More scans than expected? Well, back in the film days, it was pretty normal to be able to squeeze one or two more frames than the nominal 24 or 36 out of a roll, depending on how exactly you had inserted and transported the film in the camera. You just couldn't be sure with those extra frames that they wouldn't be ruined by the lines where the film had to be cut or the light had already touched it - which could end up running through the middle of your once-in-a-lifetime shot! 😅 Yeah, some of your images came out slightly overexposed, but with some tinkering, you'll get there. This kind of shooting is more about the vibes and film look and less about "perfection" anyway, I should think. (Honestly, it also reminds me of how little I personally care to repeat the experience, given how far we have come with the possibilities of digital.) But by all means enjoy your film explorations, Lee.
I still have my old Minolta SRT 102, a couple lenses to go with it, a Gossen Lunasix 3 light meter, and even a couple old rolls of Fujifilm Superia X-TRA colour film. However, like @Needacreate, I have no desire to repeat the film camera experience. I keep them all for sentimental reasons.
Yes I think In hindsight I should have just left the camera as is & not bumped the exposure comp up by a stop. Next time out I'll just leave it & see how I get on. I defiantly see some nice shots that have the "vibe" going on, be it over exposed or even under. Next up will be some B&W film so that should be fun! Cheers mate
For people new to film or someone who wants to shoot film on a budget or wants something that might be street friendly, this might be a good choice. It is a cool camera, so it might be nice to own for that reason alone.
@@MichaelRusso It felt that way to me, it was very easy to use as someone shooting film for the first time. The loading/unloading of the film was really easy (I was worried about that part before I actually did it) the focus zones are intuitive, the only thing I messed up on was the view finder grid when lining up my compositions, again which I could have avoided if I'd have read the manual 😀
I remember having issues with framing when I used a rangefinder camera back in the day. You get used to it, then it becomes second nature. Dont be miffed, you're going through what we've all gone through. It's all part of the process mate.
@@KobieMC Cheers Kobie, it is very strange in comparison to OVF. But like you say I should get used to it the more I use the camera. Overall I'm happy with my roll of film, now onto the next (maybe some b&w 400?) 📷
I like old trusty P30t, it's on par with this half frame camera in dimensions (137 x 89 x 50 vs 127 x 78 x 52 mm) and with FA43 or DA40 is very compact and it's full frame ))
Fascinating video Lee especially for those who want to dip their toes into film photography and see how you progress forward in finding your way through what would be a rather challenging task. The photos look great to me mate.
@@b.2221 Thanks mate 👍 I like some of the photos but I was a bit gutted I'm not going to lie. It's on me, I should have realised at the time of taking the photos but it is what it is, at least I know for next time out with the camera.
I'm glad you enjoyed the whole process from taking the shots to receiving the scans. There is something wonderful about using simple cameras such as the 17. The other thing to bear in mind is the joy (or disappointment 😞) of delayed gratification which film brings. There is nothing quite like the tingle of anticipation waiting for one's results. Also, having to trust the camera because you can't chimp shows just how good at getting exposure right simple film cameras are when left to themselves. This is very liberating. One can concentrate on composition rather than settings which is another joyful side to simple film cameras. As an aside, when I shot a roll of slide film back in the 80's and 90's each month, holidays excepted, I would be very happy with just one or two good shots per roll.
@@daellis130 Thanks mate! Yes I think that's somthing I need to embrace actually, I'm so used to trying to clean noisy images up (digital) but that's exactly what makes these film scans what they are! Think I'll go back & try a different edit on them to see what I come up with. Cheers
Durham is nice! i always try to steal some extra frames at the start of the film, by shooting the pre zero shutter counter images. Sometimes I get a halved on full frame, but when you are using half frame at the outset, you probably got all of it plus two additional frames, i.e. 1 +1/2 frames on ff.
