well, finally got a couple of rolls back, here’s some I’ve scanned in (from negatives using an Epson v300 photo, negatives)

hope you like them, ok folks here goes!

“Coffee needs feeding too”

“MrsNutt in soft focus”

“MrsNutt in Bath coffee shop”

“my sunglasses”

“jars”

“Konduktor”

“Candle & Pepper Grinder”

“Old Digger”

“The Tracks”

“cold night”

“Jo”

“MrsNutt reading in car”

“MrsNutt thinking”

“MrsNutt Knitting”

“Chef & Knife”

“MrsNutt Knitting 2”

“Chef2”

“MrsNutt”

I’m kinda happy with the results and I’ve not messed around with them in ye olde Photoshoppe yet! (except to convert from .tiff to jpg, I’ve not even cropped them, they came like that on the negs!)

whatta ya think?

Nice photos. Timeless.

MrsNutt in Bath

So close, Damn

I was expecting the last one to be MrsNutt smashing that damned SLR!

Is it me or are ther lines through all of them though?

I love the last one very dark.

is it just me or are they all rubbish ?

LOL @ Simonfbarnes.

They are not that bad really.

😆

P/s: The chef’s knife is crap. i.e. the knife and not the pic.

out of focus, tramlines, colour balance off, blebs etc
actually, “The tracks” has no obvious technical flaws…

if they’d been done with a pinhole camera, or with homemade film I’d have been impressed 🙂

Very grainy, what film are you using. Reminds me of my first attempts with film, and some of my more recent digital pics.
You’re also lucky that the Mrs takes a good photo by remaining relaxed. Mrs S gets all tense when I point a lense at her.

Good argument for digital.

simonfbarnes – Member
is it just me or are they all rubbish ?

yep its you, you’re rubbish 😆

Haven’t quite worked for me, film of course can still look good but like any tool it’s only good as the person using it.

is it just me or are they all rubbish ?

No they’re not. Granted, MrNutt has something to learn about technique, and I don’t think top tographers will be worried about their jobs just jet, but there’s definitely promise in some of them. Nutt’s compositional skills aren’t bad at all, and he shows a real sensitivity toward his subjects. Some lovely portraits of MrsNutt (WTF is she marrying a cNutt like you; is she mental, or are you paying her lots of money??? 😉 ), and good use of lighting. Nutt fills the frame well; something a lot of snappers don’t.

To dismiss them as ‘rubbish’ is both rude, and untrue. How about some constructive criticism? Nutt has been quite brave, really, to offer up the fruits of his labour to the vultures of STW. And he’s willing to learn, which is why he’s asking for advice!

Nutt; your focusing is quite poor on some shots; do you have problems with your eyesight at all? It’s possible you could benefit from using a little dioptre correction eyepiece thingy, that fits on the viewfinder. Helps with focusing. Or is the viewfinder on your cam very dark? What cam/s were these taken on?

Keep going, mate, and have fun!

Learn to get it right in cam, not afterwards in Photoplop, like some people…

cheers for the comments, keep em coming!

The camera is an old Zenit EM (1979) the lenses are all fully manual focus and to be honest, when I shout those I didn’t really have a clue as to using the light meter/what aperture! (If I’m honest I’m not sure if I do now!)

I think if you’re comparing the image quality to a modern digital camera then you’re kinda missing the point, my aim was (and still isn’t) to obtain perfectly clinical photographs, my objective was/is to capture interesting images what some how conveyed “life” and “a sense of place”. Call it arty toss if you like but I think I’ve achieved that in a few of them.

I love the fuzz and warm analogue feel of them, they look more like memories to me than photos 🙂

The film was fuji Superia 200/400, all the equipment is old and **** (bit like the thing between it and the ground!)

cheers all, keep em coming!

Ah, the Zenit. That might explain the focusing errors. Those viewfinders are quite ‘murky’, compared to something like a Nikon. Spensive cams have brighter viewfinders, and better quality focusing screens, which is a real bonus for focusing, speshly in dim light. Plus, a lot of the basic Zenit lenses aren’t up to the optical quality of something like a spensive Nikkor. Nutt, if you want, I can give you a borry of a Nikon and a 50mm lens; you will be amazed at the difference.

