What’s more exciting than spending a day photographing old-school cars? What about photographing old-school cars with an equally old-school camera?
During a video shoot for some features coming soon to the Classic Motorsports YouTube channel (subscribe here now so you don’t miss out), we brought along our Pentax K1000 loaded with Kodak Gold 200 film.
How did the photos turn out? …
That looks so rad.
Thanks! I'm still getting pleasantly surprised at how well all my photos turn out.
I'm still in the early stages of experimenting with different film types (I just got my first roll of black and white film developed), but Gold 200 is my favorite so far.
Dynamic range has entered the chat.
Can someone explain what it is about the camera that makes them look like hot wheels in a diorama?
Epic pics btw
A large aperture (smaller f-stop number) will shorten the depth of field.
This Nikon article explains how aperture impacts depth of field.
Is Evanual9 talking about a depth of field aspect of the image or something else? I'm also not sure if that shot at the start of this thread was back-focused slightly or not.
I miss shooting film and developing my own negatives. Should be able to again soon though, finally, which helps.
I like the photos in the real thread/article. Gold 200 seems like a good compromise film considering contrast, saturation, color cast, and cost.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
Thank you for that. I'm still wrapping my head around the settings.
Truth be told, I'm leaning pretty heavily on the Pentax's built-in light meter to take photos.
In reply to Colin Wood :
It's a good, simple meter.
And there is a warmth to film that's just feels to comfortable. I recently came across some shots from college–studio work, all done on 35mm that I processed and printed–and, all these years later, they still look timeless.
For me, the end result is still being seen on my crappy monitor, so the extra time and effort are not positively impacting the final product as much as they could. If this was my mother sharing 5 x 7 prints versus printing them on her cheap inket printer on regular paper, the results would be much more dramatic. I like the idea that film is not dead yet however, it has a long and rich history and should survive in some form.
You should have asked before you took these to Eckerd's. I still have some coupons.
In reply to JG Pasterjak :
Lisa would totally hook us with those coupons.
Ormond Loop!
Good stuff. Pentax made some good glass. Gold 200 is a nice film; I use a fair bit of it. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that it is now available in 120. I haven't tried Gold in that format yet, but medium format is a whole different animal (sample on Ektar through a 1930s Rolleiflex):
In reply to 02Pilot :
That looks awesome–so warm and just so period-correct.
I started running film through my A-1 and need to finish that roll. And then need to break out my K1000 and F-1.
I asked for film for the holidays, and the family delivered....
In reply to 02Pilot :
I need to try out Gold but finding it right now is a nightmare. I have tried Porta 400 and Lomo 400 so far. Bought so Fuji 200 yesterday.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
Everyone has their film preferences. I've tried most of the color offerings and I come back to Kodak every time. My go-to for anything serious is Ektar, but it does get pricey. Gold is a nice lower cost option that still offers traditional Kodak colors. I recently tried a few rolls of ProImage 100, which was different but interesting, much like Ektar in that it really varies in appearance with slight over- or under-exposure (whereas Gold is pretty consistent across a wider range of exposures). Color Plus 200 is an older Kodak emulsion, and might be worth a look as well.
If you really want to get fancy, get some Ektachrome. I love it, but it's eye-wateringly expensive.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Yeah. I am finding I mostly prefer black and white but a change up to color is nice. I'll probably try out Ektachrome as some point but right now spending that much money on a roll when I am still learning and messing up shots seems a bit silly.
My understanding is Lomo 400 and 800 is made by Kodak btw. But the both went up in price as well.
My 92 through my $100 dollar Samsung...
Did Samsung sell film cameras?
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
Apparently quite a few.
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Samsung#35mm_Cameras
Yeah I have a Samsung point and shoot film camera that was my parents that I keep around, but haven't used much.
I tend to use Fuji 400 still, since its easy to find and versatile.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
I shoot more TriX than anything else, but there are some things that call for color, and as you say, it's nice to switch up every now and again. I normally shoot without a meter, but for Ektachrome I make an exception; when you do go for it, make sure your metering is accurate (and meter for highlights, not shadows) or you'll miss a lot. I did shoot some of the Lomo 800 stuff a while back (found some in the freezer - one of the dangers of a film stash is that you forget what you have), but I haven't gotten it developed yet. Need to do that.
You'll need to log in to post.