@@northof-62 Thanks for explaining how I managed to grab a few more frames haha! I'll try to do that with each roll now 😉 And yes Durham is very easy on the eye, especially on a sunny day like I got! 👍
A lot of nice shots there! I really like the pint of Worthingtons, and perhaps the learning curve for framing shots in camera really elevated that shot. And that shows why I love photography, film or digital. The results were not what you were expecting, but you got a better shot because of it. Have fun with the little 17, looking foreward to see what you shoot next with it.
Awesome results Lee! Just keep in mind that the inner framing is used for the two closest focus zones, and all the others use the outer frame markers. My biggest mistakes is sometimes forgetting to change the focus zone. 😅
Thanks mate, I appreciate it! And thanks for those tips on how the focus zones actually work (I should read the manual a bit more 😅) I actually only forgot to change the focus zones a few times! Onto the next roll, I think some B&W will do nicely. Cheers
Well done Lee. Looks like you got some real nice photos. Kind of makes me want to find some way to get my old Pentax ME Super fixed and run a few rolls through it.
Thanks mate, much appreciated! I was using the camera strap as a ruler for the close up shots, so they were there or there abouts in focus & surprisingly it does throw the background out of focus nicely in certain situations.
Very nice results. The lens looks to be suitably sharp and contrasty and given the camera is zone focused, you certainly seem to have nailed focussing. It must be a combination of the films latitude and the cameras light metering, but I was impressed with the brightness balance between foreground and sky; very few shots had actually blown out, given what you were able to obtain from the scans in Lightroom. I think you are right, the camera won't necessarily appeal to existing film shooters, who will have laboured long to get (or maintain) a traditional 35mm SLR or rangefinder, but it looks to be a serious step up from the current crop of Lomography cameras and being new, it should be reliable for a good while - certainly long enough for new shooters to learn the ropes. There's a market, for sure! Well done Pentax.
Yes I found for most of the shots the zone focusing worked perfectly, any shots that are out of focus was down to user error. I agree, I think the Pentax 17 is a great camera for a new host of people wanting to try film photography rather than use say their iPhone for everything? I think this camera could potentially go down really well!
Informative video , however all depends if the lab develops and processes your film correctly at all stages as to how any prints turn out. Are you editing scans of your negatives or scans of the processed prints ? The old problem with film being you don't have the beauty of being able to machine gun loads of shots and compare them as you can with digital media. Prior to digital I found the labs seemed to ruin more prints by bad processing than anything else , the cost became extortionate compared with digital. Pentax film cameras were not at the time noted for reliability with regards exposure control. Things may have improved now......Good luck
I believe they are scans of the negatives, as I selected the rotate option only & not any adjustments to the scans. I think the Pentax 17 seems to expose pretty accurately, I'll not be bumping the exposure comp up next time out I'll just leave it & see how it goes. Cheers
I always found that quality between labs was never consistent, some were good, some bad and some truly awful. That said your scans look good as they should, as for the extra frames that always happened, one usually had light pollution running through and another often cut short. Enjoy your remaining films.
Nice pics. You shouldn’t have to over expose film mind you. I shot film before the digital days and still do some film stuff now. I never really use exposure compensation with film, unlike digital where I tend to often use minus compensation
Yeah I think you could be on the money with that one. I had read a few places before I actually used the camera that you could over expose with film to be on the safe side? But it looks like the Pentax 17 exposes spot on without the need to bump it up a stop. I also underexpose with digital, especially now with the crazy shadow recovery possibilities!
@@LeeIveson yes digital is sort of the opposite of film. Underexposing is good with digital as shadows can be recovered easily. With film highlights can easily be recovered but not shadows. With a good film camera though just letting the camera sort the exposure is usually fine
Oh and your shots were really nice by the way. I shoot canon EOS digital and film so share my EF lenses between my 2 film bodies and my 2 digital bodies. Of course my film cameras are 20 odd years old but I'm super excited about Pentax making new film cameras again!
