Sony/Minolta pictures of the week / 10 Jan 2016

[howardstanbury]

<p>One of the things we miss with film cameras sometimes is the length of time between taking pictures and seeing the results. I had a film back from processing this week and a few of the pictures were nearly 6 months old:</p>

<p><a title="Untitled" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1506/23653454554_a986329236_c.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="800" height="537" /></a></p>

<p>^ Mont Ste Victoire, Provence (Minolta Dynax 7 and AF 50 mm f/1.7; Agfaphoto Vista 200 Plus)</p>

<p><a title="Dynax 7 Agfaphoto 200 Vista-35" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1552/24165954572_5e5f7aa609_c.jpg" alt="Dynax 7 Agfaphoto 200 Vista-35" width="800" height="537" /></a></p>

<p>^ Father Christmas in a local mummers play on Boxing Day (Minolta Dynax 7 and Tamron 28-300 zoom)</p>

<p>Also this week I bought a Sigma 60mm f/2.8 in the January sales; I have always enjoyed their 30mm lens for E mount. This picture is automatically cropped to APS-C equivalent on the A7, but that can be ignored and a larger area used full-frame</p>

<p><a title="Cranes" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1534/23612112634_86ee6b1733_c.jpg" alt="Cranes" width="800" height="535" /></a></p>

<p>^ A7 and Sigma E 60mm f/2.8 Art</p>

<p>As ever please add your selection below.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I was too close to the subject for the focal length and I did not re-frame properly: but I hope to soon do better with the lens, which arrived two days ago.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Sorry, the caption above should have "Sony A7". E7 sounds like some form of Ektachrome.</p>

[howardstanbury]

<p>A nice portrait, nevertheless.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Howard.<br>

I forgot to say that your first photo (Provence) is too light in tone on my monitor.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>We have had a mild fall and winter until this morning when regular winter arrived.</p><div></div>

[randy_cooprider1]

Wind was from the west.<div></div>

[howardstanbury]

<p>I've not seen snow like that for a couple of years now, Randy. Still mild here though there's talk of a colder week ahead. Not much snow in the south though.</p>

[riffeym]

<p>Hello all! In keeping with the lead-in by Howard, here are some older film shots. All shots were home developed using a C-41 kit and negatives scanned on a Canon MG-8120. The camera was my all time favorite, a Minolta Maxxum 9000 with a Minolta 35-70mm f1.4 Macro zoom modified to have auto-focus in Macro mode. Film was expired EasyClix (rebranded Ferrania) ASA 200</p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8031/8055515257_32791756f1_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8172/8055515631_df25f23dd1_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8181/8055517634_e3ab99ee0a_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p>Mike :D</p>

[howardstanbury]

<p>Nice scans, Mike. Along with caffinol, I'm going to have to try C41 at home one day as well.</p>

[riffeym]

<p>Thanks Howard. As you had inferred in your first post, there is some lag time when you shoot film if you don't process it yourself. Fortunately, there are still many labs that process film but, it can be an expensive and time intensive process. I know that not everyone has the time or inclination to do home processing and the chemicals (especially C-41) can be hazardous, which is why I find myself moving to the caffenol process.</p>

<p>The digital medium has brought ease and efficiency to photography for the average hobbyist but, I find myself missing the mental exercise with calculating aperture and f-stops, knowing that you won't have a preview to look at after you take the shot. Which is not to say that digital photographers do not take the same care when they compose their shots, it's just they can see the results immediately and make corrections on the spot.</p>

<p>Does shooting film make you a better photographer? No. Understanding your medium, whatever it is and exercising your control of that medium makes you a better photographer.</p>

<p>Sorry for being so long winded...<br>

Mike :D</p>

 

[howardstanbury]

<p>Several months and several days in my case. The film had been in the camera since August and then a film challenge at dyxum.com prompted me to pick it up again. My problem, if it is that, is that I have many film cameras and I had been using others more recently. I find I slow down with film photography when I have a manual camera forcing me to take decisions ...</p>

<p>I think a C41 kit is good for what 6 films? It might be an idea to build up a little stock of shot film for when I finally get the chemicals sorted.</p>

[riffeym]

<p>Yes, the rule of thumb for the C-41 kits is about 8 rolls per liter with either Tetenal or Unicolor.</p>

<p>Mike :D</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Mifu is now ten years old.</p><div></div>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Mukul ten years seems to go fast when children are considered. I used film for a long time and have worked in an industrial (b&w) darkroom. Now my enlarger has been idle for decades and the the cost of color film processing is increasing as well as almost no local labs remain.  Like Howard I have several film cameras but the speed of seeing the image, being able to adjust it digitally, sending the digital file for one hour processing then picking up the prints the same day has strong appeal.<

Michael the color, sharpness and contrast of your pictures are great examples of how good film can be. /p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>True, Randy. Before I began to get digital versions of my film photos I had no way of adjusting colours or contrast or of cropping. I could only give frame by frame instructions to the lab, never being sure that the result would be what I wanted.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Oops. I assumed you spoke of the (partly or completely) digital <em>process</em> and not of digital <em>cameras</em>. I continued with film for years because 35mm "full frame" film did not give me uncontrollable and often too great depth of field as my Four Thirds digitals did, and also because I could hold a film camera steady at much slower shutter speeds than I could manage with digital cameras (I should say here that none of mine was palm sized). Then having film processed became more and more difficult and expensive, at least in terms of time. For me the digital M Leicas were completely out of reach. Along came the A7, which I could afford, which is "full frame", and which is about the same size as an M Leica.</p>

[riffeym]

<p>I agree gentlemen, you cannot argue the convenience of digital. Plus, I see the instant feedback of digital as a great learning tool, you can make your image, see the results and make changes - as many times as you want. I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy that still wants to hang on to some of the past but, I will always have a digital camera too... ;)</p>

<p>Mike :D</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Mukul your assumption was correct I was only referring to the digital process. The depth of field situation is, as you are probably well aware, due to optical physics of the sensor size (film or digital) and the lens focal length. The old super 8 movie cameras had a large DOF while my Busch Pressman 4x5 (great camera with swings and tilts) not so much. Also the sheer mass of my Nikon Photomic FTN (46 years old and still clicking!) helps reduce camera jiggle however I do not plan to attach additional weight to my Nex 3. Howard also has a Nex 7 and by everything I have read it is an excellent camera. When I win the lottery I will buy one... or two. (8-)</p>