I Need A 35mm Manual Camera Expert Please

[A383Wing]

I have been spoiled by the digital camera age....I want to start taking pics with my Minolta XG-1 again. I took some earlier this year...the pics came out good, but they were all kinda "grainy" like orange peel on a paint job.

Does film speed have anything to do with this? The film I had (have) is FugiFilm 800 speed

Will a lower number speed film be better? What does film speed mean?

I'm also unsure about the F-stop or the inner ring rotation for the numbers on the right hand side while looking through viewfinder. It goes from "down arrow" up to 1000 and then it has "up arrow"...if either arrow inside viewfinder is lit up, picture will not take.

Or should I just keep my little point & click digital Kodak?

Bryan (3 pics below of what I took with camera)

[JB400]

I think film itself is going to be your main problem, unless you can find someone that still makes it.  Maybe some specialty shops may have it, but we're now in the digital age.  Best of luck

[A383Wing]

film is available anywhere....Walmart, Target....getting the 35mm film is not an issue....taking good pics with it is what I want to do again

Bryan

[JB400]

consider yourself lucky,  no film here.  I'd say practice and experimentation.

[Alaskan_TA]

Back in the day, I always used 100. Is is better for large prints.

For low-light situations, I would use 400.

Most of my photos back then were during daylight hours, but with a manual camera you can learn to 'bend light' with lots of practice & lots of film.

[A383Wing]

Back in the day, I always used 100. Is is better for large prints.

For low-light situations, I would use 400.

Most of my photos back then were during daylight hours, but with a manual camera you can learn to 'bend light' with lots of practice & lots of film.

yea..probably why my pics I took this summer with the 800 speed didn't turn out very well

appreciate the replys guys....keep them coming

Bryan

[Alaskan_TA]

Kodak 100 film. 1960s vintage Honeywell Pentax camera. 400MM lens, handheld. This the the proverbial lucky shot, shooting with film gets expensive especially with action shots at long range. This image is in a few collections as a print, the enlargement quality of 100 film is excellent.

[rebby]

800 is too fast for quality photos. It's going to be grainy with such a high sensitivity. 200 is a good starting point. Generally accepted "common" ISO' are 100, 200, 400, & 800 in the 35mm world. Each step results in a halving of required light for an equal exposure (ie, 1/500 shutter at 100 ISO would generate an equal exposure as 1/1000 at 200 ISO assuming equal f stops).

F stops are more about the depth of focus than anything else. For a deep focus, use a high f stop. "Usual" f stops will go 1.4, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.0, and so on. Like ISO, each step results in a halving of light.

For deep/sharp pics, use a low ISO, a high f stop, and a long shutter. I like to start with ISO 100 @ f/16 and let the shutter fall where it will depending on light. If you lens will allow a tighter f stop, by all means, use it.

What are your goals? I can get far more specific if I know your subject and what you're going for in the end. In the end, it's all about light and there are countless ways of getting there.

[BananaDan]

Bryan,
Check out this website, he has a lot of good articles that explain how cameras work.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

[A383Wing]

Rebby, my goal is to take pictures and have them come out crisp & clear like the plane pic Alaskan TA posted....I used to be good at it years ago....my digital camera is nice and easy to carry and takes good pics...but for those few shots I really want to come out good, I want to use the 35mm camera....appreciate the post..you answered my questions in a way I could understand..

And Mr. Nana..I will check out that site...thanks

Bryan

[rebby]

Rebby, my goal is to take pictures and have them come out crisp & clear like the plane pic Alaskan TA posted....I used to be good at it years ago....my digital camera is nice and easy to carry and takes good pics...but for those few shots I really want to come out good, I want to use the 35mm camera....appreciate the post..you answered my questions in a way I could understand..

And Mr. Nana..I will check out that site...thanks

Bryan

Great! Photography is another one of my (expensive) hobbies. Glad that I could help. Speak up if you have anymore questions. If not, have fun!

[UFO]

I have used a cheat sheet to get me close to the right settings.
I know it won't help with the 800 speed your using,but as mentioned that is not the best for what you taking pictures of.

