Minolta 3000i a Super Simple SLR

I recently purchased a Minolta Maxxum 3000i body from Used Photo Pro in Indianapolis. I was looking for a very simple SLR & this is it. I mounted it with a Minolta AF 50mm lens which is my preferred focal length for street photography.

The Minolta 3000i is essentially a point & shoot in an SLR body. There is only a Lock/On switch, shutter release, P/H (program / program hi-speed), self-timer button, & a focus mode switch. That’s it.  P (automatic) mode only. The high-speed mode is simply when you photograph fast moving objects. The camera uses DX coded film. ISO range from 32 to 3200. ISO is set at 100 when using film without DX coding.

I’ve used the camera a few times and it’s efficient. Just point & shoot. Like I said, nothing to it. Personally, I like more control (i.e. aperture priority, manual mode, ability to push film, etc.) on a camera. I would use it when I just want to run & gun. It’s a really nice starter camera for someone who is just getting into film.

Here are a few photos using Fomapan Action 400

Canon L2 with an Industar-61 53mm Lens

Rangefinder cameras are my favorite. Not sure why, but I’ve always liked the 35mm film form factor. I think that’s why I’m drawn to the Yashica Electo, the Leica M line & similar cameras.

Yesterday I added another rangefinder to my lineup. Hopeless, I know! I purchased a Canon L2 (without a lens) from Used Photo Pro at Roberts Camera for $95. I saw it the other day. It didn’t have a lens, so although I’ve always wanted a Canon L1, L2, L3 or 7 I didn’t consider it without a lens. I knew it took an M39 Leica Thread Mount type lens. Original Canon LTM are pretty pricey. Since film is just a hobby for me (pro work is all digital), I couldn’t justify the price. I thought maybe I could go the adapter route, but honestly, I said to myself “Steve you JUST bought a Leica CL”.  

However, when I got home I remembered my Fed 4 which has a Industar 61 53mm LTM lens. I hadn’t used the Fed 4 for some time so wheels started to spin. You know how it goes (or at least how my brain goes) – should I or should I not?? I didn’t resist, off came the lens and the next day took it down to Roberts.  The lens fit, the camera felt good, everything worked….so I bought it.

Here she is without the lens (as purchased) and the lens I put on it.

I wanted to give it a go immediately. It was a bit of an overcast day but still bright. Since the max speed on the camera is 1/500 I picked up a roll of Kodak TMAX 100 & loaded it up.  I walked around for about an hour and just took some test snaps.

The camera handles like a dream. Very smooth, quiet shutter, good weight & the rangefinder is fairly bright of an old camera. It very much has a Leica vibe going on. The Industar lens is also good. Although mine looks a bit “rode hard” it focuses smoothly, the aperture blades are smooth and it looks nice on the camera. A nice combo, and anyway 50mm (this is 53mm) is what I prefer for street photography.

I brought the film home and developed / scanned it last night. I’m happy with the results.  Here are a few examples (these are just test shots).

I’m very happy with the camera. It was a good price, got to put a lens into use & it looks nice. This might be my current go to rangefinder.

The FakMatic Adapter - Bring Those Instamatic Cameras Back From The Dead

I have fond memories using 126 sized cartridge film in my Kodak Instamatic & similar cameras when I was a young lad.  Nothing was simpler than dropping in a film cartridge and shooting away. Those days are long past and so is 126 sized cartridge film. It hasn't been produced in years.

There is now a way to bring back those Instamatic styled cameras. Camerhack in Italy makes a 3D printed 126 adapter called the Fakmatic. It's a simply 3 piece 126 cartridge sized adapter that holds a roll of 24 exposure film.  There is a bit of dark bag or dark room hand rolling and slight camera modification required, but once you do it once it's very straightforward and simple.  

Here is a YouTube video that shows you how it's done.  I watched a couple of times and quickly got the hang of it. I bought mine through the Film Photography Project store. 

Here's what my adapter looks like

I've used it twice. First in a Kodak Instamatic X-30. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the camera to work properly with the adapter so the film wouldn't advance. The video & the FPP information says some cameras don't behave well with the adapter. I tried it again with the Agfamatic 100 shown above and it worked well.  

There is a bit of trial & error with each camera. As an example the video says you need to take a shot, advance the film, take shot with your hand over the lens, advance the film & then take another shot.  This allows proper film spacing. However, with my Agfamatic 100 I need to take 2 blank shots after each good one. On the roll I just finished I mostly have overlaps.  Kind of cool however.

I develop my own film do unloading the cartridge and developing the film is simple. If you send your film out to the lab there is an extra step you need to follow. The video lays this out.

So if you have a 126 sized cartridge film camera, you now have a way to Frankenstein them! I did and am enjoying it.  A few photos from my overlapped roll.

Kodak Portra 400 Side-By-Side with Fujicolor PRO400H

When using COLOR 35mm film in the studio or street photography I primarily use Kodak Portra 400. I sometimes use Kodak Gold or Fujicolor Superia X-tra 400 when I want a more affordable option, but I prefer Portra (both 160 & 400).

I recently used several rolls during a street photography photoshoot in New York City. After I returned several people commented about trying Fujicolor PRO400H. I investigated the film as I had never used it.

Following up I bought 2 rolls of the PRO400H at Roberts Camera and decided to give it a go. However, first a head-to-head comparison with the same camera I used in NYC. I used an Olympus MJU-1 in NYC with the rolls of Portra 400, and it just so happens I have 2 of them. I went out the other day and loaded one MJU-1 with Portra 400 & one with PRO400H.

