Test double exposures with Pentax MZ-30 and Kodak Ektar

[alex_virt]

Just downloaded lab scans from the test roll. Some conclusions:

1. Yay, the camera works!

2. All photos consistently overexposed by 0.5-1 stop. Is it the camera or the scanner? No way to tell.

3. The 35mm/2.4 and 50mm/1.8 are good for film. The 70mm/2.4 Ltd. is good except the extreme edges. The 35mm/2.8 macro Ltd. isn't good due to strong vignetting. The Botanical Lens 35-105mm/3.5 shows blurred left 1/4 frame.

4. Kodak colours rule!

5. Multiple exposure mode works. Here are some examples:

--
www.gridenko.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_virt/

 

[Wallace Ross]

Cool thanks for sharing. I do like Ektar 100 but have found myself gravitating towards Portra 400

 

[alex_virt]

Cool thanks for sharing. I do like Ektar 100 but have found myself gravitating towards Portra 400

Thanks! I've used Ektar for multi-exposures before, and it's great for that! Here is another one from 7 years ago:

--
www.gridenko.com

alex_virt

Explore alex_virt’s 6,393 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[alex_virt]

Cool thanks for sharing. I do like Ektar 100 but have found myself gravitating towards Portra 400

I've just checked your website. You have Pentax MZ-6 that I wanted to buy originally before I got the MZ-30 which is basically the same. I like it, except the viewfinder with distortions. Otherwise really nice camera.

 

[Sactojim]

Wow, very creative and eye catching.

 

[flektogon]

Those are very nice creations indeed. But why on film? Ouch, I think that KS-1 doesn't allow multiple exposures like the KP for example. But can't you combine two pictures in a photo editor, so they would look like one, double-exposed?

 

[alex_virt]

Those are very nice creations indeed. But why on film? Ouch, I think that KS-1 doesn't allow multiple exposures like the KP for example. But can't you combine two pictures in a photo editor, so they would look like one, double-exposed?

Thanks! I think film is the proper way to do it. I did multi-exposures with the Pentax K-01 and it wasn't much different from merging layers in Photoshop. Too predictable and boring. I like the element of surprise, when you get the files from the lab days, sometimes weeks after shooting, open them and say: "Wow, did I really shoot this?!" When I opened the first photo of the above, it was definitely a wow-moment!

And I like film colours too

 

[alex_virt]

Wow, very creative and eye catching.

Thanks!

 

[Sactojim]

Those are very nice creations indeed. But why on film? Ouch, I think that KS-1 doesn't allow multiple exposures like the KP for example. But can't you combine two pictures in a photo editor, so they would look like one, double-exposed?

Thanks! I think film is the proper way to do it. I did multi-exposures with the Pentax K-01 and it wasn't much different from merging layers in Photoshop. Too predictable and boring. I like the element of surprise, when you get the files from the lab days, sometimes weeks after shooting, open them and say: "Wow, did I really shoot this?!" When I opened the first photo of the above, it was definitely a wow-moment!

And I like film colours too

I just last week decided it was time to fire up my latent film gene. Last time I shot film was 2002 and decided I needed a good film camera. I found a Minolta X700 that a elderly lady had shot a few rolls of film with it and decided it was too complicated and put it in the closet. She had all the accessories, box, case and it came with the 50mm Pentax 1.7 and a Minolta zoom. It's mint perfect and all systems working after fresh batteries. Bought 4 rolls of Kodak Ecktar and Fujifilm 400 all purpose and will have some fun. My go to camera back in the day was my Pentax ME Super, but had really wanted this Minolta X700..a gem of a camera.

 

[Wallace Ross]

I find them to be very good cameras, light but with features. It's my go to camera when I care about the results. I'm shooting some new Ektachrome 100 in one now. They are also very good at multiple exposures as are many Pentax cameras including 90's point and shoots.

 

[alex_virt]

I just last week decided it was time to fire up my latent film gene. Last time I shot film was 2002 and decided I needed a good film camera. I found a Minolta X700 that a elderly lady had shot a few rolls of film with it and decided it was too complicated and put it in the closet. She had all the accessories, box, case and it came with the 50mm Pentax 1.7 and a Minolta zoom. It's mint perfect and all systems working after fresh batteries. Bought 4 rolls of Kodak Ecktar and Fujifilm 400 all purpose and will have some fun. My go to camera back in the day was my Pentax ME Super, but had really wanted this Minolta X700..a gem of a camera.

Beautiful machine! The interface looks like a modern Fuji. No wonder the old lady thought it was too complicated It's so much easier to learn with digital then switch to film.

Here is my MZ-30 with the "botanical zoom" 35-105mm.

I like its DSLR-like controls and autofocus (not with this lens though).

--
www.gridenko.com

alex_virt

Explore alex_virt’s 6,393 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[alex_virt]

I find them to be very good cameras, light but with features. It's my go to camera when I care about the results. I'm shooting some new Ektachrome 100 in one now. They are also very good at multiple exposures as are many Pentax cameras including 90's point and shoots.

