Photography Question

[honeybee]

I have an old Nikon FE camera that I use to practise my photography skills. Recently at an indoor function I shot photos with the following settings:

1. Aperture at f8, a few photos at f5.6
2. Shutter speed at 1/125
3. External flash
4. Ambient light was incandescent bulbs placed inside chandeliers.
5. There were a few crowd shots (20 ft or more) and remaining were close ups (between 2-8 ft)

The pro from whom I bought the camera had told me that with an external flash, I could forget about what aperture and shutter speed to set, and I could virtually set my own aperture and shutter speed. The flash was strong enough for most settings.

Will the photos be well exposed? I have yet to give the film for processing, so I need to know if the photos will be well exposed or under exposed or over exposed. I have already ruled out the possibility of over exposure in my mind.

.

[opus]

I have yet to give the film for processing.

?? are those film-rolls still in use? Which country/ or should I ask which century?

[penagate]

Impossible to say without knowing the power of the flash and how it was angled.
Without a flash unit I'd say your photos wouldn't be much more than darkness. Generally speaking you usually want to balance ambient with artificial light at least to some degree.

[Max Peck]

Impossible to say without knowing the power of the flash and how it was angled.
Without a flash unit I'd say your photos wouldn't be much more than darkness. Generally speaking you usually want to balance ambient with artificial light at least to some degree.

Agreed. Also, if it is a focal-plane camera, the shutter speed will have to be at 1/60th or your flash will only illuminate part of the frame.

Also, you better not be shooting with Kodachrome. They shut down the last processing plant for that film last week! I'm sure other film processing plants are to follow. Time to go digital pal.

-Max

[honeybee]

The flash was directed straight ahead. The ambient light was good to illuminate the corners. However I am not sure if my camera settings could ensure a correct exposure. I haven't used a light meter yet.

Films are still widely available here in India. The only hitch is the processing has gone digital. So they make the negatives and then scan them and print them digitally. There's a lot of correction that happens during this process which you may not necessarily want. But I have yet to reach the stage where it will actually matter. I have noticed that the older photos I took with a P&S film camera and an automatic SLR film camera are usually sharper than what I have been getting with the Nikon since last year. My suspicion lies with the digitizing of the printing process, but I am not sure.

Going digital is way too expensive for me. An entry level digital SLR with a stock lens would cost upwards of Rs. 35000/- (approximately $1000 onwards), while I bought the Nikon FE with a 28-55 lens and the flash all for Rs. 6000/- (approximately $125). I can take the camera out without fear of damaging anything inside or without worrying about a heavy repair/maintenance cost. I do lose out on an instant feedback on the images I have shot, but then I am not a pro. Each time I use up a film, it costs me around $5-7 or so in the cost of the film, developing and printing. I typically shoot about one or two rolls in around 4 months. Investing in a digital SLR doesn't make sense moneywise.

.

[penagate]

Some thoughts:

I do lose out on an instant feedback on the images I have shot, but then I am not a pro.

I accept the money argument, but not this point.
A pro is more likely to know what they have just shot without the feedback.
Being able to instantly review your shots and correct exposure settings on the fly is a feature which has arguably transformed amateur photography. (Well, that and auto exposure modes...)
People can now teach themselves their way around a camera at a rate that previously would have required tuition.

The investment may seem steep, but if you are at all serious about photography it is worth it.
After all, if you shoot a few rolls of film a month without knowing whether you'll get one decent shot, then perhaps you aren't actually saving any money.


With all that said, there is still a place for film: medium format.
Digital medium format camera backs are still prohibitively expensive for the hobbyist.

[honeybee]

I must confess my initial decision to buy a second hand film SLR was more out of monetary concerns than anything else. But after one and a half year of using the Nikon FE, I think I shall prefer it over any digital SLR camera.

As I outlined earlier, going digital is way too expensive, if I have to consider a decent SLR body with a basic zoom lens, an additional prime lens or tele and a good flash. Not only the initial investment, but if anything goes wrong I may simply have to throw away the component and buy new. I wouldn't want to risk all that money unless I could afford two or three such kits.

On the other hand, I have used the film SLR not only indoors, but also outdoors, even in a light drizzle where I wouldn't dare take out a digital SLR costing about ten times more.

To illustrate the unreliability of electronics, last Sunday we had a function which was attended by about a hundred people, relatives and close friends. I planned to use a Canon handycam while my bro carried his P&S digicam. At the last moment we found neither of the cameras was working (the handycam was fine till a week back, while the digicam had started showing some signs of trouble with the power management). I hurried back home and got my film SLR and shot pictures using it.

We also had a Sigma automatic film SLR about 8 years back. An excellent camera for a novice, however it developed some problems with its circuitry which could not be repaired by the authorized dealers. I took it to a local camera repair shop and got it fixed. However two problems still remain: the lens autofocus does not work and the camera keeps draining the battery even when switched off. The battery problem is more severe, and the camera has been lying unused with us since the last few years.