[A383Wing]

I'll probably have many more questions....so you might get some PM's from me if members here are tired of reading my posts about cameras

Bryan

[rebby]

Not a problem...

The exposure guide could be very useful, even at ISO 800. Just take the numbers from ISO 400 and either cut the shutter speed or f stop in half.

[Aero426]

I will play devil's advocate and ask why in the world anyone would want to go back to film for general photography?    Note that I am usually all for using legacy technology.

I have recently set aside my Olympus DSLR for a Kodak Z-990 which is a mid-sized zoom camera under $200.   What I like about it is that it has a traditional viewfinder in addition to the LCD display.   You cannot put it in your pocket, but it has some heft like a SLR.   It does a nice job in low light.  It shoots decent video.   Here are some samples of what it does.    These are all point and shoot, sometimes in different shooting modes.  

[71charger_fan]

If Kodachrome was still available, I'd continue to haul my film camera around. I've scanned 60-year-old Kodachrome that still had beautiful rich colors. As much as I loved my OM-2, I think I'm going to upgrade to an OM-D and forget about film.

[Aero426]

If Kodachrome was still available, I'd continue to haul my film camera around. I've scanned 60-year-old Kodachrome that still had beautiful rich colors. As much as I loved my OM-2, I think I'm going to upgrade to an OM-D and forget about film.

Old Kodachrome has that great look to it. 

[Old Moparz]

I will play devil's advocate and ask why in the world anyone would want to go back to film for general photography?    Note that I am usually all for using legacy technology.

I have recently set aside my Olympus DSLR for a Kodak Z-990 which is a mid-sized zoom camera under $200.   What I like about it is that it has a traditional viewfinder in addition to the LCD display.   You cannot put it in your pocket, but it has some heft like a SLR.   It does a nice job in low light.  It shoots decent video.   Here are some samples of what it does.    These are all point and shoot, sometimes in different shooting modes.

I agree, the old film cameras were a PITA since you never knew what the pics would look like until you got them back from being developed.   

These 2 digital pics have lots of detail & look good. The green bird's color really pops out, & you can almost tell what the woman in the skimpy shorts was sitting on based on the lines running across the backs of her thighs. 

[hatersaurusrex]

Couple of other tips, which are really helpful when working with film cameras:

The 'rule of 10' especially when using non-static subjects (like people) - to get a great candid shot it's generally advisable to shoot the subject 8-10 different times, then pick out the best of the bunch.    With a roll that holds 24, shoot 8 times per snap and you get 3 good shots. As you can imagine, this gets REALLY pricey but is worth it.    Cost to do this on a digital camera = nothing.   You can get a rig with burst mode and just hold the shutter button, and throw out the bad shots later at no cost.

The rule of + or minus on the exposure settings - much like the rule above, this means shoot either one shutter speed (or F-stop) setting higher and lower than what your guide or light meter tells you and choose the best of the three.   Especially handy for scenery settings with sunsets or low light where you can't be sure what your flash is going to do.

If you use lens filters and you don't have a built in light meter, then make sure you adjust your exposure or F-stop to compensate or it'll generally be too dark.

In the end, a film camera takes a lot more work to learn how to use right.   I had an old EOS back in the 90's I cut my teeth on and learned all this crap the hard way.   The new digital rigs, even the cheaper ones on the SLR scale are light years ahead and give you instant feedback.

Good luck!

[rebby]

Couple of other tips, which are really helpful when working with film cameras:

The 'rule of 10' especially when using non-static subjects (like people) - to get a great candid shot it's generally advisable to shoot the subject 8-10 different times, then pick out the best of the bunch.    With a roll that holds 24, shoot 8 times per snap and you get 3 good shots. As you can imagine, this gets REALLY pricey but is worth it.    Cost to do this on a digital camera = nothing.   You can get a rig with burst mode and just hold the shutter button, and throw out the bad shots later at no cost.

That's one of the things that I really love about my 7d, 8fps. It has been a blessing, especially when shooting sports or kids. I really feel crippled as far as fps when I'm shooting with my 5d2.