In comparison with my previous film camera, Mamiya 645E, the Pentax is so much lighter, quieter, nicer and easier to use!

 

[flektogon]

Those are very nice creations indeed. But why on film? Ouch, I think that KS-1 doesn't allow multiple exposures like the KP for example. But can't you combine two pictures in a photo editor, so they would look like one, double-exposed?

Thanks! I think film is the proper way to do it. I did multi-exposures with the Pentax K-01 and it wasn't much different from merging layers in Photoshop. Too predictable and boring. I like the element of surprise, when you get the files from the lab days, sometimes weeks after shooting, open them and say: "Wow, did I really shoot this?!" When I opened the first photo of the above, it was definitely a wow-moment!

And I like film colours too

Yes Alex, I remember those special moments. But I was even more thrilled when I was processing my films (35mm and 6x6 B&W negatives and Super8 B&W reversal), but I can't imagine to do so now. In addition it has to be very expensive these days. I'll try to take double exposure with my KP sometime. Just for curiosity. In the past I did so only when I forgot to advance the film (on certain cameras only it was possible) .

--
Regards,
Peter

 

[alex_virt]

Yes Alex, I remember those special moments. But I was even more thrilled when I was processing my films

I've never done that and I'm not interested to. Will get the films developed professionally and scanned at super high res. Yes, it is very expensive, but I'm not planning to shoot many rolls. I have a few scans like that from the past, when it was even more expensive, and they are gorgeous! Looking forward to it...

 

[philzucker]

Wow, very creative and eye catching.

Second that!

Phil

 

[JL Salvignol]

I propose that Alex be banished for life:

He reminds us that the film is a formidable instrument of creation and not of copying/reproduction like...like...like what by the way?

Bravo Alex!

 

[Sactojim]

I propose that Alex be banished for life:

He reminds us that the film is a formidable instrument of creation and not of copying/reproduction like...like...like what by the way?

Bravo Alex!

True!

And another benefit with shooting film is that the pixel peeking mentality and the endless and tiring arguments of which camera is better (Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Pentax, vs etc) and no hand wringing about the best post processing software, MP arguments, etc. The beauty of film is that it moves us to be creative and place a premium on composition. Since I'm a gun owner, I liken it to shot placement vs fire away and hope you hit something.

Another pic of the X-700

 

[alex_virt]

I propose that Alex be banished for life:

He reminds us that the film is a formidable instrument of creation and not of copying/reproduction like...like...like what by the way?

Bravo Alex!

Ha-ha, thanks a lot, JLS!

 

[alex_virt]

And another benefit with shooting film is that the pixel peeking mentality and the endless and tiring arguments of which camera is better (Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Pentax, vs etc)

All film cameras are basically light tight boxes that, if working properly, have no influence on image quality. Isn't that liberating?

and no hand wringing about the best post processing software, MP arguments, etc. The beauty of film is that it moves us to be creative and place a premium on composition. Since I'm a gun owner, I liken it to shot placement vs fire away and hope you hit something.

IMO, there are three solid reasons to shoot film:

1. Different aesthetics. What is better is a debatable question, but film IS different from digital.

2. Possibility to shoot different formats including large and medium format that doesn't cost like a car.

3. Much better ratio of awesome pictures

--
www.gridenko.com

alex_virt

Explore alex_virt’s 6,393 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Stigg]

And another benefit with shooting film is that the pixel peeking mentality and the endless and tiring arguments of which camera is better (Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Pentax, vs etc)

All film cameras are basically light tight boxes that, if working properly, have no influence on image quality. Isn't that liberating?

and no hand wringing about the best post processing software, MP arguments, etc. The beauty of film is that it moves us to be creative and place a premium on composition. Since I'm a gun owner, I liken it to shot placement vs fire away and hope you hit something.

IMO, there are three solid reasons to shoot film:

1. Different aesthetics. What is better is a debatable question, but film IS different from digital.

2. Possibility to shoot different formats including large and medium format that doesn't cost like a car.

3. Much better ratio of awesome pictures

Of the series posted I appreciated the first photo the most since I had done many like that upon request. Ektar is what I use when extreme detail and vibrant color are called for.

I never stopped using film professionally since it fulfilled its purpose and still does. Also, I was given the opportunity to test and review some of the first digital slr cameras and returned all of them with no intention of switching to digital. With mirrorless digital cameras are finally becoming the all-electronic cameras they should have been twenty years ago. Mirrorless digital cameras are useful in situations where a subject offers limited opportunities for a clear shot. For slower and more deliberate shooting there has never been any reason not to use film, in my view.

As for those who have not yet experienced film photography (or just photography, as digital cameras are not graphic - they produce digital image files only), the image above of 12 and 36 frame rolls of film vs. an SD card is one of the best examples of why its worth trying. I don't feel that film is "magical" or mystical in any way. Quite to the contrary, it has always been the most direct, practical method of reproducing a subject or scene on a two dimensional surface.