Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Vivitar-UWS scans
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:46 pm    Post subject: Vivitar-UWS scans Reply with quote

Well, I guess I'll be the first one to post from this $10 camera:













Yep, give it a chance and it will flare along with the vignetting. These are
uncropped, not rotated, not corrected for distortion. Film was Fujicolor 200, scanned at 2400dpi on Epson 4490, USM-low, no grain reduction.


Last edited by Katastrofo on Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:41 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the result, most SLR not takes better one Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not Bad at all, just $10 can do this amazing.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Attila and Koji! I was surprised at the results and had way more
keepers on a 24-exp roll than I generally do! Embarassed Cool

Bill


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That really good Bill. You sure got your moneys worth.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

very good detailed results. Surely a camera to keep for those vacations when you can not bring bigger photo equipment.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congrats Bill! I was ready to make some bad joke but the result are pretty good for this setup. I guess I have to get in the club.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Ron, Orio, and Poilu, the camera is fun to use. The viewfinder gives
maybe 90% of what the actual shot is, so it's a surprise when you scan
these! Somewhere I was reading where they said it was 87% for the
viewfinder, so it's important to center the subject if at all possible since this
lens is sharpest there as well. Had to edit my original post, it was Fujicolor
200, not 400, cheap Wallies film.

Bill


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was hoping to see some others' shots by now, but here are some taken
today:









Using Kodak Gold 200 this time. Second shot is a second effort to reduce
the flare I did on the previous one.

Bill


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All shots are brilliant, Bill !!
The first two are very punchy and as for the second one, the compo works so much better than the previous execution!
Third one also creates the space well.

I really like this camera !!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your comments, Orio! Smile I really love this camera! Here's another
view of the Mini Cooper:



Like the shadows on the brick...

Bill


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congratulations for the camera and shots. The Mini Cooper phots are great. Very 3D Smile
By the way, nice town. Seems very quiet.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amazing pictures, Bill! The flare fully under control, as the vignetting...
Which film did you put in?.

I got mine yesterday. But I was unsure about which film to use.
If we follow the F16 Sunshinre rule, and being the camera fixed 1/125 and f/11, if we have a sunny day the film sensibility has to be the iinverse we should theorically put ISO 100 and shot at f/16. But F/11 is a stop down so we should increase speed to 1/250 to match f/11. However the camera does not have the facility of speed changing, so the only variable we can touch is film sensitivity, to get the needed speeed step down we had to resource to ISO 50 film....

Am I wrong?. So why most people put ISO 200 on it and get wonderful pictures?....

Jes.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jes wrote:
So why most people put ISO 200 on it and get wonderful pictures?.

Hi Jes. negative accept more than 4 stops of overexposure,
you can also put a 400 iso but it's more expensive


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Jes, I'm using ISO 200 film, but for very strong sun, I think you could
use ISO 100 without problems. For slightly overcast days, ISO 400, and I've
seen some excellent shots from people using ISO 1600 film for lowlight
dusk/night applications.

Thanks, Cosmin, Jes, and Poilu for your comments! These scenes are from
inner city Huntsville which is very quiet, lots of law offices, doctor offices,
toney nightclubs, etc.

Bill


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Bill,

The second set is nicer than the first one, the key is
to avoid "flare", isn't it? Very nice shots!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superb results...

One thing, were you following the lady shown in first 2 pics... Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Bill
I did not post from my first roll. The entire roll was fogged from a STRONG light leaks Sad
I put in a B+W roll and took some frames at Oyster run with it but, half a roll is still unexposed.
I used gaffers tape around the film door. I hope that solves it.

These shots you have show real promise from the $10 plastic fantastic.
Agree with Koji the second set is better. This cams limitations must be played to AYE?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Koji, thanks, yes, watching for flare really helps the outcome with this little
cam!

Ballu, I've been accused many times by the female set that I walk too fast.
She was ahead of me in the first shot, I shot 2-3 pictures more, and still
managed to get ahead of her and up 3 flights of stairs to take her picture! Laughing

Andy, aye, and not to mention the limitations of the photographer! Laughing

Looking forward to seeing your fingerpaintings on the refrigerator, Andy! Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cross your fingers on my light leak.
It looked awful heavy. I hope not from lens/shutter side.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andy, I would demand a refund from the seller if it's leaking light. Of course,
it did go for a pittance. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have enough people laughing at me when it comes to my photography. Don't need to add this seller to that group Laughing

Hoping it is a door leak.
I can live with tape or maybe I'll figure out something else.