# my first roll!! (overshare)



## paigew

I am probably more excited than I should be about posting these photos. They are after all, merely snapshots of my kids...but they were done in film! And with MANUAL FOCUS! I was certain I would get back a roll of over/under exposed + blurry photos but they were actually pretty nice! I used 'ilford 3200' film set at 1600. I shot most at f2.8 some at f4. I used my dads old minolta from college and both a 35mm and 50mm. I feel like a real photographer now...I can do really do this 

without further ado 

1) this one is the sharpest...it is pretty dang sharp on print but not so much on the digital.






2)





3)





4)





5)





6)






7)





8)


----------



## Patriot

paigew said:


> I am probably more excited than I should be about posting these photos. They are after all, merely snapshots of my kids...but they were done in film! And with MANUAL FOCUS! I was certain I would get back a roll of over/under exposed + blurry photos but they were actually pretty nice! I used 'ilford 3200' film set at 1600. I shot most at f2.8 some at f4. I used my dads old minolta from college and both a 35mm and 50mm. I feel like a real photographer now...I can do really do this
> 
> without further ado
> 
> 1) this one is the sharpest...it is pretty dang sharp on print but not so much on the digital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8)



I would say that you did pretty good!! I really like the expression on the first one! The dog is also one of my favorites. The B/W really do bring out the mode that your dog is in. what breed is it? Do you have a larger size of the pictures? I would like to see them at their full size. Please keep them coming. 

-Hunt


----------



## Rick58

Wow 1600 in film! Congrat's on your new film adventure.
Being that you'e just starting with film, I think I'd stick with a more conventional film like 200 or 400 and use a flash for indoor. Film is a different world and doesn't handle the ISO's like digital.
For me personally, I never shot a roll over 400. It's a personal thing, but I'm not crazy about the grain over 400. Daylight, non motion shots I always used 125.
Nice job!


----------



## ducatiman1967

Great job! You just got me thinking I should break out my K1000


----------



## Mully

Nice capture and they are adorable ..... I especially like #3 ... I like grain I used to print triX on Agfa 6


----------



## Rick58

BTW, I like the pooch. Nice focusing


----------



## paigew

Patriot said:


> I would say that you did pretty good!! I really like the expression on the first one! The dog is also one of my favorites. The B/W really do bring out the mode that your dog is in. what breed is it? Do you have a larger size of the pictures? I would like to see them at their full size. Please keep them coming.
> 
> -Hunt



Thank you Hunt (and everyone else)  My dog is a rottie, she was the stillest model I had to practice mf on . I do have larger sizes!


----------



## amolitor

That's an outstanding hit ratio for keepers! Well done. Do you find that film slows you down a lot, so you get more keepers?


----------



## paigew

amolitor said:


> That's an outstanding hit ratio for keepers! Well done. Do you find that film slows you down a lot, so you get more keepers?



Thank you! Yes I definitely slowed down especially with the manual focus!  I enjoyed it but I doubt I will shoot film often. I love having more control over my images, and not being able to change iso was a bummer. But since my dslr is at the camera doctor I figured I'd give it a go


----------



## timor

Nice going Paige ! Was that X700 we spoke about in separate tread ? 
Now, you set ISO about 2/3 of a stop above the real speed of that film (ISO 1000 - ?), but the processing was for ISO 3200, is that right ?
How big are those prints ? Remember, smaller print - better sharpness.


----------



## Derrel

CUTE kids!!! I like 2,6,and 7. 3's not bad either. Yeah...film...it's, uh FILM!


----------



## paigew

timor said:


> Nice going Paige ! Was that X700 we spoke about in separate tread ?
> Now, you set ISO about 2/3 of a stop above the real speed of that film (ISO 1000 - ?), but the processing was for ISO 3200, is that right ?
> How big are those prints ? Remember, smaller print - better sharpness.



Thank you timor  Yep the minolta!  So obviously I know hardly anything about film but, I bought iso 3200 film. The guy said they don't make 1600 but we set my camera to 1600. And when I gave them the film I told them I shot it at 1600 (developed at a pro film lab). My prints are 4x6 and they look pretty dang good imo...well for what I expected! But they did these scans for me and the biggest size I have are the two large ones I posted.


