# Minolta SRT Super test photos



## bazpaul (Jun 4, 2010)

Hey guys,

I have owned a DSLR for awhile but recently bought an old Minolta as i wanna learn the basics to better understand exposure and shutter speed....etc....i am a total noob and help would be greatly appreciated 

I shot off a test roll of illford B&W 400 from the old girl to see how she coped....and i need some help interpreting the results. I got the roll developed and scanned in low res (average 500kb jpeg)

First off their is alot (i mean alot of) noise in these shots, and mainly in the daytime ones....can anyone tell me why?? is it the film?? is it the low res??

the focus is off in most of the shots but i think thats my fault.....but can the focus be damaged on the lens....and thus always be off????

also on the last photo of the roll (first image below)...there are lines coming from the bottom of the image....whats that??? something to do with the end of the roll??

should i get the camera serviced???

anyway some help or suggestions would be awesome!!! thanks guys


----------



## Flash Harry (Jun 4, 2010)

The "noise" is film grain, faster the film larger the grain, res is not low film just looks a lot different to digi, now you converted these to digital you should try sharpening them up, you also need to stop down further when using film. Minolta lens are usually pretty high quality, I had a zoom cost 200 dollars 2nd hand which was sharper than my nikons at f8-11, the only way to really appreciate BW film is to hand print not scan, and definately not low res scans. Finally pic no 1, I think either the light seal on the camera needs replacing or the lab/person who processed the film started opening the canister without being in total darkness. H


----------



## compur (Jun 4, 2010)

The light "rays" coming from the bottom of the images means you have a light
leak along the top edge of the film compartment, probably caused by 
deteriorated light seals (the foam strips that surround the film compartment.
This is common with Japanese cameras of this vintage.  They can be replaced
without much expense.  In the meantime you can run strips of opaque tape
along the edges of the film door after you load the camera.

B&W film is always best processed oneself.  Commercial lab results with B&W
film is frequently disappointing.


----------



## bazpaul (Jun 4, 2010)

thanks guys....i knew film had grain but i just didnt think it was so prominent in a 400iso roll of film....the grain or noise, must be very prominent if i was shooting with 1600 or even 3200.

Thanks for the info on the leak, i will take it to be serviced.

@Flash Harry...you say i need to stop down further with film, can you explain just a little what you mean? do you mean stop down by changin the exposure??


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 4, 2010)

The lines in the first shot look like something got in the way of the lens (grass blades)--that or development streaks, which are unlikely since you had it professionally developed.

As for the grain, it looks about right for 400iso film--it's only aggravated by under exposure (first image and seagull image are underexposed). 

Focus can't be off on a manual focus lens--what you see through the viewfinder IS what is projected to the film, the only thing the focus can be off on is the camera itself--if the mirror/prism is out of allignment you'll see a clear image in the viewfinder but it will be slightly out of focus on the film.  But this problem doesn't come and go, so all your photos would be out of focus, not just a couple.


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 5, 2010)

Pick number one is usually due to over agitation during processing.  The focus looked OK.  You might try zeroing in.  Focus past sharp focus, then back past it again and zero in on it little by little.  Make sure you have good eyesight as well.  If you normally wear prescription eyewear, use it when focusing.  And that is indeed grain.  It's supposed to be there.  Have fun.  You've got one of the greatest cameras of all time IMHO.


----------



## Flash Harry (Jun 6, 2010)

stop down by changing the aperture, with digital the smaller sensor appears to keep images sharper even when the camera is at max aperture (2.8 etc) with film you need to close down the aperture more for sharpness throughout the range in landscapes etc. With 35mm its not so pronounced but larger format film cameras need stopping down quite a lot to get sharpness through the range, depending on your POF and what you want to remain sharp in the background. H


