pentax k1000 + velvia 50 is it right for me?

<p>Hi, This is my first point. I am new to photography and I was wondering if the pentax k1000 + velvia 50 is right for me? Here are my circumstances and reasoning.<br>

I will probably shoot landscapes and things and my subject wont move around (at least too quickly) hence the 50 iso.<br>

I chose slide film, because I heard it is less forgiving to overexposure, I was hoping that this would help me learn. Also my understanding is that with slide film "what you shoot is what you get" i.e. the photo labs dont correct the photographs, again I was hoping that this will help learn. I also think that getting slide developed is cheaper (than print film) as long as you dont print, is this true? if it is, it is perfect since I expect most of my first shots to be bad.<br>

So do you think this setup is good for me?<br>

PS. I was wondering how I should view the slides do I use an enlarger or a light box, whats the price-performance breakdown like? Should I just make/build my own lightbox. I'm on a budget. I have heard amazing things about viewing slide film is it true?<br>

Thanks, in advance.</p>

 

<p>Smith,<br>

I started shooting slides because you could see what you are doing. However, Velvia 50 is not forgiving at all. I personally shoot Velvia 100 in medium format just for that extra stop that allows me to handhold my folding cameras.</p>

<p>I have shot slide film for many years, including countless rolls of Velvia 50 through cameras like a Pentax K1000 in my case Minolta SR and SRT series. While the results can be very satisfying, the cost is horrendous compared to today's digital photography. To be frank, nobody in their right mind can seriously recommend shooting slide film in 2012 to a beginner on a budget. Plus slide film and processing are not getting cheaper, and shooting a slide is not much different from shooting a JPG with in-camera post processing disabled. With slide film you are going to have a significant investment in film before you can consistently achieve the results that you want. You also need to be meticulous at note taking if you want to learn, because otherwise, by the time you are looking at the developed slide, you will have forgotten what settings were used to expose it. I know sloppiness in this regard has held me back a lot. If I look at any digitally captured image today, I have the full set of EXIF data allowing me to examine in detail what worked and what didn't. That and the instant feedback digital gives have helped me to improve more than years of shooting more Velvia would have.</p>

<p>If I was to advise somebody wanting to learn photography today on a budget, I would recommend picking up an inexpensive DSLR like a Canon 20D (about $150 used in excellent working condition) with a basic set of lenses like 50/1.8 (about $100), 18-55 IS (about $100), and 55-250 IS (about $150). Then start shooting, feel free to experiment, bracket, and have a close look at the results including EXIF data. You got a great starter set for the price of one of my regular film orders from B&H in the old days. If you have money left to spare, take a vacation somewhere scenic where you are inspired to take photos!</p>

<p>Frank is right: although I'd start with just the 18-55 lens, a tripod and a flash-gun.<br>

There may, however, be sense in using a K1000 with inexpensive colour negative film if the idea is to learn the game. You can practise on family and friends and have prints made for them at relatively low cost. If you ask the lab for low resolution scans, you can view them on your computer and work to improve your skills of composition. Just holding up a strip of negatives will tell you how close to correct your exposure is.</p>

<p>Although I grew up shooting slide film, I strongly agree with the other posters...it is not the best way to learn photography, and it can be pretty expensive. A digital SLR is probably a relatively inexpensive way to start, although a film camera will do as well...it is just that there is an additional variable here....the processing of the film. Learning doesn't take place overnight....it is the cumulative result of both successes and failures, which means you have to put the effort into learning and shooting and the money into it as well. As a beginner, especially on a budget, you might well consider used gear to start with. If you don't have a local dealer to assist you, someplace like KEH.com has good used gear at reasonable prices and it carries good return privileges. If you're not yet at the point of making a commitment, try borrowing a camera from a friend or family member, and see what you like or dislike about it, you will be able to make a better choice if you have a basis for comparison.</p>

<p>Athough I love film, I also agree with Frank and Stephen that beginners should really be using digital cameras. You will learn much more quickly. I will agree 100% that after digital, slide film is the best way to learn. Not colour negative (it has too much tolerance for error). Not black & white (it's even more tolerant to error and it has its own skill set). Why:</p>