Thanks! So I made a video about the process of ordering (mainly for future reference) which has the options I selected for this roll. Here's the time stamp to save you hunting around (2:56) ruclips.net/video/1T9L1c3Nifs/видео.htmlsi=5-dz1JeB4UumEr70&t=176
@forblue from my understanding film loves light! Unlike digital photography, you can retain detail in the highlights much better but not in the shadows. I think this is why overexposing is common practice with film. For digital ot can often be the opposite, personally underexpose to not clip the highlights, knowing that I can lift the shadows in post. Hopefully that made some sense, I will say that I probably did not need to overexpose the majority of these images, sit seems the Pentax 17 has a very accurate meter.
LOL, so you shoot film, pay to have it processed and then take the scans into Lightroom to make them into decent images? Yeah, no, I don't get why anyone would want to shoot film these days.
@@LeeIveson well, I am glad it makes you happy. Thanks for supporting Ricoh/Pentax with your purchase. Hopefully they will use some of the money to work on a K-1iii. 😎
I like your shots! Almost makes me want the 17!
Thanks! It's a really fun camera to use for sure!
More scans than expected? Well, back in the film days, it was pretty normal to be able to squeeze one or two more frames than the nominal 24 or 36 out of a roll, depending on how exactly you had inserted and transported the film in the camera. You just couldn't be sure with those extra frames that they wouldn't be ruined by the lines where the film had to be cut or the light had already touched it - which could end up running through the middle of your once-in-a-lifetime shot! 😅 Yeah, some of your images came out slightly overexposed, but with some tinkering, you'll get there. This kind of shooting is more about the vibes and film look and less about "perfection" anyway, I should think. (Honestly, it also reminds me of how little I personally care to repeat the experience, given how far we have come with the possibilities of digital.) But by all means enjoy your film explorations, Lee.
Exactly. I remember picking certain film rolls because I knew they would give me 38 exposures instead of 36.
Recently I got 49 exposures out of a single roll of SantaColor 100. Whomever rolled that must have lost count lmao.
I still have my old Minolta SRT 102, a couple lenses to go with it, a Gossen Lunasix 3 light meter, and even a couple old rolls of Fujifilm Superia X-TRA colour film. However, like @Needacreate, I have no desire to repeat the film camera experience. I keep them all for sentimental reasons.
Yes I think In hindsight I should have just left the camera as is & not bumped the exposure comp up by a stop. Next time out I'll just leave it & see how I get on. I defiantly see some nice shots that have the "vibe" going on, be it over exposed or even under. Next up will be some B&W film so that should be fun! Cheers mate
Scan your negatives yourself , film is quite forgiving in overexposure ,but don’t hope a lab to make it good , they only go standard.
These photos are fantastic. I am surprised by the quality of the lens. Well done!
@@midiplaybox3453 Thanks very much appreciated! Yes it has a great little lens for sure!
For people new to film or someone who wants to shoot film on a budget or wants something that might be street friendly, this might be a good choice. It is a cool camera, so it might be nice to own for that reason alone.
@@MichaelRusso It felt that way to me, it was very easy to use as someone shooting film for the first time. The loading/unloading of the film was really easy (I was worried about that part before I actually did it) the focus zones are intuitive, the only thing I messed up on was the view finder grid when lining up my compositions, again which I could have avoided if I'd have read the manual 😀
I remember having issues with framing when I used a rangefinder camera back in the day. You get used to it, then it becomes second nature. Dont be miffed, you're going through what we've all gone through. It's all part of the process mate.
@@KobieMC Cheers Kobie, it is very strange in comparison to OVF. But like you say I should get used to it the more I use the camera. Overall I'm happy with my roll of film, now onto the next (maybe some b&w 400?) 📷
I like old trusty P30t, it's on par with this half frame camera in dimensions (137 x 89 x 50 vs 127 x 78 x 52 mm) and with FA43 or DA40 is very compact and it's full frame ))
I can imagine the images your getting when using those lenses are fantastic also!
Fascinating video Lee especially for those who want to dip their toes into film photography and see how you progress forward in finding your way through what would be a rather challenging task. The photos look great to me mate.
@@b.2221 Thanks mate 👍 I like some of the photos but I was a bit gutted I'm not going to lie. It's on me, I should have realised at the time of taking the photos but it is what it is, at least I know for next time out with the camera.