Why not try a bit of Black and White? The best way to learn about Painting With Light, is to use B+W, imo. Try to get hold of some Ilford XP2, which is B+W film, but can be processed in colour labs. And then, we’ll get you onto processing yer own B+W film. Proper tography; none of this dijical malarky…

Some nice pics and some interesting choices of subject. I did wonder how many jars you had when you took ‘jars’, but each to their own choice of picture.

Sfb, you are such a rude gob-shite [strike]sometimes[/strike]. Can’t you ever think for a moment before you jump in with your crass comments?

out of focus, tramlines, colour balance off, blebs etc

That’s what I like about them.

With a dijical SLR, you can fire off hundreds of ‘perfect’ photos but with sumething like a Zenit, or other older cameras, there’s more of a warmth to the pictures.

Call it arty toss if you like

It’s arty toss, but there’s nothing wrong with arty toss.

they look more like memories to me than photos

All my favourite photos have that aspect to them.

Nice work MrNutt and very brave to post them up here.

I’m not so keen on the heavily out of focus stuff (not sure if that was deliberate or focussing error).

But I really like the “MrsNutt Thinking” one – looks like an old album cover or something.

The coffee one is good too, though it might benefit from a tighter crop to get rid of that hand which is a bit distracting.

miketually: With a dijical SLR …

Christ don’t you start mike. D.I.G.I.T.A.L. 🙄 Why do all the dyslexics prefer film cameras?

For what it’s worth, you can easily add in blebs, noise, tramlines and desaturation to a digital pic and get something that would be pretty indistinguishable from these. Digital doesn’t have to be shiny and perfect.

Polaroid in AlienSkin Exposure

Christ don’t you start mike. D.I.G.I.T.A.L. Why do all the dyslexics prefer film cameras?

Used ironically, or somethink 😉

For what it’s worth, you can easily add in blebs, noise, tramlines and desaturation to a digital pic and get something that would be pretty indistinguishable from these. Digital doesn’t have to be shiny and perfect.

That smacks of nerdiness, rather than artiness 🙂

aah, arty toss. I think some of the pics of Mrs Nutt work quite well, and the picture of Jo- you’ve captured some quite wistful expressions. Chef, railway lines and coffee do nothing for me- and as others have said focussing is poor.

What lens have you used, and have the pics been printed from the film yet, or have you just scanned them in – I’m wondering whether there’s any noticeable difference between the two- I often have to do quite a lot of work to replicate film prints frmo scanned photo prints. And the film wasn’t past it’s expiry date was it?

yep its you, you’re rubbish [:lol:]

well, I would have been embarrassed to have posted these unless they were the result of some heroic experimentation or extraordinary shooting conditions. I’m not making any comment about the subject matter or composition, just the reproduction

MrNutt youve inspired me, think i might dig out the old Zenit-E tonight as i used to have some good fun with that before i got my digi.

Heres one of my fave’s from the last time i had it out. It was taken by a mate when he couldnt ride due to a minor mechanical (see if you can spot what it was in the pic)

A common Chain Frog (frogus chainus outafocusis)

well, I would have been embarrassed to have posted these …

That’s a fairly cockish thing to say simon 😯

Great stuff for a first try MrNutt, worth trying a B&W film next.

Would have been interesting to see how the 1st & 3rd picture would have come out in B&W?

some nice compositions. i’m not a huge fan of the Lomo thing but do love film. get yourself a couple of rolls of XP2 film, it’s really suit your low light shots and you can really force it’s sensitivity (you can treat it like 1000iso film even though it’s 400). make sure it gets processed using the colour process though (C41?)

here’s a couple of my old film shots (badly scanned) and a couple from a lomo horizon 2 camera:

Flickr

Would have been interesting to see how the 1st & 3rd picture would have come out in B&W?

That’s a fairly cockish thing to say simon

no, I’m just being straight. I can’t help feeling Mr. Nutt would have got far better results with a digital camera

My favourites are “MrsNutt in Bath Coffee shop”, Digger” and “MrsNutt thinking”
I also like “MrsNutt in soft focus” if only she wasn’t in quite such soft focus!

The Bath Coffee Shop one I could easily see on the wall in a Costa – it’s got that grainy style that a lot of those places go for and the skin tone looks nice.

All the images are kind of ‘reportage’ style and quite intimate shots, if you get my meaning?
My partner hates having her photo taken, so my lack of ‘model’ to practice portrait stuff on is very frustrating!

