Show us yer film shots then!

Finally, a couple of shots from the F3! Wasn't expecting as much grain as I got from the roll of Tri-X I put through it rated at ISO200... maybe I should try a couple of rolls at box speed.
Definitely more user error than equipment... Love the F3, so chuffed I got myself one, but I definitely need to learn more! :)


Nikon F3_Roll001_102
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Nikon F3_Roll001_103
by Dave Young, on Flickr

Pleased you are enjoying the F3 :)
 
Last edited:
By Jove, Chris, they've gentrified that area a bit haven't they? Looks like they're even serving bread for the ducks in designer paper bags! ;) Joking aside, a nice set of photos there. (y)
 
A few from my honeymoon in Mexico. As I've posted on another thread, my main film camera decided to play up almost from the start of the trip, so I've only got 50 useable photos from four rolls of film. Here's a few from the lovely tropical island of Isla Mujeres off the coast of Cancun. I think these are all on Kodak ProImage 100











 
By Jove, Chris, they've gentrified that area a bit haven't they? Looks like they're even serving bread for the ducks in designer paper bags! ;) Joking aside, a nice set of photos there. (y)
Nah, they're feeding the ducks McDonalds :D
 
Any ideas what would have caused this issue with this shot? is it light from the left ? light seals? something else? No other shot on the film has this issue
fzo7XkY.jpg
 
Any ideas what would have caused this issue with this shot? is it light from the left ? light seals? something else? No other shot on the film has this issue
fzo7XkY.jpg
reflected light possibly? could it be a reflection from one side of the lens
 
reflected light possibly? could it be a reflection from one side of the lens

Iam just thinking back from the day i was out and about and there was definetley some light from the left so i suppose that would make sense, thanks for taking the time to answer.
 
That seems like a heck of a lot of flare, I've never seen anything clear across the frame like that. What lens was it, Adrian?
 
You referred to "the first shot on the roll" as a disaster. Is that the one with the flare? I'm a little rusty on 35mm film loading, but if that was the first frame, it could be that the fogging was on the first bit of filmout of the cassette. If so, light through the light trap?
 
You referred to "the first shot on the roll" as a disaster. Is that the one with the flare? I'm a little rusty on 35mm film loading, but if that was the first frame, it could be that the fogging was on the first bit of filmout of the cassette. If so, light through the light trap?

Hi Stephen yes sorry first frame was with the flare, light traps as in light seals you mean ?
 
Hi Stephen yes sorry first frame was with the flare, light traps as in light seals you mean ?

Basically yes, the felt light seals / trap on the film canister where the film comes out.

I've never had partiall fogging like what you have experienced, but have had quite litterally only half of the first frame visible, the other half being totally white and that was due to not winding the film on far enough after loading.

Even now, afer loading a film and arriving at No1 on the shutter counter, I'm always cautious and if that first frame is going to to be something of importance, I'll take two shots ( ie frame No 1 and No2) to ensure I get the photograph.
 
Basically yes, the felt light seals / trap on the film canister where the film comes out.

I've never had partiall fogging like what you have experienced, but have had quite litterally only half of the first frame visible, the other half being totally white and that was due to not winding the film on far enough after loading.

Even now, afer loading a film and arriving at No1 on the shutter counter, I'm always cautious and if that first frame is going to to be something of importance, I'll take two shots ( ie frame No 1 and No2) to ensure I get the photograph.

Yes i understand where you are coming from on this and something iam normally aware of, that does make sense fo rme first roll in the x1 as well. something to watch out for with my next roll. Appreciate all of the feedback
 
Hi Chris it was a minolta rokkor 50mm f1.4

Well AFAIK that's a very highly regarded lens! It's been mentioned a few times in the Vintage and Classic lenses thread in the Talk Equipment subforum. No hint it was particularly prone to flare, so I'd definitely go with something to do with loading. If the film goes from right to left in your camera (as most do), then the vulnerable part would be on the right, being the left of the image as shown. That said, I've never had any light get in through the light traps. Could the back have been not completely closed as you were winding the film on?
 