I'm glad you enjoyed the whole process from taking the shots to receiving the scans. There is something wonderful about using simple cameras such as the 17. The other thing to bear in mind is the joy (or disappointment 😞) of delayed gratification which film brings. There is nothing quite like the tingle of anticipation waiting for one's results. Also, having to trust the camera because you can't chimp shows just how good at getting exposure right simple film cameras are when left to themselves. This is very liberating. One can concentrate on composition rather than settings which is another joyful side to simple film cameras.
As an aside, when I shot a roll of slide film back in the 80's and 90's each month, holidays excepted, I would be very happy with just one or two good shots per roll.
Summed up perfectly Richard!
Thanks Lee. Nice pics. I found myself getting excited about the grain!
@@daellis130 Thanks mate! Yes I think that's somthing I need to embrace actually, I'm so used to trying to clean noisy images up (digital) but that's exactly what makes these film scans what they are! Think I'll go back & try a different edit on them to see what I come up with. Cheers
we used to minimum leader load and wind 2 and shoot 3rd and get 37 from 36 35mm its a trick 36 frames of........and that last is the one
Ahh! So this was not really meant to happen? It looks like I loaded & wound it to the perfect spot to expose the entire roll?
Durham is nice!
i always try to steal some extra frames at the start of the film, by shooting the pre zero shutter counter images.
Sometimes I get a halved on full frame, but when you are using half frame at the outset, you probably got all of it plus two additional frames, i.e. 1 +1/2 frames on ff.
@@northof-62 Thanks for explaining how I managed to grab a few more frames haha! I'll try to do that with each roll now 😉 And yes Durham is very easy on the eye, especially on a sunny day like I got! 👍
A lot of nice shots there! I really like the pint of Worthingtons, and perhaps the learning curve for framing shots in camera really elevated that shot. And that shows why I love photography, film or digital. The results were not what you were expecting, but you got a better shot because of it.
Have fun with the little 17, looking foreward to see what you shoot next with it.
Thanks mate! Yes maybe a few happy accidents haha. But I'll be conscious of using the view finder when framing my shots up from now on! Cheers
Awesome results Lee!
Just keep in mind that the inner framing is used for the two closest focus zones, and all the others use the outer frame markers.
My biggest mistakes is sometimes forgetting to change the focus zone. 😅
Thanks mate, I appreciate it! And thanks for those tips on how the focus zones actually work (I should read the manual a bit more 😅)
I actually only forgot to change the focus zones a few times! Onto the next roll, I think some B&W will do nicely. Cheers
Well done Lee. Looks like you got some real nice photos. Kind of makes me want to find some way to get my old Pentax ME Super fixed and run a few rolls through it.
Thanks mate, I appreciate it! Yeah man, why not! I really enjoyed the whole process, a breath of fresh photography air!
Some beautiful shots there, the bokeh on the close up shots were creamy smooth.
Thanks mate, much appreciated! I was using the camera strap as a ruler for the close up shots, so they were there or there abouts in focus & surprisingly it does throw the background out of focus nicely in certain situations.
Very nice results. The lens looks to be suitably sharp and contrasty and given the camera is zone focused, you certainly seem to have nailed focussing. It must be a combination of the films latitude and the cameras light metering, but I was impressed with the brightness balance between foreground and sky; very few shots had actually blown out, given what you were able to obtain from the scans in Lightroom. I think you are right, the camera won't necessarily appeal to existing film shooters, who will have laboured long to get (or maintain) a traditional 35mm SLR or rangefinder, but it looks to be a serious step up from the current crop of Lomography cameras and being new, it should be reliable for a good while - certainly long enough for new shooters to learn the ropes. There's a market, for sure! Well done Pentax.
Yes I found for most of the shots the zone focusing worked perfectly, any shots that are out of focus was down to user error. I agree, I think the Pentax 17 is a great camera for a new host of people wanting to try film photography rather than use say their iPhone for everything? I think this camera could potentially go down really well!
