UKH

I had an SLR when I was younger — a Centon K100 with a couple of different lenses. I learned how to take photos properly and knew how shutter speed, ISO, and aperture affected the result.

Then digital photography came along and I haven't touched a 35mm camera for about 14 years. Realistically 99% of my photography these days is conducted with an iPhone and I've become increasingly aware that I'm not really thinking about my shots anymore. I would like to change that.

My parents are in the process of moving house, and my Dad has unearthed a box of old cameras including an Olympus Trip and a couple of Pentaxes. I've thought about taking up 35mm photography again as a hobby. I think it would be instructive to introduce a bit more friction to the process of taking photos.

So my question is ... how best to get back into it? Should I choose a Pentax, or the Olympus Trip? Maybe even look for something else? I really can't remember much about these machines, but I guess what I'm looking for is a camera that will allow me to produce decent photos without *too* much faffing about: a good quality, reliable manual camera. I'm more interested in black and white than colour photography.

Any good, concise guidebooks to manual photography that you would recommend? Although I can remember some of the basics I would like to start from scratch to avoid bringing over too many of my preconceptions from digital photography.

Thanks all!

In reply to Only a hill:

Take them all...... Basic Photography by Johm Hedgecoe can be picked up cheaper than your first film and will get you on the right path.

In reply to Only a hill:

If the Pentax is an SLR you could go halfway like I am dabbling in currently; buy yourself a second hand digital SLR/CSC body with a Pentax adapter then use your Pentax lenses.

You will be more or less obliged to use your camera manually but won't have the inconvenience of waiting to see how the exposures turned out.

I have a Lumix G10 with C/Y adapter and also an FZ62 bridge camera. Using the G10 manually is very good fun in a nostalgic way and reminds me of my old Halina, but as far as results are concerned I can't come near the bridge camera when it's on the Red Idiot setting

In reply to Only a hill:

>"I would like to start from scratch to avoid bringing over too many of my preconceptions from digital photography."<

What are your preconceptions of digital photography ? If they're based on 99% of your photos being taken with an iphone, then I'm guessing you're thinking lack of control, gimmicky effects, sh1t lenses, squinting at an LCD panel etc ?

I used to use a 35mm SLR too, but can't see any benefit of going bck to it, even though I was fortunate enough to be taught how to develop and print my own B&W rolls. I use 2 cameras now, both stay in full manual control or aperture priority. One of them is pretty much only ever used with fully manual, metal and glass lenses (which were made well before the Centon K100 even existed). It gives me more control than the 35mm SLR ever did.

In reply to Only a hill:

Going back to 35mm film could prove to be a very expensive hobby. Have you considered a cheap digital SLR?

You still have the full control of what you capture while having a digital dark room to keep costs down.

Here's one with zero bids so far.

http://to.ly/HsPJ

In reply to Only a hill:

You don't describe the "Pentaxs" but may I infer that they are SLRs?

The Olympus Trip won't give you any control other than approximate focus - is that enough "friction"?
The camera you use will make no difference to the type of film (colour vs. b&w) that you use, unless you get into really geeky Internet arguments about lens coatings etc.

FWIW I surprised myself a few years back with a Minolta Dynax 5 that I got for £20 in a charity shop. All-singing-all-dancing clever 35mm SLR from around 1998. Can use it in full auto or give yourself as much manual control as you want (though the lenses are not optimised for manual focus as they have a short travel). I expected to hate it as I was always one for 1970s-1980s chunky SLRs, manual focus, auto exposure. But it was a delight to use and churned out nice results from the first "test roll" I put through. I gave it to my Dad but "borrow" it sometimes.

Caveat - I have not had a film processed since the end of 2012

In reply to Only a hill:

Probably fails on the 'concise' score, but especially if you want to think in depth about B&W, Ansel Adams' classic series (The Camera, The Negative, The Print) is an excellent read. For one book alone I'd go with Roger Hicks' Successful Black and White Photography.

In reply to Only a hill:
Thanks for the responses so far.

Mr Straggler: I have the cameras in front of me, and it turns out they are an Olympus Trip 35 (with attached skylight filter) and an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic (with 5-6 assorted lenses). My Dad also has a Leica III in poor condition but he's keeping that as he says it isn't suitable for general use at the moment.

I've been chatting with another Olympus Trip user and he says using that camera every now and again was enough to make him reconsider his approach to digital photography, making him more discerning. I think I'll probably get the most use out of the Pentax, though.

Apparently my Centon is still kicking around somewhere ... I'm sure I'll find it in a box after my parents finish moving house!

In reply to Only a hill:

I have that Spotmatic (or a variant thereof; the name covered a few different models)! It is one of my favourites, albeit a bit tricky to use in the dark because of the needle meter. You got screw-in lenses (M42 mount) rather than bayonet, yes?

