Soviet hardware is fun

[Bounty]

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:

[The Grim Squeaker]

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

[Bounty]

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]

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.

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.

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.

[Havok]

AMP it. Just the building architecture alone is cool enough for that. Nice pics man.

[aerius]

Some very good strong colours in some of the parts. (A pity about the weak contrast and B/W).

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.

[Bounty]

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

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.

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.

Thanks for the positive replies, I'll keep posting these as they come in. I get about a roll of film per week done.

[Phantasee]

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.

[Bounty]

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.

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 fakes

[Argosh]

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.

Nice find and beautiful pictures. Now, if you want to go real hardcore, develope the pictures yourself.

[Bounty]

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.

Nice find and beautiful pictures. Now, if you want to go real hardcore, develope the pictures yourself.

My photographer has three kids to feed. Do you really want them to starve?

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]

C-41 film is harder to self-develop at home than standard black and white, and will probably wind up costing more than getting it done at a lab.

[Bounty]

(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

[Instant Sunrise]

If you're not shooting people, then you should be shooting on:

VELVIA

[Bounty]

If you're not shooting people, then you should be shooting on:

VELVIA

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]

B&H, Ritz Camera and Amazon have it. So it's not that hard to find, especially online. Just be sure to get the ISO 50 version of it.

[Phantasee]

I'm not seeing the artwork by the train.

Also: that elephant looks photoshopped in.

[Simplicius]

If you're not shooting people, then you should be shooting on:

VELVIA

I'll give it a try once I get through my last rolls of regular film. Is it easy to get hold of?

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.

Also, your scans here - are they of your negatives, or your prints? Just curious.

[Phantasee]

Looks like scans of his prints to me.

Bounty: PM a mod and ask that this thread be moved to AMP, there's no spam here and it'd be good to see more than three pages of your shooting.

[Bounty]

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.

ETA: at least I think it's from the negatives...

I'm not seeing the artwork by the train.

Also: that elephant looks photoshopped in.

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.

The elephant is real I got some video of him if you want it...

[Bounty]

Mods: thanks for the move

The next batch'll be in next Tuesday. I'm going to hunt down some of my favourite spots in the city tomorrow and try to get pictures. Wish me luck...

[Phantasee]

I'm just saying the elephant looks photoshopped, not that he is...
And the bird thing? I thought it was a messy wiring job. Maybe that's why they hid it...

[Bounty]

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.

[Kanastrous]

Nice pictures. You're putting it to good use.

[Simplicius]

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...

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.

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.

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.