HELP! (some advice please)

[DougieB]

Cool. I think a C3 will probably be a more useful camera than the Yashica.

If it is like my C330, which is a later model of the same thing, the focusing screens are interchangeable. You might be able to track a screen down with a split prism, which makes focusing easier. That's what I did.

And FWIW, the dust is coming from when the film is hanging to dry. If you need to you can wash the film again, and make sure it dries somewhere dust free.

Hi Legion,
I didn't develop this roll. The class I am taking starts on the 19th. Dodd camera developed it. If you look frame right in each pic, there are consistent blemishes. I assume its dust. I did clean the rear element of the lenses. Both looking and taking.
I do see a little dust that is inconsistent in the pictures.

 

[Legion]

Hi Legion,
I didn't develop this roll. The class I am taking starts on the 19th. Dodd camera developed it. If you look frame right in each pic, there are consistent blemishes. I assume its dust. I did clean the rear element of the lenses. Both looking and taking.
I do see a little dust that is inconsistent in the pictures.

Dust that is inside or outside the camera or lens does not show up like that, because it is so far out of focus. It is not like in a modern digital camera where the dust sits on the sensor, and is actually blocking the light hitting pixels.

In order to get sharp dust marks on a film image it needs to either be on the neg itself, or on the scanner glass. As there are marks that are in the same spot on each picture, that indicates the scanner is dirty. Either way, I would be annoyed if that was my work. If you neither developed or scanned the images, nothing you or your camera did could have caused that.

 

[byDoms]

If you are interested in medium format film cameras, I would really recommend you taking a look at the Pentax 645n. It can be found pretty cheap second hand and there is a pretty wide bunch of (relative) inexpensive lenses for it. A good source would be www.keh.com

 

[DougieB]

Dust that is inside or outside the camera or lens does not show up like that, because it is so far out of focus. It is not like in a modern digital camera where the dust sits on the sensor, and is actually blocking the light hitting pixels.

In order to get sharp dust marks on a film image it needs to either be on the neg itself, or on the scanner glass. As there are marks that are in the same spot on each picture, that indicates the scanner is dirty. Either way, I would be annoyed if that was my work. If you neither developed or scanned the images, nothing you or your camera did could have caused that.

Interesting and that makes sense. I would not have thought of that independently but makes sense. Thanks for the input. I ordered development and scan cd from Dodd. I'm not worried about it on this test roll, but as time goes on and I learn the camera and more specifically exposure, focus, composition etc... I'll be a little more critical.

 

[DougieB]

If you are interested in medium format film cameras, I would really recommend you taking a look at the Pentax 645n. It can be found pretty cheap second hand and there is a pretty wide bunch of (relative) inexpensive lenses for it. A good source would be www.keh.com

Currently not looking for any other cameras but will keep that in mind.
Thanks

 

[DougieB]

 

[DougieB]

View attachment 685930

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

They look great! I stopped by a car show just today!

 

[DougieB]

They look great! I stopped by a car show just today!

Thanks. It was a fun shoot. Again I ran into a bunch of people I knew and spent more time chatting. I need to go to another nearby city for street photography.

 

[BowTieGuy]

I know the last post was a few days back, but if you're interested in getting that Yashica up to snuff, send it to Mark Hama in Georgia - he is a wizard with them, does a complete rebuild and you'll get it back ready for the next 50 years of use. No affiliation, just a satisfied customer here . . . As I recall it's about $100 but you'll end up with a superb camera in new operating condition.

 

[DougieB]

It has like 3 strings. Ok I have to work on focusing. This camera is a challenge to focus. I got his traveling case pretty crisp but not the performer.

 

[DougieB]

 

[shm]

Great shots.

The dog is having a good time by the looks of it

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

Excellent

 

[MarkM10431]

would it be bad form to "cheat" and use a DSLR as an in field preview then take the film frame after you have worked out the setting digitally?

 

[shm]

Not in my book.
It is about taking good or even great photos, and if it can be a help I don't think of it as cheating.
If so, using a flash, reflector, flash meter, tripod and anything but "manual mode" etc. would also be cheating - the purists may think so, but for us who just like/love to take photos it is just another tool in the toolbox

 

[Haiku]

would it be bad form to "cheat" and use a DSLR as an in field preview then take the film frame after you have worked out the setting digitally?

Yes. You would be cheating yourself. The best way to learn is to practice and to learn from your mistakes. If there is a cost to making a mistake, you will be motivated to learn. You will learn nothing by using a DSLR this way it will become a crutch that you won't be able to do without. You will not develop the skills needed to assess exposure properly by using a DSLR in this way. You will not experience the satisfaction of having learned a skill and being able to apply it.

At the end of the day millions of people around the world have learned how to create images using cameras without computer aids. I'm one of them. If I can look at a scene and make creative decisions about how I want to photograph it and then do everything manually to create the image in the camera, you can too. There is no reason you can't join the people who have real photography skills instead of joining the crowd that doesn't. It's a matter of learning the basics and practice.

There are no short cuts to becoming expert at something. The price of success is failure. Failure is what success is built on, it is what success is based on. Taking a short cut to avoid failure is to sabotage the possibility of success.

 

[Haiku]

Not in my book.
It is about taking good or even great photos, and if it can be a help I don't think of it as cheating.
If so, using a flash, reflector, flash meter, tripod and anything but "manual mode" etc. would also be cheating - the purists may think so, but for us who just like/love to take photos it is just another tool in the toolbox

I don't deny validity of your point of view, but for me, taking a good picture is one result but it's not the only one.

My goal is to become better at what I do, my goal is to get good pictures sure, but it's also to become a better photographer. The important goal for me is to improve my skills, to learn more to become expert not to become dependent on a tool that lets me take a short cut but leaves me ignorant of how to achieve the photograph.

That's why I do everything manually, in camera and in a wet darkroom. I can rely on a digital camera that's set on automatic, and while I would have properly exposed pictures, that's all I would have. I would not have any skills or the satisfaction of having learned the skills.

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

The best part of learning and creating is that feeling you get when check over the maybe nine pictures that turned out beautiful compared to the other three hundred that you deleted!

I was keeping logs of all my 'best' pictures so i could remember settings I used until I got to that point where your mind just starts going right to apertures and speeds without thinking really. At some point you get to be quicker and better results on manual with manual focus than you do with a camera on 'Auto'.

 

[shm]

I don't deny validity of your point of view, but for me, taking a good picture is one result but it's not the only one.

My goal is to become better at what I do, my goal is to get good pictures sure, but it's also to become a better photographer. The important goal for me is to improve my skills, to learn more to become expert not to become dependent on a tool that lets me take a short cut but leaves me ignorant of how to achieve the photograph.

That's why I do everything manually, in camera and in a wet darkroom. I can rely on a digital camera that's set on automatic, and while I would have properly exposed pictures, that's all I would have. I would not have any skills or the satisfaction of having learned the skills.

I'm not going to argue with you there. But tools are quite handy even when learning - especially if you check the cameras choice afterwards.
I can sometimes when on holiday for instance, set the camera on full auto for those everyday tourist snapshots, and when I see something I really want to control I flick over to priority or manual mode.
If I'm out having fun with the camera I take several photos of the same object/motive in different settings just to see if another setting is adding to the photo in comparison to what I had in mind.
But then again; I'm not a purist when it come to photography. I like playing around, but I also like to take advantage of some of the tools handed to me

After more than 25 years of amateur photography, I'm still learning and I love every aspect of it