A few shots from my first roll of film from London...

wire-screw · 29 Oct 2013 at 21:33

So I got to Uni at UCL and had a look at the societies - the photosoc was not on my list. One afternoon a new friend said he was going for a 'freshers' photo walk through Regents park. I had nothing to do so I thought why not even though the closest thing I had to a camera was my iPhone - I didn't dare get it out! While on the walk I got chatting to several great people and decided I wanted to join and began thinking of what camera I could buy on my meagre student budget. The majority have expensive DSLRs and a few digital Leicas as well as one Leica M3 which got me thinking about film. I came across one of the societies members selling a Ricoh 500 ME but read a few reviews and found that the Olympus 35RC was a much better made camera and for only a little more too. I ended up picking up one from ebay for ~£25. I went to the local camera shop on Tottenham Court road who charged me £5.50 for the 'cheapest' film to get me started. The first roll I noted all the settings of the camera so I could review later on. The camera was old and was sold as spares or repairs, I've never shot film before and so I surprised some of the pictures came out well at all! The film was only 200 ISO so my preferred night shots didn't really work with the slow shutter speeds I had to use.

So here we go!

Drummond street business park one. F2.8 1/15 200

Drummond street business park two. F2.8 1/15 200

Drummond street business park three. F2.8 1/15 200

Euston Sqr. Underground station. F2.8 1/125 200

Woburn street. F2.8 1/15 200

Overall I really enjoyed taking the shots and the anticipation while I got them developed. I like the contrast of the slow and inefficient film camera and London - it offers an island of peace. I love the build quality and it really got me thinking about the crap that is made these days. And most of all for some reason I love advancing film!

Thanks
Boscoe

wire-screw · 29 Oct 2013 at 21:52

Raymond Lin said:
i am not sure what you are trying the say. Without knowing the film and processing used it is hard to know your intent. The film looks like something 20 years out of date and the chemicals has developed a weird tint to them, some people actually like this look. Or it looks a little like crossed processed.

I think because they are grainy and film like, it is a little likeable. However, on a pure photographic merit, if had came out of a "normal" camera, I have to say they all belong to the bin pile. There is a little 70's horror movie feel to them but again, i am not sure if that was your intention to begin with.

p.s. There is a fault with the camera, it creates 3 distinct vertical (or horizontal) lines across all its images.

p.p.s. I have no doubt your iPhone can take better images than these!

No they aren't great! I think it's the camera. The lines are obvious, the film and development I'm confident in.

I had no intentions, I just took pictures of what I liked the look of. The pictures at the end aren't the objective.

And yeh my phone images are way better.

wire-screw · 29 Oct 2013 at 22:34

Jokester said:
Could be the scanner that's added the lines, or is it in the prints as well?

I didn't get prints - just digital from Jessops.

wire-screw · 29 Oct 2013 at 22:56

Yes I did think getting 500Kb JPEGs was a bit crap and there are scratches on the negatives.

Is the grainyness and such due to the film?

wire-screw · 29 Oct 2013 at 23:08

Raymond Lin said:
Grain is as a result of 2 things.

1 - ISO

Being ISO 200, there shouldn't much grain.

2 - pushing the negative/film

This will add grain too, and both of these happens to digital files as well.

(thought you said "the film and development I'm confident in." ?)

I can't push the ISO on the camera unless the guys did it in Jessops?

I trust Jessops more than I trust the 45 year old camera!

wire-screw · 29 Oct 2013 at 23:21

Raymond Lin said:
You can push in camera, at least some more modern SLRs. It's been a long time but i am sure you can.

http://shoottokyo.com/pushing-film/

Interesting, the auto function doesn't work but I could do it manually I guess.

wire-screw · 30 Oct 2013 at 09:19

King Damager said:
I'm noticing a bit of blur. As Raymond says you're actually benefitting from the whole 'film' factor, as sometimes the issues you've had work on film. BUT on pure photographic merit you're missing out.

Part of the problem is you're shooting at 1/15. You may (although I doubt it), be able to hand hold at this, but I think it'd take a lot of practice. You need to be shooting at a faster rate than your focal length. I.e. if you have a 50mm lens, you ideally want to be shooting at 1/50 or faster...

kd

Yes it was hard hand holding it and a lot of other shots came out blurry. Will shooting faster than my focal length increase the quality of the images?

wire-screw · 30 Oct 2013 at 14:26

Amp34 said:
3. Pushing the actual scan.

I'm guessing number 3. OP look at the negatives and see if you have underexposed the shot (very light coloured negatives with few dark areas). They were probably very dark scans and then brightened by the scanning software giving lots of digital noise to get any detail out of them.

As for scanning they are all rubbish... Unless you spend a lot of money (like £20 a roll) even good companies like peak imaging just provide 1500px 1MB jpegs which seem to be almost impossible to remove any colour cast from as they have lost most of the data a tiff would have had. One way is to scan yourself although of the photosoc/uni don't have the equipment then you either need to buy a good scanner or use a macro lens and light box. Both aren't cheap... Film is just expensive, cheap up front costs but expensive to "run", whereas digital is expensive up front but basically free to "run".

It seems this might be the case. All the ones that turned out okay were generally dark the rubbish ones were very light. I guess more compensation was needed on the lighter ones.

wire-screw · 30 Oct 2013 at 14:27

By the way guys I appreciate the criticism and feedback this was more of a big learning experience than serious shots.

wire-screw · 30 Oct 2013 at 15:31

Raymond what HiFi did you get in the end?

wire-screw · 30 Oct 2013 at 19:33

Raymond Lin said:
I don't think it was me who was looking to upgrade.

I already have a 5.1 system and a stereo system for the bedroom.

AVi HiFi ring a bell? Passives are rubbish?

wire-screw · 31 Oct 2013 at 10:15

Raymond Lin said:
I remember who you are and your background, it just I do not wish to go into the debate about HiFi right now. Besides, I am happy with what I have and don't want to spend any money on it for quite a while.

Your a weird mofo Raymond! Thanks for the photography help tho.
.

wire-screw · 31 Oct 2013 at 22:49

At The Gates said:
It's not like Digital, even ISO 200 film is grainy, depending on what you got. Superia 200 or something?

Also chronicly underexposed shots will always be grainer. Plus as already mentioned the minilab scanner will have boosted the gamma to compensate which only exacerbates the problem.

If you want to shoot colour film at high speed you can:

1. Try and find Superia 1600 although it's expensive (£8-10 a roll)
2. Shoot Porta 400 at 800 or 1600 and get the lab to push
3. Shoot Portra 800 (again very expensive) at 1600 and develop normally.

B&W you can try Delta 3200 but i don't like it in 35mm, very unpleasant grain (lovely in 120 developed in XTOL though). I would use a decent lab though as Delta 3200 needs a push developer like XTOL or DDX which i doubt Jessops would do for you. You can also shoot something like TMAX 400 at 800 and get the lab to push it.

The scratches on your negatives are either the rollers in the lab machine, or the tension rollers in the camera. You can test by seeing if the lines on the negative line up with the metal rollers in the camera.

That's great thanks. It seems my next lot should be a bit better then as I'm now shooting HP5 Plus 400 and I'm only taking brightish day shots so I can keep shutter fast to minimize blur and obtain good exposure!