Go for it. I only mentioned the Dynax 5 in relation to you mentioning not having to deal with TOO much faff. The Spotmatic is a bit more "you"

Fun with silly filters on b&w in the Spotmatic here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/sets/72157631533311010/

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Brilliant work!

Yes, the lenses are all M42 mount. There's a 50mm standard lens, a zoom lens, and a 300mm mirror lens (plus a 28mm wide angle in poor condition and a second 50mm). Now it's time to find some film

In reply to Only a hill:

I have a Spotmatic; it's a great little camera, and fairly robust as indicated by its history of use in warzones and tourbuses.

Apart from the general 'friction' benefits, shooting with the Spotmatic has really helped me to think about focus and depth of field.

There are tons of cheap lenses out there, and they also look great if you strap them onto a compact digital via an adapter.

Hope you enjoy it.

In reply to hamsforlegs:

Yeah, check out the shiny metal bodied C. Z. Jena 55mm f/2.8
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/carl-zeiss-jena-50mm-f2-8-tessar.ht...

I might get an M42 adaptor for my NEX F3 just for this lens (though I also like my Meyer-Optik 30mm a LOT)

But Only A Hill is after all talking about film

In reply to hamsforlegs:

That's my hope. In a strange way I miss the arcane side of photography — and I'm all too aware that I never even look at many of the digital shots amassing on my hard drive.


Thanks! I suspect I'll also enjoy using my Dad's old Olympus Trip 35. It's one of the objects I associate with him as he always had it with him whenever he left the house from the late 1980s through to about 2000. It turns out this one dates from 1969 but is still in perfect condition. I'm quite honoured that he has passed the torch on to me!

In reply to Only a hill:


May I ask how you catalogue the images on your hard drive?

In reply to Only a hill:

I use a digital SLR nowadays (rather badly) but I still have my old OlympusOM1 - bought in the mid 70's and completely manual - like the ones Bonington took to Everest, they never freeze up. I still like to take it a run sometimes and I find it much simpler and more intuitive than the digital. Mind, I can't do anything about color temperature with the OM1.

If you want to take good hill pics buy one of the new 4/3 Olympus or Lumix Csc's. Just for fun, stick a film in the Pentax every so often, you'll enjoy it. But like a 50's Morris Minor it's not really a serious everyday proposition.

And make sure your dad knows who to leave the Leica to in his will....

In reply to colinakmc:


Shoot in b&W

In reply to Only a hill:

Regarding film, I have a feeling you'll like Adox CHS 100 II - it has an emulsion designed to replicate 1950s emulsions, so it's much less 'blue' than more modern B&W films.

You can get it here: http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/new-adox-chs100-ii-486-c.asp

In reply to Only a hill:

Thread hijack I'm afraid:

I have some old but good quality lenses I used to use with an Canon EOS 35mm camera.

Does anyone know if they will 'work' with a digital body?

Thanks

In reply to Only a hill:


I always think it's mastery of the 'arcane' stuff so that it serves the subject matter that sets apart really great photography. I've recently started rebuilding all the metadata on my photos so that they can quickly be viewed on the TV/phones etc with easy browsing. Along with printing an occasional big batch to flick through, I'm hoping it might be one way to rediscover old images.


That is a lovely notion, and not one we are ever likely to experience with digital cameras (lenses, of course, might still have long lives).

In reply to The Lemming:

By year, then month, then by "event" (eg. "Stob Coire nan Lochan 13-02-12")

It generally works for me as I tend to think of things in chronological order, but this system can only do so much. It's currently labouring under about 30,000 photos from late 2000 onwards and I'm sure there are interesting nooks and crannies that I have forgotten all about.

Maybe I ought to go through and do a cull...

In reply to Tall Clare:

Thanks Clare — I'll see about getting some!

In reply to Only a hill:




I too catalogue my photos by year, event and date. Its a great way to put images into pigeon holes, never to see the light of day again on your monitor.

Have you ever considered tagging every single one of your images?

Even though I still habitually put my images into chronological order I have discovered that tagging every single one of my images with as many descriptive words has been the most productive way of finding long lost images. The more thorough you are the better the end result.

Now all I have to do is throw up a few descriptive words such as climbing, Yorkshire or any other combination of words and I am presented with wondrous sideshows to amuse myself. Or if I have a specific project in mind for relatives or friends, its a great way of drilling down through the digital coalface to find those pertinent images.

I've realised that tagging my images have given a new lease of life to my photos, which like your own, would never have seen the light of day.

it was a long process, taking a few years on and off to work through. I first began culling my 40,000+ images to get rid of the chaff before starting the whole process using the tagging feature of Lightroom.

Another excellent tagging feature is to get Windows own Windows Live Gallery to seek out every single face in your collection to be tagged. This is an excellent tool that learns to recognise faces and automatically tag them too.

In reply to The Lemming:

I used to do this years ago, but I think I stopped in about 2006 ... back then my image collection was far more modest so I didn't really see the need. Since then every picture just has the filename it came out of the camera with.