Nice work!! Great to see something a bit different.

I’m not embarrassed nor offended by any of the comments, I’m pleased with the (simple) results that I’ve achieved and as they really are only my first attempts! 🙂

The developed photos don’t fair much better to be honest, the scanner is a great bit of kit, those are all scanned straight from the negs.

Id guess most photographers tend to focus on obtaining a “perfect shot”, its just the idea of the “perfect shot” is entirely subjective, of course there’s over or underexposure to consider but, in my eyes interesting colours and shapes are what I enjoy, I’m a painter so it maybe that I’m approaching this thing from a different direction than that of SFB. viva la difference!

well, I would have been embarrassed to have posted these

You know what, I think winning STW Tographer of the Year has gone to your head, a bit. You appear very arrogant, sometimes.

Nutt is, by his own admission, a beginner, and willing to learn. He is fully open about his mistakes and failings, and just wants to improve. I can’t see how the comment above, or saying ‘they’re rubbish’, is at all constructive or supportive. In fact, I wonder why you bothered posting at all, really. And I don’t think you’d ever make a very good teacher, if that’s your idea of giving ‘advice’.

I can’t help feeling Mr. Nutt would have got far better results with a dijical camera

That’s a fair enough opinion, yet one I consider to be a little naive and ignorant. Nutt is not on about getting instantly perfect results, he wants to learn about tography. And I personally think he’s going about it the right way, actually. Good thing he’s not too sensitive, eh?

Good to see there are several people willing to offer some really good advice, though.

For once I agree with RudeBoy. Well said mate.

sfb can’t use film, he’d be bankrupt with the amount of shots he rattles off!

maybe that I’m approaching this thing from a different direction than that of SFB

AH! Well, it it’s “ART” then all bets are off, though I urge you to explore the added authenticity of the dageurotype :o)

I thought I’d post a few of my ‘fiddling about’ pics for people to see…..comments welcome (unless you’re just going to say “They’re 5h1t”). All on digital, and perhaps one or two would have benefitted from a bit of ‘grain’.

London Pride

Pint

Watch

Truck on Runway

Should have cleaned the watch before I took the pic!

It’s not ART just because he has used film sfb. It is art because he has captured some emotion and the results are evocative – unlike 400 near-identical snapshots of someone’s arse.

Nice! I love the London Pride one. Actually, I wouldn’t mind a hi-res copy of that, print it out, stick it on a wall. C’est possible?

Good shots. Love the composition of the lorry one.

Oh, was I sposed to say ‘they’re sh1t’? Sorry?

Rudeboy…..shouldn’t be a problem. I am actually thinking of starting up a website using these chaps: http://www.clikpic.com to sell some photos – this is one of the one’s I have been considering putting on there.

But, of course, seeing as that isn’t up and running yet I have no problem sorting something out if you want? I can mail you the original over, so long as you don’t try and start flogging it yourself 😉 !
I can either mail you the original, or get you a print done and you can chuck me some cash just to cover the cost of printing & p&p.

There is a slight problem – all of these were taken from my previous camera – a Minolta DimageZ3 and are fairly low resolution. With the crop, this one comes in at 1488×1206 pixels. Photobucket reckon that an A4 print (selected ‘shrink to fit’ to maintain the aspect ratio) will be “medium quality”.
You can always increase it’s size? I have a Scott Kelby book on CS2 and he reckons that his technique for increasing image sizes does a great job without losing too much detail or getting ‘jaggedy’. In fact, I’ll try it now and get back to you……

How large a print were you thinking?

Oh, and glad you like them….I should really spend more time ‘fiddling around’ with shots like this. Must get a decent macro for the D80!!
The truck one was taken at Heathrow while I was waiting to board a flight to Perth. I shot it through the departure lounge glass, so didn’t expect great things.

STW Tographer of the Year has gone to your head, a bit. You appear very arrogant, sometimes

the award had nothing to do with it, I’ve always been like this 🙂

I cannot think of anything useful to say about the shots other than “Stop messing about with film, it’s not working”. There’s no doubt film can still have a margin on digital in some circumstances, just not Mr. Nutts’

For the most part my own photography is characterised by a complete lack of imagination – I just record what I see – and no input is required from me other than an attempt to be faithful to nature: