View Full Version : 1st roll from Canonet QL17 GIII
Here are a couple of shots from my first roll of XP2 using my (new !!) QL17.
It was a gloomy day & the film was rated at 400. Looks like it could be underexposing a bit. I`ll try my next roll at 200 i think & see if thats any better.
The camera seems ok, even spacing & no leaks etc, but i`m not too impressed with the scan from the lab. It`s the first time i`ve had a film scanned to cd instead of getting prints done but i would have expected better from a 6mb file.
The negs are fine though, nice & clean. They also have a roll of HP5 120 from me, i wonder what that will be like.
Looking good Ken.
I've still not got round to putting my first roll (of XP2 coincidentally) through my canonet.
Those exposures look okay to me for a gloomy northern day. Or did you adjust the levels before posting?
Got any shots with the lens wide open?
Nice. Congrats! Just got one of these myself- quirky, cool camera.
nice photos.interesting atmosphere of loneliness. send some more from that roll.
Indeed...post a few more. Its quite a good little rig eh?
Funny you should mention the QL17. I just got back from shooting horse country in VA and the shots/quality of my QL17 blew me away while the shots from my Bessa R/Jupiter 9 were just "okay" - The Canonet is an amazingly capable little shooter with a terrific lens, great meter and inobtrusive as can be. Who takes these little things seriously? You gotta love it. Put in a roll of XP2 and you're set.
I have also been very impressed w/ the quality of shots taken w/ my Canonet, which I've had now for about 7-8 months. I tend to shoot color w/ mine, and like the warmer tones I get w/ films like Portra400NC. I wouldn't say the results were better than w/ my Canon or CV rf lenses, but they're definitely in the ballpark. And the Canonet is more compact than most of my other rf bodies, so it gets taken out more often. In fact, I was thinking that a Q17 GIII, coupled w/ a Bessa T and a wide and/or short tele would be a versitile travel kit. I could cover 28-40-100 focal lengths w/ two lightweight, compact bodies.
@Anglekat -- Your shots look good; they don't appear underexposed. With c-41 bw films, however, much can depend on the lab and scanning. A number of folks (myself included) have liked the results w/ XP2 shot at iso 200. Worth a try.
Keep posting and congrats on your Q17!
You know, the Canonet is one of those cameras that get a lot of hype and...generally lives up to it. Fast lens, reasonably sharp (a Leica it ain't, but it's a good lens), shutter priority, small form factor, full manual mode. Only thing is that the meter doesn't go past 800 (though films didn't really go that fast to begin with back then and using creative dev. techniques one can get around that) and that the shutter dial can be damaged by...people who don't know what they are doing (I will never let someone "look" at my canonet anymore with anything other than their eyes).
It's amazing how well the canonet has stood up over time.
So, you have learned your lesson Kaiyen. LOL
It could be the scan, or just how they appear on my monitor, but i do get the impression that they are too dark.....even though the negs look fine......must be me:bang: . Next roll will be at 200 i think, just to see the difference.
I have really enjoyed using the camera since i got it, played with it loads until my film arrived.....as i`m sure most of you did :D .
All of the shots were taken at Sutton Bank near thirst in North Yorkshire, about 40 mins drive from home. It`s a huge long escarpment overlooking the vale of york & the view was described by James Herriot (vet ) as the best in yorkshire.
This first pic is on a small nature trail & i think was wide open, at worst it was F2.
Second is of a small memorial to dead aircrew overlooking the edge of the bank.
& last is the road to Thirsk going over the edge ( i think it`s about 1 in 4 with a couple of hairpins.....good for trucks to get stuck on !! )
Thanks for all of your good comments.
I have learned my lesson, and you know I have, since you've fixed it _twice_ for me. The 2nd time I think the very first night I took it out after you fixed it the first time...
Ken - what do you mean by "dark?" That is a tough word to define when it comes to film. XP2 is chromogenic, but since it has a clear base you should be able to tell density relatively well. Are you saying the overall image is too dark? Or that the shadow areas are coming out black instead of detailed?
XP2 is often shot at 200 anyway, so that's not a bad idea. But if the shadows are darker than you wanted then that's definitely an EI/exposure issue. But if the shadows are fine but the images on screen look too dark, then you just need to work on them on a calibrated screen.
FWIW, I think you have pretty good shadow detail in your shots, esp. based on the Canonet's metering pattern (or lack thereof). So I'd say your need is just a curve to bring some of those shadows up. Watch blowing out your highlights, though.
I agree. there is good shadow detail and there appear to be completeley white areas too.
If you know Photoshop then check the levels of the scan to see if there is a good spead. I suspect there will be but with maybe the more information down at the darker end. My guess would be that this is simply because it was a dull day.
If you want lighter, less contrasty, creamy tones then my choice would be Delta 100.
Yes, XP2 is not so pretty when under exposed. You will be much happier with rating it at 200. Congrats, the QL17 is a great little camera---fun to use too!
It`s the apparent lack of detail in the shadows i was worried about. A touch of curve applied to the shadows has helped, so most of the detail i was looking for is there. All of the shots i`ve posted have been as they were scanned. just saved for web.
The levels for most of the shots are fairly even, no gaps at either end.
I`ll certainly try 200 for the next roll.....probably on a better day too.....we`ve had a very wet couple of weeks here in yorkshire.
It is a personal judgment about which areas you intended to be detailed shadow, so if you are finding that those areas are too dark then yes, you need more exposure. Best of luck, and keep shooting.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.