----------



## guitstik (Jun 7, 2010)

Was it raining the day you took the first shot. It could be that you caught rain drops falling. That would explain why the "streaks" are more pronounced at the bottom of the frame. I would suggest having any vintage camera serviced with a CLA by a tech especially if they have not been used for a long time. I just sent my X-700 off for a CLA after years of being dormant because the seals had dried up. I bought my daughter an X-370 for her to get used to and learn about the mechanics of photography. It seems to be taking good pictures now but it will be sent off as well just as soon as I feel confident that she has a grasp of the basics. I will want her to have years of trouble free picture taking with this camera.
I like 3,4 and 5, the subjects are a much more interesting than the first two even though I know you were just doing test shots. I especially like the grainy texture of 3 and the composition is also very interesting. If you are not into the grainy feel then I would suggest trying various films with slower ASA ratings.
On a personal note, is 5 a self portrait? Either way, it is a picture of a beautiful young woman. I'm not making a pass at you just commenting


----------



## Early (Jun 7, 2010)

That does seem like a lot of grain for iso 400 film, and since the exposure and tonal range look really good, I'm guessing it's from the scans.



> the focus is off in most of the shots but i think thats my fault.....but can the focus be damaged on the lens....and thus always be off????


Either the lens or the camera itself could be out of alignment, but I don't think that's the case.  In the shot of the woman (you?), the eyes look in focus, and the DOF is too shallow.  I have no idea what happened with the shot of the sign.  But I've been wrong before, so....

That's a nice camera that Super.  It's been accused of being the best of the SRT's.  Didja get the 50/1.4 PG with it?  Didja?  Didja?


----------



## bazpaul (Jun 8, 2010)

guitstik said:


> I like 3,4 and 5, the subjects are a much more interesting than the first two even though I know you were just doing test shots.
> 
> On a personal note, is 5 a self portrait?



thanks for your kind words, yeh i was just shooting a test roll so was not making any effort to yake good pics. i really have to get used to manual focusing though, im really not happy with how out of focus the shots look, especially the street one.

chris i like you ideas on focusing....my eyesight is not perfect, so i am wondering if that is affecting my focusing too.

Early....for the sign and the girl i used a very large aperture, probably 1.4 or something so thats probably why the DOF is really shallow. also yes i got the 50mm lens f1.4 ....not sure about PG.....i wanna wide angle lens though too for it.

finally the girl is my young french friend, she very pretty but this photo doesnt do her any justice

cheers!


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 11, 2010)

Well then. You can't focus what you can't see. I was making slightly out of focus photographs for a couple of years. My eyesight was affecting my work. I was pulling orders incorrectly because there were times I couldn't read the parts catalogs. I was watching a football game with a friend and asked if the score in the upper corner was one team. He said it was something completely different. I later found I have a terrible astigmatism and got corrective lenses. Focus is now spot on. Get corrective eyewear. Wear it when focusing. Kinda critical.


----------



## Dwig (Jun 12, 2010)

Actually, the "rays" seen in the first picture are not from a light leak. They are the result of abusing the film prior to development. The silver-halide "light sensitive" part of the emulsion is sensitive to more than just light. Many types of energy can produce the same reaction.

In the case of the rays, you'll notice that the start at the very edges of the sprocket holes. When sprocketed film is bent around an excessively tight radius it fails to bend smoothly, folding sharply at the weak edges of the sprocket holes. The very sharp bend imparts some mechanical stress on the silve-halide crystals and they will develop just as if they were struck by light. Similar things happen with thin roll film when its handled poorly when loading it onto developing reels and fingernail shaped arcs (dark on negative, light on print) appear.

The most common causes for this are:

1. Rewinding the film by turning the crank the wrong direction. This folds the film over the inner edge of the felt light trap causing the creases.

2. Turning the cassette's spool backwards either just playing with the cassette or in attempting to get a leader retriever to snag the leader to extract it from a cassette so you can remove the film for processing.

If you look at the base (back) of the negatives at an angle so that there is a shiny reflection on the surface you will probably see slight evidence of creases or wrinkles in the surface, proof that the film was damaged mechanically.


----------



## bazpaul (Jun 12, 2010)

Dwig said:


> The most common causes for this are:
> 
> 1. Rewinding the film by turning the crank the wrong direction. This folds the film over the inner edge of the felt light trap causing the creases.



with my lack of experience with film i would not be been surprised if this happened to my roll.

Dwig, i like your very in-depth and technical response....people/posters like yourself and the others above are why i come first to this forum for such professional advice.....

thank you all again :thumbup:


----------