----------



## timor

The real speed of that film is about ISO 1000, but is made to be pushed. If X700 doesn't go to ISO 3200 (I don't remember it at the moment ) but you want to shoot at that speed set the ISO ring to 1600 as you did and then turn the compensation ring to -1 which would automatically cut the exposure by 1 stop from the value established for ISO 1600 and you set. Dont forget to tell the lab what ISO you were shooting at.


----------



## gsgary

Now don't these have a better feel than digital


----------



## gsgary

Rick58 said:


> Wow 1600 in film! Congrat's on your new film adventure.
> Being that you'e just starting with film, I think I'd stick with a more conventional film like 200 or 400 and use a flash for indoor. Film is a different world and doesn't handle the ISO's like digital.
> For me personally, I never shot a roll over 400. It's a personal thing, but I'm not crazy about the grain over 400. Daylight, non motion shots I always used 125.
> Nice job!




Try some Ilford HP5 (iso400) this is it shot at iso1600 but on 120 film 






This is it on 35mm at iso400


----------



## paigew

timor said:


> The real speed of that film is about ISO 1000, but is made to be pushed. If X700 doesn't go to ISO 3200 (I don't remember it at the moment ) but you want to shoot at that speed set the ISO ring to 1600 as you did and then turn the compensation ring to -1 which would automatically cut the exposure by 1 stop from the value established for ISO 1600 and you set. Dont forget to tell the lab what ISO you were shooting at.


The x700 only goes to 1600. So what do you mean the 'real speed' of the film is 1000?...best images produced when set to 1000? I did not turn the compensation ring :/ what will that do exactly to the photos. Will it change the metering? If I had compensated to -1 how would these photos look different? 




gsgary said:


> Now don't these have a better feel than digital


You know, they really do. Film very much 'fits' my style of shooting. And I love that I have all these prints of my kids! I never print snapshots; rarely print anything actually! So yes, it is so nice having an actual photograph 

I think I will try to shoot one roll a month, if nothing else if forces me to print photos! Funny story, I looked at the back of my camera after every shot, and every shot I cursed myself. My husband looked at me like I was nuts


----------



## ceeboy14

Now, we just have to get you into a darkroom and I guarantee the first time you see one of your images emerge from the developer, no one will ever see you again in the light...


----------



## Derrel

With most color negative film, generous exposure is often considered to be a positive. (Sorry for the pun! It's early!) "down-rating" one's ISO value by a full stop, ie, ISO 3,200 film  down-rated to an Exposure Index of 1,600 would quite often tend to produce very good results. Kodak's old VPS film was spec'd at ISO 160, but was almost universally metered and exposed using an E.I. of 100. Doing this tends to give a generous exposure, which ensures shadow detail through ample exposure, and many people felt that down-rating color negative film was a great standard operating procedure much of the time. With B&W films, using Exposure Indexes that are deliberately varied from the official ISO rating is a pretty common working method. I am not familiar with the specific film you used, but my experience has been that down-rating a negative film usually does not hurt the image quality--and may very often improve it!

Yeah--prints of one's images...what a concept, right? Pretty cool,really.


----------



## timor

paigew said:


> The x700 only goes to 1600.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Now you know how to set camera for higher ISO than that.
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you mean the 'real speed' of the film is 1000?...best images produced when set to 1000? I did not turn the compensation ring :/ what will that do exactly to the photos. Will it change the metering? If I had compensated to -1 how would these photos look different?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Delta 3200 is not of ISO 3200 :
> Ilford Delta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Setting camera at ISO 1600 is to over exposure that film by about 2/3 of a stop. What down-rating does Derrel explained a bit, yeah...it's a witch craft.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## terri

paigew said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real speed of that film is about ISO 1000, but is made to be pushed. If X700 doesn't go to ISO 3200 (I don't remember it at the moment ) but you want to shoot at that speed set the ISO ring to 1600 as you did and then turn the compensation ring to -1 which would automatically cut the exposure by 1 stop from the value established for ISO 1600 and you set. Dont forget to tell the lab what ISO you were shooting at.
> 
> 
> 
> The x700 only goes to 1600. So what do you mean the 'real speed' of the film is 1000?...best images produced when set to 1000? I did not turn the compensation ring :/ what will that do exactly to the photos. Will it change the metering? If I had compensated to -1 how would these photos look different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now don't these have a better feel than digital
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, they really do. Film very much 'fits' my style of shooting. And I love that I have all these prints of my kids! I never print snapshots; rarely print anything actually! So yes, it is so nice having an actual photograph
> 
> I think I will try to shoot one roll a month, if nothing else if forces me to print photos! Funny story, I looked at the back of my camera after every shot, and every shot I cursed myself. My husband looked at me like I was nuts
Click to expand...