I shot every scene with both cameras back-to-back. I developed the film at the same time using Unicolor C-41 in the same tank. The film dried side-by-side. Finally, I scanned the negatives on the same scanner, an Epson V800 Photo with the same settings.  I imported the images into Adobe Lightroom and only cropped, removed dust spots and slighting increased contrast on all of the photos equally.

Here are the results side by side

My non-scientific thoughts from 1 roll each on a somewhat overcast afternoon:

• Kodak Portra 400 dries fairly flat but Fujicolor PRO400H curled (corkscrewed) a moderate amount. Since I develop / scan film myself the curling is an issue.

• My observation is Portra 400 is a bit “richer”. Shadows and blacks seem darker. There appears to be a bit more depth on some of the Portra images. Some of the Fujicolor PRO400H images appear a bit “flatter”. I don’t think I would notice this if I wasn’t looking side-by-sides.  
• Portra appears warmer & PRO400H cooler. There is more yellow in the shadows and midtones on Portra & more blue / green on the PRO400H
• Concrete, aluminum & metals appear more accurate with the PRO400H. These textures on the Portra images have a slight yellow hue.
• PRO400H has a bit of blue in the reds and Kodak has yellow.  This was obvious in the photo of the caution cones.

Overall, I prefer the Kodak Portra 400. This is mainly because when using film in studio I’m photographing fashion models and the yellow tones are closer to true skin color.  Also, I tend to like warmer tones overall.  HOWEVER, I think for street photography without a focus on people Fujicolor PRO400H would be better. I think the cooler tones compliment the color pallet in street photography. 

Bottomline, in my opinion both films are nice, however, the curling of the PRO400H is an issue for me & I prefer a warmer image.  Therefore, I prefer Kodak Portra 400. Obviously, your results and tastes may vary.

Polaroid Originals - Polaroid is BACK

I’ve been a fan of instant photography for years. When I was a kid I enjoyed using several Polaroid cameras. Fast forward and about 5 years ago I got back into the genre when Impossible Project kicked off their line of instant films.

Although I regularly shot Impossible Project film it was VERY expensive and honestly the quality was just OK and not consistent. Sure, some people thought the lomo look was nice, but I prefer a bit more richness and saturation on the color and more contrast on the B&W. Therefore, I moved over to the Instax line.

With Impossible Project’s acquisition of the Polaroid brand and rebranding Impossible Project as Polaroid Originals came a big POSITIVE change.

The key isn’t simply the rebranding, but the quality and price. The IP film typically cost $23-24/pack before tax. I bought a pack of Polaroid Originals 600 Color for $18.99. Still pricey, but being less than $20/pack is reasonable in my book. Also, from my first experience the quality is better.

I shot my first pack last week in my studio during a model portfolio shoot.  I used a pack of Impossible Project 600 Color side-by-side with a pack of Polaroid Originals.  I used the same camera, a Polaroid OneStep CloseUp and similar lighting.  All photos were taken with the ambient lights in my studio & the camera flash. It’s fairly bright in the studio. The light dark slider was set to the middle on all shot.

Here is my opinion of the side by side quality.

• Skin tones are more natural. Still a bit on the red/pink side but much better than the IP chemistry (note, this could be influenced by the lights in the studio),
• Image is sharper. It appears almost as if I sharpened the Polaroid Originals in post editing, but not the IP shot,
• Colors pop and have more contrast. I noticed this in the reds, yellows & blues,
• Blacks are richer,
• Shadows are cleaner,
• Development time is faster (although to get full quality it still takes a few hours, but within 20+ minutes I had a useable image),

Here are side by side photos:

Impossible Project Color 600

Polaroid Originals Color 600

The quality & developing speed is still not up to Instax quality / speed standards, but I see Instax and Polaroid as 2 different experiences. I honestly don’t use them for the same purpose.

I’m back in.

Kentmere 400 Pushed to 800 - Olympus OM10

I regularly use 100' bulk film to keep my 35mm film cost manageable.  Recently I've gone through several boxes of Ilford HP5+, Ilford XP2, Arista EDU, Kodak TRI-X and now Kentmere 400. 

Harman Labs produces and sells Kentmere films which leads me to believe that Kentmere is a "cheap", lower QC version of HP5+.  Good enough for me to give it a go.

I brought several bulk loaded 36 exposure rolls with me to a street photography afternoon in downtown Louisville. It was a "murky" day.  Bright but extremely hazing and overcast.  No direct sunlight, or shadows.  It was like being in a giant softbox.  I wanted to do general street scenes.

Because it was overcast and I wanted higher speeds I pushed the Kentmere to 800. Ilford HP5+ is very push friendly, so I figured this would be as well.  I had hoped to push the film to 1600 but my camera mysteriously locked up when I set the ASA dial to 1600.

My camera of choice for the street shoot was an Olympus OM10. I purchased this camera at a New York charity shop for $20. Works A-OK (except the weird ASA issue) and is clean.

I shot 3 rolls in this camera. Once home I developed the rolls in Ilford Ilfosol3 for 6.5 minutes. I scanned the negatives with an Epson V800.  Imported them into Adobe Lightroom Classic and used the tool to crop & adjust the histogram only.  

Some results:

Overall, I'm happy with the film. It pushes easily to 800 (will test at 1600). The blacks are black & whites white. The grain at 800 with Ilfosol3 is very manageable and pleasing.  I'll be running a side by side with pushed HP5+ soon, so stay tuned for that.  Bottomline, a good general purpose B&W 35mm film.