Soviet hardware is fun
Moderator: Beowulf
Soviet hardware is fun
This isn't artsy enough for AMP, but I wanted to post it anyway...
A few weeks ago I imported a Kiev 4 (Type I, with light meter) from Ukraine. '66 body, '68 Jupiter lens, pristine condition, serviced and with the original case. If you ever have the chance to try one of these beast, please do - they're extremely durable copies of pre-war German professional cameras and once you get used to operating one (and get past the GOST values and Cyrillic manual) they're a dream to shoot pictures with. Nothing beats the feel of winding a camera and feeling the gears and springs work their magic under that steel and leather skin.
Anyway, apart from being fun to use it also takes some pretty sweet pictures. I am not a photographer and I don't have a flash, so the quality isn't what it should be, but for a +40-year-old piece of Soviet equipment, I hope you'll agree it's not that bad:
A few weeks ago I imported a Kiev 4 (Type I, with light meter) from Ukraine. '66 body, '68 Jupiter lens, pristine condition, serviced and with the original case. If you ever have the chance to try one of these beast, please do - they're extremely durable copies of pre-war German professional cameras and once you get used to operating one (and get past the GOST values and Cyrillic manual) they're a dream to shoot pictures with. Nothing beats the feel of winding a camera and feeling the gears and springs work their magic under that steel and leather skin.
Anyway, apart from being fun to use it also takes some pretty sweet pictures. I am not a photographer and I don't have a flash, so the quality isn't what it should be, but for a +40-year-old piece of Soviet equipment, I hope you'll agree it's not that bad:
Last edited by Bounty on 2008-11-12 04:21am, edited 8 times in total.
- The Grim Squeaker
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 10315
- Joined: 2005-06-01 01:44am
- Location: A different time-space Continuum
- Contact:
Some very good strong colours in some of the parts. (A pity about the weak contrast and B/W). The reds and blues are good. Some nice pictures there.
This should be in AM&P, not testing
This should be in AM&P, not testing
Photography
Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.
To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.
To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
I know about the colours; I'm just not good at guessing aperture and shutter speed settings yet, and I daren't rely on the light meter until I can somehow make sure it's calibrated. For the moment I'm sticking to "best guess" settings and ISO-200 film, which seems to give the overall most usable results.
- Simplicius
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm
Film manufacturers provide product specifications that include recommended exposures. You should be able to find them simply by searching for the brand and type of film, and you'll get something like this (for Kodak Gold 200). A meter would probably be most useful in really low or artificial light, if you are using slide film, or if you have a really varied EV, but in plain daylight those guidelines seem to work well.Bounty wrote:I know about the colours; I'm just not good at guessing aperture and shutter speed settings yet, and I daren't rely on the light meter until I can somehow make sure it's calibrated. For the moment I'm sticking to "best guess" settings and ISO-200 film, which seems to give the overall most usable results.
You don't really need to calibrate the meter as long as you have a sense of how it reads. Once you are comfortable exposing by eye, you can make some comparison shots - same scene, same time, same light - with your own exposure and then following the meter, making sure you note the settings of each. That way, the meter is compared to a known quantity, and any discrepancies can be corrected by setting the camera as you shoot. If the meter is seriously out of whack, it's pretty much a write-off unless you want to get it repaired - but that will not be a great impediment.
I second sending this to AM&P.
AMP it. Just the building architecture alone is cool enough for that. Nice pics man.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
Could be the film itself too, some films just don't have as much contrast, and the printing and scanning process doesn't help either. You're note going to get the contrast & dynamics of digital unless you use the right film and scan directly from the negative.DEATH wrote:Some very good strong colours in some of the parts. (A pity about the weak contrast and B/W).
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me.
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
If anyone feels like moving it, go ahead. It's just random snaps. The architecture, apart from the last two photos of Ghent, is just what I see on my commute
Thanks for the positive replies, I'll keep posting these as they come in. I get about a roll of film per week done.
I've found similar pages, but the results never quite matched up. I'm using Fujifilm Superia 200 (for no other reason than cost - buy two, get one free ); I'll see if I can find their charts.Film manufacturers provide product specifications that include recommended exposures. You should be able to find them simply by searching for the brand and type of film, and you'll get something like this (for Kodak Gold 200). A meter would probably be most useful in really low or artificial light, if you are using slide film, or if you have a really varied EV, but in plain daylight those guidelines seem to work well.
