My first attempt

Back on topic though, I'd make one suggestion, as perhaps a first step.

Get rid of clutter. Quite a few of the subjects on that roll (especially the girl) would be perfectly fine as subjects, but there's so much distraction that any impact is lost. Take more time to ensure that you're only including stuff you actually want in the image.

By the way, I didn't take Geo's comment the way you did.

When he said,
... I thought, yes, I agree. But only because it struck me that I take loads of experimental pictures too. A lot of them are no better than the ones you've posted, and I take them for all kinds of reasons. To experiment with exposure, or focal length, to make sure the camera's working, to see if what I see corresponds to what it looks like in the image, to see what the light looks like. Or just as a grab shot, intending to crop later.

It would cost a fortune, doing it with film, without the immediacy of seeing the results straightaway. I'd never go back to film either, since I'd never do the experimenting, and I'd lose a lot of learning that way.

Perhaps he wasn't really being as insulting as you thought.

Another thought. If you're going to do a lot of this, use a lab that scans the negs straight to hi-res JPGs at the time of processing, and don't bother about getting prints except of the ones you really like. You get a CD instead of a pack of prints, and you should get much higher resolution than 1908x1272.

This will be a lot cheaper than getting the scan done after the fact, and you won't end up with a lot of rubbish prints.

When my main camera was an ME Super, I used to reckon that if 10% turned out Ok, I was doing well. So that's a lot of duds!

Well you have definatly given me a lot to think about!

I will try to see why it is and what it is that I like about certain pictures now and try my best to capture that in my future ones!

In regard to the comment, it is (in my opinion) rude to leave a comment like that without explaining it, no matter how justafiable it might be. And to be honest, the comment itself is a thought in his head so what is the need to put it into writing when there is no-one to benefit from it?

I knew I should have checked the spelling of impeccable ahh how fitting....

EDIT
I didn't get them printed, they were scanned from the negatives AFAIK. Maybe the place I took them to wasn't very good.. Someone recommended a website to send off the negatives to and they are apparantly pretty decent so I'll try them next time!

Absolutely no excuse for them to have dust on, then, or be such a pathetic resolution. Find yourself a better lab!

For reference, I have one of these, since I'm sporadically working through the 10,000 or so negs from my film days.

Each frame is a 70MB TIFF, resolution about 5959 x 3946.

Far more than is justified by the quality of the lenses I used in those days, but hopefully it gives you a comparison.

Looks expensive

Damn, sounds like they are pretty bad then! Will be sending it off to the guys on the internet next time then!

Thanks again for the help mate

Damn right, it was about a grand, and because I'd spent so long deciding whether I could afford it or not, it went discontinued in the UK and I had to import if from the USA. I ended up spending a lot more than I would have, if I'd bought it here 6 months earlier. I don't think you can buy them new anywhere anymore.

Thing is, I have 10k negs, and none of the prints (long story). So mostly I don't know what I've got, and it's memories from about 25 years of my life. So it's worth it to me. I've blogged a bit about experiences with the scanner here and here.

You're welcome.

I can't help thinking that in the long run you'd be better off going digital. Being able to see whether what you've taken is bad or good immediately, and re-shooting from a different location or with different settings, is worth a lot in the learning stakes.

You also don't have to remember to write anything down - all the settings are stored with the file. That's worth a lot too.

I'll have to give it a good long think, the only reason I am here is because I inherited this equipment. Maybe once I have taken a few rolls worth of film, I will venture in to the digital side of things but at the moment it is a relitavely cheap hobby for me. If I really get in to it though, I will definatly try digital for the conviences that you just listed plus auto focus and a few others that seem really helpful!

Damn that is unlucky mate! A similar thing happened to me with a computer part and I ended up having to also get it from America haha!

I know you said don't ask but how exactly did you end up with 10,000 undeveloped negatives!? :-O

Ah well, the deal was, the ex-wife got the prints, I kept the negs. All beautifully catalogued, with dates, places... by her!

Ahh sounds fair-ish! Least you can make as many prints as you want since you got the negs!

And lucky they are organised haha

I am sorry if I have said something wrong. What I meant is after looking at these images I think they are lack of contrast and need a lot of post editing. A jpg file come out from my K110d with kit lens do look better.

I used to shoot film before getting the K110d 4 years ago and result was very similar to yours as well. My comment is nothing personal but point out the fact that I just wouldn't shoot film on 35mm again. Medium format I still do but that is only because I can not afford a 645D.

In his defence, he did use bog-standard 200ASA print film. Upmarket film like Ektar or Reala, black and white film, or slide film, will produce better results, and PP is just as important as with digital. You could improve these with a bit of levels, sharpening and 'noise reduction'.

But they don't look too bad, quality wise.

For me the main problem is that most of the shots remind me of those shots you take to try and finish off a film sio you can process it, if I'm brutally honest though! I do like the shots of the girl though. Lovely eyes, nice DOF - but a shame about the clutter!

Got it in one.

Try picking a single item and issolate it in the frame, either gy moving so distractions are lost or use deapth of field. I assume you were using the standard f1.7 50mm lens, so the background can readily be blurred.

As for scanning in. I've just got one of these and the results are good enough for me.

Technical quality-wise (I'm not making any comment about NAM's images) these are the not best images to judge the potential of 35mm film. Good quality film processed and scanned by a pro-lab would be a fairer comparison than a test-roll of consumer-grade 200ASA print film scanned poorly.

There are a great many reasons to use digital -- especially the experimentation factor mentioned above -- but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Personally I take great pleasure in using both film and digital but am equally happy to acknowledge it isn't for everyone.

Back to the original photographs. I think the images of your girlfriend have potential and are something worth persisting with. In general, try to get much much closer and cut out the clutter. Lastly, unless deliberately done for effect, don't put the main subject in the middle of the frame.

Have fun with your ME Super. My first camera was an ME Super and I took thousands of slides with it armed with just a 50mm f/1.7 and a 28mm f/2.8. I wore the camera out over ten years and replaced it with an MX.

K.

As others have said or implied the composition of your photographs needs work. If you're serious about taking better photographs then take some time to learn the basics of composition. That time will more than repay itself. Here's one short article, but don't stop there, Google for some more and get some different perspectives on the subject. After you've read an article or two have a look at some other people's photographs you particularly like and see how they've made use of some of the compositional principles you've read about.

Once you feel you're comfortable with the basics a good book on the subject, like Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye" might help you take it to the next level.

Are we not in the presence of Pentax Expert Mk II?

G