The rule of + or minus on the exposure settings - much like the rule above, this means shoot either one shutter speed (or F-stop) setting higher and lower than what your guide or light meter tells you and choose the best of the three.   Especially handy for scenery settings with sunsets or low light where you can't be sure what your flash is going to do.

This is an aspect that has really changed in the world of digital photography and good RAW post processing. I no longer shoot bracketed, there simply is no need. The only exception to this is if I'm looking for some sort of HDR image, even so, bracketed shooting isn't a requirement but it does make things cleaner when trying to pull out the shadows. My day to day photos are all shot with the histogram as tight to the right as I can get it without blowing my highlights. This is generally referred to as ETTR. I won't bore you with the details (that is what the link is for). When I'm shooting in an "auto" mode (P, Tv, Av) I usually have the EC set to +1/3 or +2/3. When shooting manual (which is my norm), I try to keep things in that vicinity as well. If the scene is pretty balanced though, I'll let it drift even further to the right.

If you use lens filters and you don't have a built in light meter, then make sure you adjust your exposure or F-stop to compensate or it'll generally be too dark.

Again, with digital photography, the only filters that you really NEED anymore is a quality circular polarizer and an ND or two. Everything else can be achieved in post. I know, that takes some of the fun out of it for the purists out there but...

In the end, a film camera takes a lot more work to learn how to use right.   I had an old EOS back in the 90's I cut my teeth on and learned all this crap the hard way.   The new digital rigs, even the cheaper ones on the SLR scale are light years ahead and give you instant feedback.

Good luck!

I agree 100%. That's precisely why I didn't really get into photography until digital had a very strong handhold. I had no desire to play around with settings, keep notes, wait for developing, then be disappointed and BROKE. With digital, I could see how things were affected in real time, for "FREE". You can't beat that and there is simply no better way to learn than to see how things transform as you change the various settings. It gets addicting very fast.

[Todd Wilson]

My old 35mm  You set for film speed and then mine had a light meter and you adjust to get the meter in the middle and was good to go.  Your 800 is your grainy problem.

Congrats on getting the old camera out and using it. While digital camera's are slick  they have once again dumbed down the usage of the camera to where theres really no skill in using one now. Any idiot with a digital camera has a good chance of getting a great picture.  Old film camera's you had to think and plan and have a general idea of what you were doing!


Todd

[A383Wing]

My old 35mm  You set for film speed and then mine had a light meter and you adjust to get the meter in the middle and was good to go.  Your 800 is your grainy problem.

Todd

yea...I think that's what my Minolta does as well..I set the film speed on the top, then lightly press shutter button to adjust the meter with lens ring while looking through viewfinder about in the middle...then adjust the focus with the focus ring to bring split-hair so they line up

Bryan

[bull]

It's been said already but 800 is going to be too fast for decent still shots. It's good for motion shots like sports and whatnot but not so for still subjects. 400 is a good all-around film but the lower the number the better for stills.

[A383Wing]

I'm gonna have the wife pic up a roll of 100 speed film this weekend...we will see how much better it works

I got about 6 new rolls of 800 speed here that is just sitting..it has expired, but I shot a roll of it this summer...aside from the grain, pics turned out OK

Anyone interested in it, or not?

Bryan

[hatersaurusrex]

I'm gonna have the wife pic up a roll of 100 speed film this weekend...we will see how much better it works

I got about 6 new rolls of 800 speed here that is just sitting..it has expired, but I shot a roll of it this summer...aside from the grain, pics turned out OK

Anyone interested in it, or not?

Bryan

Not a 100% rule (depends on the vendor), but the 'expiration' date on unexposed film is generally there for Kodak and Fuji to sell more film to people who they knew would throw out anything with a date on it.   After an extended time the silver in the film can start to degrade, but I can tell you from experience that I've had film for years past its expiration and shot it and it came out fine.    Caveat Emptor of course, but film is like eggs:  The date on the carton is misleading, it won't last forever but it'll last longer than they say it will.