<p>1. You learn about exposure</p>

<p>2. You learn about colour casts and colour temperature</p>

<p>3. You learn about colour in general</p>

<p>4. You learn about the behaviour of lights and how they interact</p>

<p>Points 1. & 2. are the important ones, though.</p>

<p>If you go the slide route, make sure you budget enough money for film and developing so you can get the results back quickly so you remember what the scene looked like when you shot it. No good if you can't afford to get the film developed for a couple of months.</p>

<p>Regretfully, I have to join the crowd in this: film is not economical these days, and it's probably best reserved for when you really want it. I have some slide film sitting in the fridge, some waiting to be exposed, some waiting for me to spend the money getting it developed - and scanning (especially decently) isn't cheap either. I still use it for some landscape and flower images where the spectral response of Velvia produces a better result for me than digital (and yes, the gamut of something like Velvia on a light box is amazing), but I tend to use medium format for that these days (a Pentax 645 isn't very expensive). In the time I've shot a few rolls of film, I've shot thousands of digital images and got a lot more keepers.<br />

<br />

I'm thinking of going large format at some point, partly to use Velvia (Starvy - how do you find Velvia 100? I'm hoping that, unlike 50 and 100F, it's not about to be discontinued in 5x4...) but also with the reverse of your logic - I can shoot Portra and still recover an image by scanning if I mess up the exposure badly. Though any SLR with a TTL meter will tend to get things right more often than not.<br />

<br />

To clarify: getting negatives (reversal film) developed but not printed tends to be cheap and relatively easy. You may have to shop locally and work out how much E6 film like Velvia costs - near me, there's often a significant premium to develop it, and you certainly can't just go into a high street chemist. The price of films has also risen sharply recently, I'm sorry to report.<br />

<br />

Good luck with your learning experience!</p>

<p>Velvia is exaggerated color<br>

and exposure with slide film is <br />"picky"<br>

Sorry to say slide film is on its way out.<br>

and you will have more problems getting<br>

a slide film developed.<br>

any printing with have to be done with a<br>

scan first.<br>

SO skip those steps and shoot digital.<br>

or negative film.<br>

Don't get me wrong. I like film.<br>

Use that K1000.</p>

<p>Velvia is overrated. (Don't get me wrong, it's very good at what it does. Still overrated though.)<br>

If you have the K1000 already, and don't have a digital camera, then do this. Figure out which digital camera you want (the suggestion of a 20D is excellent, although I would just get the new 40mm pancake and skip the zooms, also I would get a Pentax to EOS converter so I could use my Pentax lenses on my 20D). Figure out how much you can save up for a digital camera, per week, and then figure out how long it will take for you to be able to buy the one you want.<br>

If it will take a few months, and you just can't wait, figure out how much you'll be willing to spend on film and developing per week. Maybe it's a roll per week, or a roll every other week. Don't start out on slide film unless you are prepared to be disappointed. Do a few rolls of color negative film first, just to make sure you are getting everything in the ball park. Your meter works in your Pentax, right? And you remember to put the lens cap on at the end of the day so the meter battery doesn't wear out? This isn't a point and shoot, you need to know what aperture and shutter speed to use.<br>

After you run a few rolls of color negative film through first, then get a roll of slide film. Take detailed notes. Pick up a projector for free at a yard sale if you want to view your slides.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Athough I love film, I also agree with Frank and Stephen that beginners should really be using digital cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Before digital existed, people managed to learn photography using film. They still can today.</p>

<p>I think you should do what you want in the way you want to do it. Why settle for some half-baked combination you are not happy with? When you shoot film you don't have to act like you are manning a machinegun and just have to shoot 500 photos this afternoon.<br>

Do what YOU want. You can always find a cheap digital somewhere that you can use, as well. I bought an Olympus that takes sensational photos in a thrift shop for $15 and it had a $25 memory card with it.<br>

Go for it or you will kick yourself down the road. </p>

<p>One point ... exposuire ... when in doubt one errs on the over exposure when shooting negative film but with slides over exposure is a NO NO just as with digital. We are talking here of half a stop or less deliberate error or estimation.<br>