When I compare these experiences and see the extremely delicate and non-repairable nature of today's electronics, I must say I shall stick with the Nikon FE as long as I can get my hands on film.

And it's actually easier to learn on this camera, as all the settings are manually done. I can change just one setting and see how it's affecting the photos. I would not want to be bogged down in a myriad of choices about white balance, ISO speeds and so on and so forth.

.

[penagate]

Those are all fair points. I think your troubles may have something to do with brand quality, though; not so much a difference between film and digital units. Nikon build good cameras; Sigma make a few nice lenses, but don't have the same reputation. And any compact P&S camera tends to suffer from too much complexity crammed into too fragile a package.

Your white balance point is fair, but all digital cameras have an automatic white balance mode and this can be easily corrected during the digital processing phase anyway.
I don't see choosing ISO speed as a drawback because this is something you have to do when purchasing a roll of film. When using a digital camera you can select sensitivity for every shot instead of having to change rolls, or you can leave it on a particular setting to get the same experience you do with film.

I've taken my Canon digital SLR camera out in the rain, even though it's not one of their "weather sealed" models, and it's been just fine. And based on Canon's reputation, if something was to go wrong with my camera or one of my lenses I am confident I could get it repaired without having to replace it.
When the moment comes I can fire off many shots, instead of always trying to conserve film, and as a result my photography has improved at a rate that would have been impossible were I using film.

Glad you're enjoying the FE but I wouldn't be so quick to write off digital altogether.


Care to share any of your photos?

[honeybee]

I don't know if that last request is to see my photography skills or to prove another point in favour of digital photography, in that the photos are readily shareable.

Yes, there are many conveniences to digital photography, which I accept, but I guess I need to understand more about photography before I can justify a huge investment in the hardware.

Most of the shots with the SLR are of people, i.e. family and relatives. I shall see if there are any scenery or other such photos and try and scan them.

I am not writing off digital! It's the way to the future. I am just saying I am not writing off the film yet.

.

[penagate]

I don't know if that last request is to see my photography skills or to prove another point in favour of digital photography, in that the photos are readily shareable.

Ha! No, I remembered that you mentioned a digitizing process and thought perhaps you might have access to digital copies as well as printed ones.

[honeybee]

Ha! No, I remembered that you mentioned a digitizing process and thought perhaps you might have access to digital copies as well as printed ones.

No. I mean I can request a digitized copy as well as prints, but scanning and digitizing the photos will cost me more than getting them printed. So I haven't digitized any of the prints yet. I do have a wish list that has an all-in-one combo (scanner + printer etc). So when I am able to buy it, I could then scan the prints into the PC free.

One film result is out. The pictures are quite sharp, but even with flash, the corners of the pictures are still dark, though the subject is very nicely illuminated. In some of the pictures, there are sharp shadows, so using the flash fron the front won't be a good idea. But if I have to bounce it, I shall have to again compensate for it through the exposure settings. Many of the pictures were shot in my home, with all the lights on (they are fluoroscent tubelights), but now I realize the light is barely enough for my exposure settings (f8/f5.6 and 1/125).

I am making a guess here: Aperture should be set according to the depth of field requirements, and shutter speed should be set according to the sharpness requirements. Can someone confirm this? There will be other factors, but I want to use this as some kind of rule of thumb.

.

[BackWoodsCoder]

To me camera's are an investment, solid cameras can last you almost your entire life. When I first started learning how to use a camera and make my own prints in a darkroom I was shooting with a Canon SLR that was twice as old as I was at the time. I used that camera for almost 10 more years before the shutter failed on me and I buried it in the backyard with a tear in my eye.

To me mechanical failure is just as likely as electronic failure (and there are plenty of electronics in regular SLR's anyways), so that's not a good argument. True you may be out a little more cash if a DSLR fails on you, but I have also been seeing some amazing deals on DSLR's these days. You could also go the Micro 4/3's route. These aren't DSLR's (no mirror in the 4/3's), but offer you many options you can't find on P+S and a new one with lens will cost around 300-400 dollars less then a new DSLR.

After I purchase my new PC this tax season my next big purchase is a DSLR. Ever since I lost access to my darkroom I've been lost in a sea of marginal P+S cameras and my old, reliable, pentax. Been feeling the urge to go out and shoot more now that I'm living in an area that truly justifies it (plus I need to get off my lazzy ass and go do some more hiking).

[JPnyc]

Impossible to say if they will be well exposed , but if you're using the same shutter speed with different apertures, and constant lighting, they sure won't be exposed the same amount.

[honeybee]

Impossible to say if they will be well exposed , but if you're using the same shutter speed with different apertures, and constant lighting, they sure won't be exposed the same amount.

For this film, the shutter speed has been 1/125, while the aperture was f8 for most of the shots and f5.6 for just a few of them. Lighting was more or less constant.

If they will be underexposed, I can pass on a note to the studio that the film is likely to be underexposed. They might be able to process it some way and get some decent prints out.

.