Well AFAIK that's a very highly regarded lens! It's been mentioned a few times in the Vintage and Classic lenses thread in the Talk Equipment subforum. No hint it was particularly prone to flare, so I'd definitely go with something to do with loading. If the film goes from right to left in your camera (as most do), then the vulnerable part would be on the right, being the left of the image as shown. That said, I've never had any light get in through the light traps. Could the back have been not completely closed as you were winding the film on?

I dont think it was the back but i suppose anything is possible, light traps also a possibility. iam going to be a lot more careful with the next roll and see what happens. really appreciate all of the ideas real food for thought.
 
Last edited:
If it was the traps on the camera, it should have affected more than the first frame. On the other hand, I have many, many examples of light hitting the first frame. I don't have the lens cap on when I load the film, and with automatic cameras (I used an OM2/4 for many years) the first frames are always exposed, even if they weren't actually "taken". And as the whole film tended to get mounted by Kodak (these were my 35mm Kodachrome days) I got plenty of examples of the first frame that wasn't completely fogged. And they look like yours.
 
Anyway after the first shot on the roll was a little disaster overall iam fairly pleased with some other shots for my first outing with Minolta X1

mnk1nw7.jpg
RYAc3lo.jpg
To me these look very grainy and without much detail in certain areas, were they underexposed (identifiable by 'thin' looking negatives) and/or was it old long out-of-date film?
 
On the way back from Onich, we diverted to Killin to see the Falls... in the pouring rain. No time to be faffing around with tripods, and the bridge is too narrow for safety anyway, with the big trucks that come through there. But with a bit of balancing on the stonework and the timer, I did get a couple that worked for me:

1)

000043710018 by Chris R, on Flickr

2)

000043710019 by Chris R, on Flickr

Pentax LX, probably the lovely Vivitar 35-70/2.8-3.5, and Portra 400. Not sure of the exposure times, but around 1/8 I suspect; that water was really moving. Maybe the second one should have been a bit longer?

ETA Most of the shots have something that looks like flare at the top left (partly cropped out in these). There was definitely no sun, but I think it must have been some interaction between lighter areas of sky and the rain!
 
Last edited:
On the way back from Onich, we diverted to Killin to see the Falls... in the pouring rain. No time to be faffing around with tripods, and the bridge is too narrow for safety anyway, with the big trucks that come through there. But with a bit of balancing on the stonework and the timer, I did get a couple that worked for me:

1)

000043710018 by Chris R, on Flickr

2)

000043710019 by Chris R, on Flickr

Pentax LX, probably the lovely Vivitar 35-70/2.8-3.5, and Portra 400. Not sure of the exposure times, but around 1/8 I suspect; that water was really moving. Maybe the second one should have been a bit longer?

ETA Most of the shots have something that looks like flare at the top left (partly cropped out in these). There was definitely no sun, but I think it must have been some interaction between lighter areas of sky and the rain!

Bravely captured Chris, well done.
 
Had a recent visit to the Fairy Glen at Rosemarkie looking for a Wet subject for next month. This was a trial of 120 Ektar in the Bronny SQB and 50mm, and the leaves almost making a heart shape. Awwww! :whistle:

Fairy Glen 1 by Northsnapper, on Flickr

Very nice photograph Peter, I found that if you crop out the top down to the finish of the sky it seems to make the falls pop more. Well done.
 
This is one of my shots on the lovely Provia 100f, taken in the Sahara Desert, Morocco.
Unfortunately, while I had the shutter open (100 mins), a couple decided to go exploring with their little torch! At the time I was boiling with frustration, but decided I shouldn't be selfish and shout at them as they were probably having fun. I thought I'd leave it in the picture too (I'm quite a purist when it comes to film and refrain from photoshopping).



More pics from this roll here
 
This is one of my shots on the lovely Provia 100f, taken in the Sahara Desert, Morocco.
Unfortunately, while I had the shutter open (100 mins), a couple decided to go exploring with their little torch! At the time I was boiling with frustration, but decided I shouldn't be selfish and shout at them as they were probably having fun. I thought I'd leave it in the picture too (I'm quite a purist when it comes to film and refrain from photoshopping).



More pics from this roll here

I rather like that in the foreground, it seems to give a sense of depth and scale to the photograph.
 
a couple decided to go exploring

I think this makes the image more than a normal star trail. It's imperfect (just like us) and it has a story - which is something I really enjoy in images.
 
Back
Top