I can see myself getting to the stage where I'm going to have to start doing this again. After another six years I'll have two decades' worth of digital images and I suspect the chronological system will be virtually unmanageable by that point.

It might well be time to follow your example!

In reply to Only a hill:

At first I thought that it was an almost endless task but I am glad I did it. All my images have the names that my cameras gave them, which is meaningless but its the tags which makes all the difference.

Just make sure that you choose a tagging method which writes directly to your images rather than any method that side-cars the tags because these can either become corrupt or lost in time.

My next project, and one which I have put off, is to scan all my photo albums and then tag them. I keep putting this off.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


This thread has just cost me £5.89

In reply to Only a hill:

Well, here are the results of a test roll from the Olympus Trip 35:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/51465885@N06/sets/72157646572176373/

I love the punchy colours produced by this camera and generally speaking I'm pleased with the results, considering this was just an experimental roll. I'm still getting used to the focusing presets so some of them are a little fuzzy.

Going to take this camera into the mountains next week!

In reply to Only a hill:

There's nothing quite like the sense of anticipation you get from 35mm. in terms of a guide book I always found Langford's basic photography really good. I'd just have a play around and see which camera you feel comfortable with. For analogue I prefer nikon but digital I like canon.
I like the photo's you posted above, have fun!

Laura

In reply to Only a hill:

You can get a rangefinder (ebay: 'vintage rangefinder accessory') to sit in the hotshoe of the Trip. Some of them can be calibrated and they all might be a bit dim but for about ten quid they are fun and will give you an idea of how far off your guesses are, even if you don't use it all the time.

With fine grained 400 ASA films, such as Portra and XP2/Delta, you should get enough depth of field in most outdoor shots to compensate for focus errors.

Jon

In reply to Dorq:

Thanks for the tip — that's really useful. My Dad might actually have a rangefinder kicking around in a drawer somewhere. I'll ask him!

I bought a couple of rolls of 400 ASA XP2 yesterday!

Next mission: start using the Spotmatic. It has a broken exposure meter that I may or may not be able to fix, but I have a handheld meter I can use.

In reply to Only a hill:

XP2 is usually best a bit overexposed. I set it at 320 or slower but it is also fine at box speed. If you don't like grainy skies, it will take care of that as well, having some property where overexposure leads to less grain in the highlights or something like that. All the negative films these days have great tolerance, so you could do away with the manual metering I reckon, when using the Trip, especially as they are for grab shots aren't they? If you are getting prints done, you may never see your exposure mistakes anyway, as lab machines are so good at compensating at the print.

We just found the 'invercone' for our Weston meter last month, so will be fun comparing that to our reflective readings.

Slide film, however, will reveal all the over/under errors and is a whole new world. Sadly, it's rare to see a slide show these days - the last one I saw was in Plas y Brenin and was a presentation about 'High Altitude Fitness' in the 50's, all very 'Rum Doodle'.

Jon

In reply to Only a hill:
Be prepared for various minilabs to either reject your XP2 or give you a load of green-tinted prints. Although its selling point is that it is C41 compatible so you don't have to use a specialist to get b&w pics, I've found in the last ten years that people don't take it
You have reminded me however that I have a roll of XP2 to develop. A roll I shot a year ago. Oops

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The photo shop I visited yesterday in Lincoln actually recommended the XP2 because they develop it in-house using their standard equipment with good results. Apparently there's quite a core of enthusiasts in Lincoln.

I'm looking forward to trying it out in the hills over the weekend ... hoping for some moody skies!

In reply to Only a hill:

Try and get an orange or orange/yellow or green filter for the Trip, or even red, and skies will look great. It is even better than an SLR as you don't have to look through or focus through the filter. I think I saw a dedicated OEM one in a junk/charity shop once, though they are probably rare on ebay. You could also buy a cheap Jessop's type filter of larger diameter and hold it over the front if you cannot get a matching threaded one in a hurry.

As the trip has metering cells on the front next to the lens, you probably don't have to compensate by adding the required stops of light? With black and white, you could leave a yellow filter on all the time or use Tmax, a great film as well but with a slight yellow-filtered effect.

Boots are sh*te for XP2 prints. Photo Express are good. All the other mail order labs are good as well. You are lucky to have a walk-in lab that understands film! So jealous...

In reply to Only a hill:

Great stuff, lucky you. I like XP2 and used to use it for convenience, but now that I don't have a walk-in place that will do it for me, and I have to send it away, I tend to use "proper" b&w but I do dabble in XP2 from time to time.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

My recollection of using XP2 years ago is that it is the printing that causes problems. The C41 process devops the film OK but most commercial printers then use colour paper which produces poor results. Ilford used to offer an XP2 process which used printing on B&W paper which was excellent. Nowadays I just get them developed and scan them.