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.
It's on the negatives, but I think I know why - I triple-exposed my last frame on that film when I accidentally wound past 36 exposures, and that may have pulled the film off the sprockets and up against the metal guard rail running along the back of the body. That in turn scraped against the film, which would explain the blue line and explain why it was almost impossible to rewind the film.
Whatever the case may be, I've just handed in my next film to be developed, and rewinding that one was a breeze. I should have the pictures (...) ETA: sometime next week, since my photographer is having technical difficulties
More pics. These were supposed to be done last Wednesday, but the chemical bath broke down or something.
I still suck at guessing light levels and I don't have a separate meter, so the brightness and colours are all over the place; but the blue mystery line is gone!
Questions and comments are always welcome.
City Hall; I couldn't get a good shot without the kiosk blocking the view:
The shittiest bike ever:
What do you do with a truckload of sand and a thousand empty beer crates? You build a beach!
Goofing around with the rangefinder:
The park:
The last two are of a really beautiful church which unfortunately is squeezed into a tiny street. here's the bottom half:
A lot of these look pretty well-exposed. It's the light overcast that makes some look too bright; the simple solution is to try to keep that kind of sky out of the frame. Thin overcast produces good diffuse lighting, but itself is too bright to actually photograph - if you exposed the sky correctly, everything else would be underexposed.
In any case, I wouldn't say you'd need to adjust more than a stop in either direction. If you are bracketing your shots, keep that in mind; if you aren't bracketing, you might give it a try to become more comfortable with guessing exposure.
For reference, doubling the shutter speed (1/250 to 1/125, etc.) or increasing the aperture by one f-stop (f.8 to f.5.6, etc.) doubles the amount of light reaching the film, while halving shutter speed or decreasing the aperture by one f-stop halves the light. Knowing this also lets you adjust aperture for compositional effect without changing the exposure.
I completely forgot about bracketing. So far I've only tried it once to see which indoor exposure works best, but it's pretty much a hopeless cause without either a stand or a flash. Outdoors I haven't tried it yet, but should at some point.
Simplicius wrote:A lot of these look pretty well-exposed. It's the light overcast that makes some look too bright; the simple solution is to try to keep that kind of sky out of the frame. Thin overcast produces good diffuse lighting, but itself is too bright to actually photograph - if you exposed the sky correctly, everything else would be underexposed.
I downloaded them into Photoshop and checked the histograms in Levels, some of them are slightly underexposed but it's so little that a full stop of correction would be overdoing it. As you said, try not to shoot into the light and you'll be fine, and failing that, there's always Photoshop.
ø¤ º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
I like Celine Dion myself. Her ballads alone....they make me go all teary-eyed and shit.
- Havok
There's something very..muddy about the processing of the first few shots. Too much brown, grey, not enough dynamic range or contrasts/colours.
Later pics are nifty though
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.
There's something very..muddy about the processing of the first few shots.
"The processing"? Is this something I fucked up when taking the pictures or do you mean they weren't developed well?
I have no idea, i'm no film expert .
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.
Kanastrous wrote:Looks like either a processing or filtering issue, to me.
I don't use filters on the camera itself and didn't run these through an image editor except to resize them. If the colours are off, it's either because the photographer didn't develop or scan them right, because I messed up the shot, or because whatever I shot was brown to begin with. My money is on #2.
There's something very..muddy about the processing of the first few shots.
"The processing"? Is this something I fucked up when taking the pictures or do you mean they weren't developed well?
The first 3 pictures with the Zenit are overexposed, and the 4th one may be as well. You can tell since the texture in parts of the white wall is blown out, it's bright white and you can't see the texture of the bricks or the shadows on the mortar joints. If you're taking pictures of the sky or any other large light coloured setting, try dialing down the exposure a bit so you can get better shadow detail & contrast.
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.
aerius wrote:The first 3 pictures with the Zenit are overexposed, and the 4th one may be as well. You can tell since the texture in parts of the white wall is blown out, it's bright white and you can't see the texture of the bricks or the shadows on the mortar joints.
Now that I've had the chance to load them up in Photoshop and check the histograms, I think I'm wrong, but I'm not sure what the problem is either. The pictures have the classic overexposed look with slightly washed out colours and a background that's gone completely white with no textures, yet the histograms say that the highlights aren't bright enough which is a sign of underexposure.
A few possiblities I can think of.
The pictures were under or overexposed and the developer "pushed" or "pulled" the developing to make the errors less obvious. This can do weird things to colour & contrast.
The film just doesn't like bright backgrounds. I've been stuck with cheap drugstore film where I just can't get good colours.
Or it's the camera. Some cameras & lenses suck at taking pictures with good colours & contrast. I have an old film camera where the colours always look a bit washed out and lacking in saturation. Whenever I scan the photos from that camera I have to play around with the levels & curves menus along with cranking up the saturation.
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.
And it still works! 6x6 120 film, scanned by my photographer:
Focussing's a bitch thanks to the wobbly viewfinder, but still, I didn't expect to get anything recognisable. Sure, the images are blurry and washed-out, but for a forty-year-old bakelite box with a dodgy shutter that wasn't all that good to begin with, I'd say this is a pleasant surprise.
The out of focus effect is pleasant though, like the effect of a sock over the camera (It works best in nude photography or model/people photography, I can give you some examples if you like).
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.
Bounty wrote:A sock? I hope you mean something flimsy and nylon, because I don't see how else you'll shoot anything through an honest-to-god sock.
Yeah, a "flimsy"/thin sock (nylon for example) or a panty hose.
Not a real man's sock, obviously /
EDIT: Goddamn Caps lock.
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.
Bounty wrote:Focussing's a bitch thanks to the wobbly viewfinder, but still, I didn't expect to get anything recognisable. Sure, the images are blurry and washed-out, but for a forty-year-old bakelite box with a dodgy shutter that wasn't all that good to begin with, I'd say this is a pleasant surprise.
The focusing looks fine for the most part. What you do have to remember is that a medium format camera will have a shallower depth of field than a 35mm camera given a roughly equivalent lens. This means if say, 1/3 of the scene is in sharp focus with a 35mm, only 1/5 of it will be in focus with a medium format camera. This is why you have large parts of the foreground and/or background blurred in your photos.
You can get around this by stopping down the lens (larger F-stop number) and increasing the exposure time, and at the same time choosing your composition & angles a bit so there's less of a distance difference from foreground to background.
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.
.