Informative video , however all depends if the lab develops and processes your film correctly at all stages as to how any prints turn out. Are you editing scans of your negatives or scans of the processed prints ? The old problem with film being you don't have the beauty of being able to machine gun loads of shots and compare them as you can with digital media. Prior to digital I found the labs seemed to ruin more prints by bad processing than anything else , the cost became extortionate compared with digital. Pentax film cameras were not at the time noted for reliability with regards exposure control. Things may have improved now......Good luck
I believe they are scans of the negatives, as I selected the rotate option only & not any adjustments to the scans. I think the Pentax 17 seems to expose pretty accurately, I'll not be bumping the exposure comp up next time out I'll just leave it & see how it goes. Cheers
I just saw your pictures on Facebook 😂
@@m0bob what can I say . . . I get around 🤣
I always found that quality between labs was never consistent, some were good, some bad and some truly awful. That said your scans look good as they should, as for the extra frames that always happened, one usually had light pollution running through and another often cut short. Enjoy your remaining films.
So I've heard Barry! The lab I used seem to be well recommended & they did a good job with this roll.
Sehr gutes Video von dir, wie immer ❤
Gruß Bernd
Danke Bernd! Das weiß ich zu schätzen. Prost
Nice pics. You shouldn’t have to over expose film mind you. I shot film before the digital days and still do some film stuff now. I never really use exposure compensation with film, unlike digital where I tend to often use minus compensation
Yeah I think you could be on the money with that one. I had read a few places before I actually used the camera that you could over expose with film to be on the safe side? But it looks like the Pentax 17 exposes spot on without the need to bump it up a stop. I also underexpose with digital, especially now with the crazy shadow recovery possibilities!
@@LeeIveson yes digital is sort of the opposite of film. Underexposing is good with digital as shadows can be recovered easily. With film highlights can easily be recovered but not shadows. With a good film camera though just letting the camera sort the exposure is usually fine
Oh and your shots were really nice by the way. I shoot canon EOS digital and film so share my EF lenses between my 2 film bodies and my 2 digital bodies. Of course my film cameras are 20 odd years old but I'm super excited about Pentax making new film cameras again!
@@sarahneedham Thanks very much! I shoot a lot of Motocross with the Canon 7Dii, still gets the job done even in this mirrorless age!
@@LeeIveson indeed. I'm still using DSLRs too plus of course my film SLRs. Don't feel the need to go mirrorless just yet
Great images what type of scans did you get if you don’t mind me asking
Thanks! So I made a video about the process of ordering (mainly for future reference) which has the options I selected for this roll. Here's the time stamp to save you hunting around (2:56) ruclips.net/video/1T9L1c3Nifs/видео.htmlsi=5-dz1JeB4UumEr70&t=176
You’ll get the hang of the camera quickly enough. Teething issues is all you’ve experienced. Press on buddy
@@FrancisBrooks-ob2ny Cheers mate I appreciate it 👍
For the newbies, why do you need to overexpose the film one stop by default?
@forblue from my understanding film loves light! Unlike digital photography, you can retain detail in the highlights much better but not in the shadows. I think this is why overexposing is common practice with film. For digital ot can often be the opposite, personally underexpose to not clip the highlights, knowing that I can lift the shadows in post. Hopefully that made some sense, I will say that I probably did not need to overexpose the majority of these images, sit seems the Pentax 17 has a very accurate meter.
There are plenty of great analog cameras that you can buy cheaply. And garbage to garbage.
Yes there's still a ton of cheap cameras available, lots of options for everyone to be honest 👍
Thumbnail made me not to watch this.
@@jepgambardella3317 My apologies 🙏
LOL, so you shoot film, pay to have it processed and then take the scans into Lightroom to make them into decent images? Yeah, no, I don't get why anyone would want to shoot film these days.
@@joedusel rather enjoyed the process to be honest Joe 👍
@@LeeIveson well, I am glad it makes you happy. Thanks for supporting Ricoh/Pentax with your purchase. Hopefully they will use some of the money to work on a K-1iii. 😎