Thanks for the positive replies, I'll keep posting these as they come in. I get about a roll of film per week done.
You're seeing the pretty side. Most of Leuven is just small houses and old factories around the canal. Also, dirty little secret: some of the old houses in the first pics were rebuilt after WW1. They're just good fakesPhantasee wrote:Man, you live in a pretty place, Bounty. I like the pictures, don't know enough about photography to actually give you any kind of feedback though.
Re: Soviet hardware is fun
Nice find and beautiful pictures. Now, if you want to go real hardcore, develope the pictures yourself.Bounty wrote:A few weeks ago I imported a Kiev 4 (Type I, with light meter) from Ukraine. '66 body, '68 Jupiter lens, pristine condition, serviced and with the original case.
Re: Soviet hardware is fun
My photographer has three kids to feed. Do you really want them to starve?Argosh wrote:Nice find and beautiful pictures. Now, if you want to go real hardcore, develope the pictures yourself.Bounty wrote:A few weeks ago I imported a Kiev 4 (Type I, with light meter) from Ukraine. '66 body, '68 Jupiter lens, pristine condition, serviced and with the original case.
Besides, with my current level of skill, I'm better off getting them developed by a pro. I don't even want to imagine what these pics would look like with both my poor picture-taking and shoddy development.
- Simplicius
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm
(ETA: turned these into links until I can upload the non-screen-stretching versions)
Got some more scanned, these fit in between the first batch:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 5_0023.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 7_0004.jpg
An artwork in the Antwerp Central Station:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 5_0006.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 7_0012.jpg
This isn't very clear because it was taken in the shadows, but the text should still be legible:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 4_0015.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 3_0016.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 1_0017.jpg
Got some more scanned, these fit in between the first batch:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 5_0023.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 7_0004.jpg
An artwork in the Antwerp Central Station:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 5_0006.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 7_0012.jpg
This isn't very clear because it was taken in the shadows, but the text should still be legible:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 4_0015.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 3_0016.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/ue ... 1_0017.jpg
Last edited by Bounty on 2008-07-13 07:52am, edited 1 time in total.
- Instant Sunrise
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 945
- Joined: 2005-05-31 02:10am
- Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
- Contact:
- Instant Sunrise
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 945
- Joined: 2005-05-31 02:10am
- Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
- Contact:
- Simplicius
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm
For that you'll probably want to meter, or at least be confident in your exposures. Slide film is less tolerant than negative film, so you'll only have two or so stops to over/underexpose, and the limited dynamic range will make your shots contrasty but at the cost of some shadow detail. I love slides for the colors - I shot several rolls at that military airshow in May; I'll post some if I ever scan them - but for best results, use them for scenes that you know you can expose reasonably well. Slide film, even cheap slide film (I used Elite Chrome 200) is more expensive to buy and process than ordinary negative film, which is another incentive for working to use it to best effect.Bounty wrote:I'll give it a try once I get through my last rolls of regular film. Is it easy to get hold of?Instant Sunrise wrote:If you're not shooting people, then you should be shooting on:
VELVIA
Also, your scans here - are they of your negatives, or your prints? Just curious.
Of the negatives, done by a friend of mine. I think I'll have the next batch scanned by my photographer.Also, your scans here - are they of your negatives, or your prints? Just curious.
ETA: at least I think it's from the negatives...
It's the wooden bird thing hanging in the hall. They hung it in a place where you can never *quite* get a good shot of it, and I thought I didn't catch quite as much of the shrubbery.I'm not seeing the artwork by the train.
Also: that elephant looks photoshopped in.
The elephant is real I got some video of him if you want it...
-
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 6464
- Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
- Location: SoCal
- Simplicius
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm
Makes sense. I was going to have to ask you for the secret to getting such sharp scans from prints, otherwise. I'm saving for a slide/negative scanner, but it's a way off.Bounty wrote:Of the negatives, done by a friend of mine. I think I'll have the next batch scanned by my photographer.
ETA: at least I think it's from the negatives...
I see it, but I haven't any idea what it could actually be. Some kind of scratch would make sense, given how regular it is, but to be sure you'd have to look at your negatives.Is anyone else seeing that weird blue line running along the edge of each photo
I hope it's just the result of me rewinding the film a bit rough. It's not on the prints from my earlier rolls.