 

[skysh4rk]

I use the in camera meters with my Contaxes all the time, but I've been using a Contax for almost 40 years

I should add to my previous post and really underscore that my preference for handheld light meters is not universal and is far from the only way to shoot film. I think they're great and open up a whole new world of possibilities, especially as many film cameras don't have any means of reliably measuring exposure, but there are plenty of folks who shoot using only their in-built meters and get great photographs.

 

[kendo1]

I should add to my previous post and really underscore that my preference for handheld light meters is not universal and is far from the only way to shoot film. I think they're great and open up a whole new world of possibilities, especially as many film cameras don't have any means of reliably measuring exposure, but there are plenty of folks who shoot using only their in-built meters and get great photographs.

It doesn't mean I follow them slavishly! I'm used to them.

 

[ChrisR]

Simplest way to over-expose is to set the ISO to a lower number. I usually shoot 400 ISO C41 at 250, but some will go to 200 or lower (for me it's a compromise, more saturation vs longer shutter times, being a non-tripod nut!).

Some of your Iceland shots look like they were exposed for the sky, so the land detail is blocked out. A ND grad would certainly help a lot there, though they are a bit fiddly. Don't have to be expensive; I got mine in a charity shop for a fiver, but some like the SRB Photographic ones are (I think) not too expensive. However, a simple trick I use is to point the camera down a bit so there'd less sky in the centre-weighted meter, half press the shutter to hold the exposure, reframe and shoot. (On my Pentax MX, moving the camera up and down with eye to VF gives a pretty good idea how the light levels vary, by watching the LEDs on the right... don't know how this would work with your camera.)

 

[dan_yell]

Simplest way to over-expose is to set the ISO to a lower number. I usually shoot 400 ISO C41 at 250, but some will go to 200 or lower (for me it's a compromise, more saturation vs longer shutter times, being a non-tripod nut!).

Some of your Iceland shots look like they were exposed for the sky, so the land detail is blocked out. A ND grad would certainly help a lot there, though they are a bit fiddly. Don't have to be expensive; I got mine in a charity shop for a fiver, but some like the SRB Photographic ones are (I think) not too expensive. However, a simple trick I use is to point the camera down a bit so there'd less sky in the centre-weighted meter, half press the shutter to hold the exposure, reframe and shoot. (On my Pentax MX, moving the camera up and down with eye to VF gives a pretty good idea how the light levels vary, by watching the LEDs on the right... don't know how this would work with your camera.)

Thanks Chris. Am i right in thinking i'd need to inform the developer if i had used different ISO to what the film is?

The camera does an exposure lock function which I used on the sunset shot (how successfully, i'm not sure), I just didn't think about it when I was away. which is unpreparedness on my part - i always manage to forgot to do something, i never learn.....

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks Chris. Am i right in thinking i'd need to inform the developer if i had used different ISO to what the film is?

I don't. Unless you're really going for a big over-exposure, I would just say nothing and get them to develop as normal (*). You'll get denser negatives, with more detail in the shadows and almost certainly recoverable in the highlights. You might lose a bit in the highlights, but if you lose detail in the shadows it's just not there on the negative, whereas over-exposed highlights are generally still there in the negative (unless you've gone way over the top) and can be got back with some work either at scanning or (and/or) PP stages. There's a thread or two on here somewhere I'll try to link with some discussion....

* Someone who knows will probably be along in a minute and tell you differently, I'm just saying what I do.

 

[Carl Hall]

I don't think they're as bad as you think they are, some of them look a little underexposed but that's something you can fix next time by using a hand held meter (or if you're like me, just get a smartphone app for it. Won't be as accurate but it's close enough for 99% of the time and it has the added bonus of not costing anything or adding weight to your bag ).

I enjoyed looking at the images on the link you provided, my favourites are these two I think, but the whole set is pretty awesome

 

[dan_yell]

I don't think they're as bad as you think they are, some of them look a little underexposed but that's something you can fix next time by using a hand held meter (or if you're like me, just get a smartphone app for it. Won't be as accurate but it's close enough for 99% of the time and it has the added bonus of not costing anything or adding weight to your bag ).

Thanks Carl. i think it may take me a while to get realistic expectations of what i'm going to get at this point. I did use my Dad's pentax on a florida holiday in 2004 and got fairly decent results, but i cant remember if i used it on manual or not, also nice sunny things is prob a different kettle of fish to Iceland. The grain, when I looked at them on my monitor (not a huge monitor) the grain is quite over powering and i guess it really bugged me. Does your smart phone have to have a decent camera for the app to work properly? I'm a bit of a luddite and don't use a smart phone as my phone. I have a cheap smart phone which i use as a mobile device wherever i have wifi, and its camera is less than impressive (although it does ok outside and viewed small) so i didn't know if this would affect it. I'd be up for trying that if it will fit on my phone and work though!