Nice images!  For just trying something on a whim like this, you did a great job.   I think shooting film agrees with you.      Great shots of the kids, too!  And now you have several precious negatives that you will literally have the rest of your life, and theirs.   If you do shoot a roll a month, you might want to buy some archival 35mm film sleeves and keep them in a hard notebook.  That's all you need to do to keep them safe.   And you have the option of getting prints made whenever you want.   

Keep up the great work!   :thumbup:


----------



## Compaq

The negative archive is one of the best things with shooting film, imo! I have hundreds of edited shots on my computer, and some I really, really like, but I fear I'll never print them! With the negs in folders in the darkroom, I have them forever. No harddrive crashing and losing tons of shots. Your negs are with you, always.

I dare say many digital photographers aren't really "fulfilling" their role as "image creators". The image isn't done until it's printed, and how many, truly, print all their best work? Professionals, perhaps, but not all are in it for making money. Getting the negs printed is the final step, but the chance your "middle steps" will be destroyed, is much smaller than having your files stored and double stored and maybe even triple stored on harddrives!


----------



## MPerni

Really lovley photos!!They have nice detail, contrast, sharpness and for manual focus i think they are great!


----------



## ktan7

Beautiful @pagiew!!! Love film! There's so much soul in the picture (rather than just slapping a photoshop action on a picture). This is real black and white. Ilford 3200 is the one that I use a lot as well. Good work on over-exposing it by 1 stop. Looks amazing  



Ken


----------



## vintagesnaps

I'm a longtime film photographer and shoot B&W a good bit - and have spent my share of time as a darkroom rat. I agree, if you use archivally safe materials to preserve your negatives and prints, they might still be around in a hundred years, that seems to be a photographic medium that so far has lasted a long, long time. 

You got some very nice photos. I usually use 100 or 400 speed film most of the time because I like less grainy photos, but it can be fun to try different types of film and see what works best in various lighting conditions etc. I sometimes if shooting in lower light as mentioned stay with smaller prints and do enlargements with images I shot outdoors in better light. But when I shoot digitally and do my own prints, I find that either way, basically a nice sharp image will make for the best quality enlargements.  

You seem to have done well with focusing manually and with getting your camera set to get good exposures. Next time you take pictures you might think about your backgrounds and if everything you're seeing in your viewfinder is what you want in your picture (since with film, what you get in your viewfinder is what you get in your print). 

Glad you enjoyed it - I like the quality and more hands-on experience of using film.


----------



## ricksname

Great photos! Definitely keen to try this film business myself.


----------



## frommrstomommy

really neat! love the dog shot.


----------



## Nahin

paigew said:


> I am probably more excited than I should be about posting these photos. They are after all, merely snapshots of my kids...but they were done in film! And with MANUAL FOCUS! I was certain I would get back a roll of over/under exposed + blurry photos but they were actually pretty nice! I used 'ilford 3200' film set at 1600. I shot most at f2.8 some at f4. I used my dads old minolta from college and both a 35mm and 50mm. I feel like a real photographer now...I can do really do this
> 
> without further ado
> 
> 1) this one is the sharpest...it is pretty dang sharp on print but not so much on the digital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8)



That's all are great capture. The first one is the sharpest seeing much pretty honestly looking digital. Doggy is in great style with stunning shot. After all, all shots are looking cool !!!


----------



## LinusM

Great to hear people getting a buzz out of film.  Its what got me hooked and I regret selling all my film cameras a few years ago.  I really must go back & do more 'soul' photography ;-)
Thanks for sharing & reminding me of what I'm missing!


----------



## EstherC

Very very nice! I just started my film adventure myself and like you, I feel I am taking "real" photos.


----------



## bballgrl3

wow i like them a lot


----------

