Troubleshooting Film Shooting with M6TTL

[wstotler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi!

 

I'm posting a few photos for comment and troubleshooting from experienced folks with M6TTLs or M7s.

 

Maybe somebody can comment so I know what to do differently next time out?

 

(I did query the forum for some answers but they were scattered and didn't address this issue.)

 

Please know that I'm only on my sixth or seventh roll of film with the M6TTL, so my experience is limited with film shooting (apart from hundreds of rolls of film shot through a Pentax K1000 in the early 90s). So, go easy on me? I'm learning.

 

Of note, I've run about 13K photos through the M8 so I feel I've got a pretty good understanding of rangefinding and exposure control. I can get it mostly right when running the M8 manually. (But I do better with "mostly right" image quality on the M8 compared to "mostly right" with the M6TTL, hence my concern.)

 

Couple of details

------------------------

(A) I've shot ISO 400 Kodak film and ISO 800 Kodak film. (Making sure the dial on the back of the M6TTL is pointing to the right setting.)

 

( The battery in the M6TTL is a K58L Kodak 3.0V cell--has the height of two stacked batteries.

 

 

Here's my concern--and where I think I'm doing something "wrong":

--------

(1) None of my photos from the M6TTL look anywhere as good as the shots I'm taking with M8. There's always some form of light issue--too dark, too light, etc. Even when I'm metered "dead on" with the Red Spot LED illuminated (no arrows) in the rangefinder window.

 

(2) The saturation isn't there--I'm not getting the same vibrancy of color. The photos generally tend to have a "washed out" look. (Like in digital postprocessing when I've upped the "brightness" control to +10 or so on an image.)

 

(3) The film shots are "soft"--they don't have the same "crispness" as the shots taken with the M8. (The M6TTL rangefinder appears to be "spot on" in terms of focus.)

 

(4) Results aren't consistent from image to image regarding the "saturation" and the "softness." Some come out just "OK," others come out washed, others come out on the dark side.

 

(5) I would expect the kind of photos I'm getting would be from a disposable camera or from a cheapie--not from an M. Especially when I compare the photos to what I get from the M8.

 

 

More

--------

I don't think I'm dealing with an equipment malfunction.

 

I do think I'm dealing with a camera operator malfunction because I just believe the M6TTL is less "forgiving" to the operator.

 

 

A few samples are below.

--------

The "washed" closer shot near the pool ladder was taken with a 35mm f/2.0 Summicron (new--and IR cut filter removed).

 

The "darker" wide shot of the whole pool was shot with a CV15. (I expected some vignetting but this was just dark.)

 

ALL of my photos don't look like this--these are the extremes. But all the photos do have some form of issue like this.

 

As far as I know I'm going through all the "motions" per the Gunter Osterloh M book. But I'm at a loss right now.

 

I'll take suggestions in working style, film, etc.

 

Thanks so much!

Will

 

-----------

[frc]

The one on the left looks a bit overexposed and has a lot of flare.

It looks according to the shadows that the sun was just above the upper right corner of the frame, do you have the hood attached.

The right picture shows some vignet but not more than I'd expect from a lens this wide, but it looks like the exposure is at least a full stop less than the previous pic.

Remember that the effective area of your meter varies with the focal length of the lens.

In this situation reading the grass should give you correct exposure.

Hope this helps.

[earleygallery]

Couple of things immediately spring to mind.

 

Are these examples scans of ????? could be a processing issue. Who processes your films, do you get en prints? Are these scans you've made from the negs?

 

800 speed film is way too fast (for the sort of conditions in your pics) which could be an issue?

 

Are you metering from a suitable area? Don't forget that the meter area in an M is fairly small, like semi spot - its the 90mm frame line area I believe?

[earleygallery]

In both the above photos, if you metered as you took the photos the meter will be picking up the bright path area, and the highlights on the pool = under exposure, which if these are scans from commercially printed film would look how I would expect.

 

Scan yourself and you may be able to retreive something from them.

[frc]

On a 50 mm it is about the 90 frame.

Wider it becomes a lot larger ( we're talking about a 15 mm here )

Processing crossed my mind aswell, could be part of the problem.

Scanning, if, you;ll find out when you do the same negs elsewhere.

[wstotler]

Are you metering from a suitable area? Don't forget that the meter area in an M is fairly small, like semi spot - its the 90mm frame line area I believe?

 

On a 50 mm it is about the 90 frame.

 

Gentlemen, thanks.

 

The metering area is much, *much* larger than I thought. (I was imagining the metering area to be the size of the focusing patch--no larger.) And I didn't know that the metering area "grows" as the lens gets wider. (Although this makes *perfect* sense.)

 

Going forward I'll do two things:

(1) Meter with the 90mm frameline area in mind (more or less).

(2) Choose a more appropriate film stock--a 100 or 200 for bright days instead of a 400 or (inappropriate!) 800.

 

Thanks!

Will

[wstotler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just to properly close this thread:

 

Using the basic suggestions people provided here, I. . . .

 

(1) Shot 200 speed film.

 

(2) Carefully metered, using the 90 frameline area as my guide for area being metered (instead of the rangefinder patch). And, frankly, paid more attention to where I was metering.

 

(3) Kept the 35 Cron's lens hood was on at all times.

 

(4) Processed the film at a different lab.

 

Shots came back looking *great*--saturated, moderately contrasty, and tack sharp. Problem solved.

 

Thanks again to everyone that gave comments in this thread to help me troubleshoot. I feel really good about shooting on film now that I know I can get good results.

Will