Going back to 35mm (Olympus MJU II)

Inazuma · 18 Apr 2011 at 10:58

Hi everyone,
I've recently began to really love the look of film-taken photos.
I've looked at what's good and have decided upon an Olympus MJU II (Stylus Epic) which goes for around £20-60.

This will be my first time using a film camera since digital cameras took off, and so I was wondering a few things:

1) Do you achieve better quality by developing the film first and then scanning them or do you scan the negatives using a digitizer?

2) I need clarification about the naming of film. Am I right in thinking that after you take photos, the film becomes a negative? Once you take them to a developer store or use in a digitizer, are they able to be developed again?

For people with experience of the camera:

1) Can you achieve a narrow DOF? I've noticed a few photos on Flickr which show a narrow DOF but I'm not sure if there were particular methods used (http://www.flickr.com/photos/byronlau/3449753121/)

2) Are the scratches on the picture intentional? If so, how are they achieved?

3) In what ways does the non-zoomable lens make it better than its more easily obtainable ZOOM brothers?

Thanks!

Ksanti · 18 Apr 2011 at 11:19

I don't know too much about the camera itself, but my opinions:

(to the camera questions)
1) Yes. The lens is f/2.8. While this isn't /amazing/ for narrow DOF, it should be okay. If you see more than that e.g. faux tilt-shift effects, that'll be done in post processing.
3) Primes are generally brighter (larger aperture/low f stop numbers) than zoom lenses, which means you can use lower ISO film in the same light, giving a better DOF. Due to their simpler construction, you also end up with a lighter, sharper lens.

Inazuma · 18 Apr 2011 at 12:31

Thanks for the info

Anymore from anyone else would be appreciated!

bigredshark · 18 Apr 2011 at 12:56

Inazuma said:
1) Do you achieve better quality by developing the film first and then scanning them or do you scan the negatives using a digitizer?

2) I need clarification about the naming of film. Am I right in thinking that after you take photos, the film becomes a negative? Once you take them to a developer store or use in a digitizer, are they able to be developed again?

For people with experience of the camera:

1) Can you achieve a narrow DOF? I've noticed a few photos on Flickr which show a narrow DOF but I'm not sure if there were particular methods used (http://www.flickr.com/photos/byronlau/3449753121/)

2) Are the scratches on the picture intentional? If so, how are they achieved?

3) In what ways does the non-zoomable lens make it better than its more easily obtainable ZOOM brothers?

Thanks!

- Always scan from negatives/slides rather than prints if you can, quality is far better - a 35mm slide scanned at 7200dpi is in the region of 60MP, you can't rival that scanning from prints. Decent scanners also have fancy dust removal techniques.

- Read up is best but a negative is just that, a negative image of the scene photographed, the term isn't unique to the stage of exposure, development etc that the film is at. You get negative film or slide film (which is a positive image). There's lots of terminology but once it's been exposed, no matter the film type, it's merely exposed film of that type until it's been developed and fixed (by immersion in developer and fixer chemicals) then it's either a negative or a positive frame.

My most recent set of scans are here:

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjtXoY8f

The colour shots are slide film (Velvia 100F I think) and the b&w are negative film (Ilford Delta 400)

Inazuma · 18 Apr 2011 at 13:06

Thanks

What should I look out for when looking for a negative scanner? I have seen most with a price range from £30-70, and then a few over £100

bigredshark · 18 Apr 2011 at 13:30

Inazuma said:
Thanks What should I look out for when looking for a negative scanner? I have seen most with a price range from £30-70, and then a few over £100

The only one you can buy new today (for a reasonable price) that I'd use is the Plustek 7400/7600 - about £180 new. You can get cheaper but they're not great bits of kit. None of the are great compared to the old Nikon Coolscans either...

EDIT: I should say, although it's labour intensive and not as good as a dedicated film scanner, a decent flatbed with a film scanning attachment will do a reasonable job. Just a bit more fiddly to do...