I agree that shooting film these days is for the specialists and one doesn't have to shoot 500 pictures in an afternoon with digital ... I never do even when I use burst :-)</p>

<blockquote>Before digital existed, people managed to learn photography using film. They still can today.</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes, Steve, but they also spent a lot of money on film and processing - although not as much as if they did it now (because film and processing are both more expensive than a few years back). If they didn't spend a lot of money on this, Kodak would still be profitable.<br />

<br />

If you're learning, you can expect not to have many keepers and to need to know the results of your images. That means you can't really shoot two frames per week, because it'll be three months before you finish a roll. In the UK, having just checked, 35mm Velvia is about £10 per roll (dear god - I was expecting half that; it was about £3 when I last bought lots). Add a few quid to develop it, especially if you get it scanned (even cheaply). I therefore own a perfectly serviceable digital compact from a supermarket bought, new, for approximately the price it would cost me to shoot 72 exposures on Velvia. And, being 35mm, it'd be awkward not to shoot those in two batches of 36. A DSLR that would give me proper control over DoF and let me control aperture and shutter properly would cost me appreciably more - as much as 20 rolls of film, maybe, if I bought new. <i>This</i> is why most of my film is sitting in the fridge, waiting for the time that I <i>really</i> want to use it.<br />

<br />

Yes, you can choose to learn this way. But I'd suggest you learn <i>fast</i>. It used to be said that you could shoot an awful lot of film for the price of a DSLR; the problem is that film has got a lot more expensive, and DSLRs have got a lot cheaper.</p>

<p>Keep the K1000, lose the slide film.There is really no benefit to using it in a hybrid film/scanner process. It will just cost you more.</p>

<p>Seriously, I've done a lot of this. Try ordinary C41 color print film from any drugstore or supermarket. It's inexpensive. If you don't have your own scanner, have it scanned at the same time, at whatever "resolution" they offer. You don't need expensive high-res scans just to see your pictures on a computer or for web display. If you come up with a real winner, you do have the negative, and you can always get a better scan (or have a real photographic print made). Realize going in that these files will display best on a monitor when reduced to about 800 pixels wide or so, and they aren't really intended for high-quality digital printing at large sizes.<br>

<br />If you want to see some examples, go to my website (see my profile), and click on the pbase link under the picture. I have a little gallery there of Pentax K1000 photos I just shot recently, on Fuji Superia 200. These were scanned by the lab, but honestly, I can do just as well or better with my old Canoscan 8400F flatbed scanner. I was just being lazy.</p>

<p>By the way, the K1000 is the very same one I bought to replace a Pentax SP1000 way back in 1979 or 80. Obviously, using a digital camera in the first place is more convenient, but film is fun. Just remember, you don't need anything raw, and you don't need a scan that will be good enough for a billboard... because you have the negative should you need better.</p><div></div>

<p>As a thought, for learning, you might try Ilford XP2 Super. It's high contrast, so you'll get the insistence on exposure that you get with slide film; it's C41, so it's cheap to process, and it's black and white, so it's - you know - arty. (Or at least, you might like to try some for variety over colour print film.) <i>Real</i> black and white film tends to cost more to process, mostly because it's specialist - at least unless you want to get the chemicals and do it yourself. HTH.</p>

<p>Pentax K1000 is a workhorse of a camera, but they are not very easy to load. A Nikon FM, FM2 or FE2 have a much smoother film loading mechanism plus better lenses. Shooting anything with an ISO 50 is not a good way of starting out in my opinion especially with slides.</p>

<p>Even if you shoot landscapes you are limitting yourself to certain times of the day when the sun is out unless you want to carry a tripod with you all the time. Not many people develop slides anymore meaning you would have to send it out and wait a couple of days before seeing the results. If you have a photographic memory or like taking allot of notes that's fine, but in these days of instant digital gratification why put yourself through all that ? </p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses.<br>

For now I'm going to put the idea on the back burner and perhaps save some more money. If I shoot negatives instead of slides I should buy an enlarger (I'm probably going to need one down the track anyway). I'm also thinking of bulk buying 4x6 photo paper and film. I just wanted to say thank you.</p>