I might upload all of the films (not the ones of my family at christmas though, haha) later tonight to another album. I wish i had taken more photos of the horses!

 

[abdoujaparov]

The grain, when I looked at them on my monitor (not a huge monitor) the grain is quite over powering and i guess it really bugged me

Get further back from your monitor. Seriously. Especially if you're looking at a high-res original scan instead of a reduced web version, you're almost certainly looking at it from too close. We sit far closer to our screens that we would stand to look at a framed print on our wall, for example. Just a foot or two makes all the difference.

 

[dan_yell]

Get further back from your monitor. Seriously. Especially if you're looking at a high-res original scan instead of a reduced web version, you're almost certainly looking at it from too close. We sit far closer to our screens that we would stand to look at a framed print on our wall, for example. Just a foot or two makes all the difference.

Good point my friend! they were hi res medium scans from UKFilm

This post is good for getting things in perspective for sure

 

[pentaxpete]

I was given a Canon A-1 outfit and I have done some videos on it -- maybe the one of the use of FILTERS may be of help as it was requested by a bloke on my youtube channel -----

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHITy8NUj4Q

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZpPSlHJNw

 

[dan_yell]

I was given a Canon A-1 outfit and I have done some videos on it -- maybe the one of the use of FILTERS may be of help as it was requested by a bloke on my youtube channel -----

thank you pete, ill check it out

 

[dan_yell]

here's most of the rest of the 2 films

http://picsurge.com/DK8epO

and a couple embedded.

 

[abdoujaparov]

I like a lot of those, Dan. I think the problem is that the camera has exposed for the sky, and the shadows are underexposed. They can be brought up, but at the expense of saturation. As above, if you just set the ISO so as to overexpose by a stop, you'll be much better off, I think.

Edit: removed guff about whitebalance, forgot my screen was on "evening" setting, AGAIN

Edit 2: No, I think the WB is still off a tiny amount. After having a go at the last one in LR, then it looks much better with auto WB, a raise of the shadows, lowering of the blacks and highlights. Won't post it, though, you have Edit My Images off (sorry for taking liberties!)

 

[dan_yell]

I like a lot of those, Dan. I think the problem is that the camera has exposed for the sky, and the shadows are underexposed. They can be brought up, but at the expense of saturation. As above, if you just set the ISO so as to overexpose by a stop, you'll be much better off, I think.

Edit: removed guff about whitebalance, forgot my screen was on "evening" setting, AGAIN

feel free to post it, i must change that setting as i didnt know what it meant at the time and keep meaning to change it

 

[abdoujaparov]

Ok, bearing in mind this would be better done on the original scans . . .

This has been auto whitebalanced (just a smidge warmer, more magenta), shadows raised, blacks and highlights lowered.



Same for this one, but with the shadows raised even more.

 

[abdoujaparov]

Before/After screenshot from Lightroom to make it easier to see. Subtle, but I think it works.

 

[ChrisR]

Does your smart phone have to have a decent camera for the app to work properly? I'm a bit of a luddite and don't use a smart phone as my phone. I have a cheap smart phone which i use as a mobile device wherever i have wifi, and its camera is less than impressive (although it does ok outside and viewed small) so i didn't know if this would affect it. I'd be up for trying that if it will fit on my phone and work though!

The light meter apps on iPhones work really well. On Android phones it's a bit hit and miss. I bought a Samsung S3 Mini expecting it to be good for metering, as I'd heard from someone the S3 worked fine. However, none of the light meter apps work on my phone (I gather that for some of the cheaper phones the suppliers just didn't bother to hook up the relevant bits... or something). If you're going down this route, get the phone shop to demo it for you before buying!

 

[dan_yell]

The light meter apps on iPhones work really well. On Android phones it's a bit hit and miss. I bought a Samsung S3 Mini expecting it to be good for metering, as I'd heard from someone the S3 worked fine. However, none of the light meter apps work on my phone (I gather that for some of the cheaper phones the suppliers just didn't bother to hook up the relevant bits... or something). If you're going down this route, get the phone shop to demo it for you before buying!

i have a motorola e with android. i downloaded a couple of apps but it didnt seem to respond as i thought so it is prob too crapper phone. im not really into smart phones so i'll prob go the traditional route if it do the light meter thing, as if its not going to work properly then it will confuse me even more

 

[dan_yell]

Before/After screenshot from Lightroom to make it easier to see. Subtle, but I think it works.

Thanks i hadnt done anything PP with them as wanted to post as is for people to see. i will prob spend some time playing and see if i can get some improvements on the ones i like best.