minolta x-700 photos

[cyberspider]

here are some from my minolta x-700 film camera sorry for the rubbish scanner
they look better in the hand
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/mantis2/my%20photography/seen6.png
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/mantis2/my%20photography/seen5.png
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/mantis2/my%20photography/seen4.png
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/mantis2/my%20photography/seen2.png
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/mantis2/my%20photography/seen1.png

[Rol_Lei Nut]

What are you looking for, aesthetic feedback?
IIRC, you want to sell your pictures as postcards?

You live in a nice area (where, if I may ask? I'm just back from a 10 day camping/trek in the Scottish Western Isles, BTW), but landscape photography is largely about light and composition.
For the first, you need to be patient and/or lucky, the second you can vasty improve through study (a good book, looking at great nature photographs or even paintings).

Good luck with your pursuits!

[Ric Trexell]

The X-700 is a great camera, I have two of them and one I bought new in 1986 I think it was. I still use it. Your files though are too big for a dial up connection. If you want to see pics by any camera, go to Flicker and enter in something like 'taken with a Minolta X-700' and you will see pics from other 700 photographers. My camera has been in the shop once in those nearly 25 years. I have started using medium format though as the eyes are having trouble seeing through that little viewfinder on a 35mm camera. Also, my Mamiya RB67 doesn't require anything electronic so I feel they will work for many years. Since the X-700 is no longer made, parts will be hard to find in the coming years. Great camera though and mine have paid for themselves in doing some weddings and just the satisfaction of the pictures I have. I have one blown up to a 24X30 and it is super sharp. Ric.

P.S. I'm 58 and have to realize that if the cameras last me 20 years, that is probably all I will ever need.

[tkamiya]

Based on your last post, I am guessing you are looking for feed back on quality of the image.

I am guessing you scanned 4x6 lab print by a consumer scanner. I am also guessing, the surface of your print was "matt" type. If that is the case, this is pretty much all you can do.

I see the image is little muddy and lacks sharpness. Matt surface isn't really good for scanning especially when prints are small. I also had a personal experience where lab I used weren't maintaining machines/chemicals very well and prints came back not so clear. Trying to scan this makes it look worse.

If your print looks oK in person, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Sorry I can't be more help.

[cyberspider]

i resized to 800 pixels sorry about size

[jamesgignac]

Thanks for showing off some work - I agree you're in a lovely location for photography :)

In terms of the scanning you can always work on that later if you wish or at least build up an arsenal of photoshop skills to try to have your digital image look more like your print. My first advice though is to keep at it - and if you DO end up venturing into black and white and processing your own negatives & printing please keep us posted! :)

I think the shots look great - but yes it takes some effort to look past the 'scaniness' & the 'consumer lab printiness' of the image - the compositions themselves look very promising so keep it up.

[Excalibur2]

As a suggestion:- Why don't you have your negs developed and put on a CD, then you can post the JPGs here...if you are in the UK, Tesco will develope and put up to 37 shots on a CD all for £2 erm sometimes with a few dust spots added for free.

[viridari]

I'm going to risk drawing the ire of many but at least it will make the thread more entertaining to watch.

For those who say the X-700 is a great camera, what makes you say that?

When my father gave me his X-700 and lenses last year, I was excited and blew off several rolls of film. What I got back was bland & mushy like what we see in the OP.

I don't often shoot 135 but my experience in that format is largely with low end Canon EOS gear (Rebel bodies & plastic consumer lens bodies). My results with Canon gear are consistently in a different league from the best results that I've gotten from the Minolta kit.

Every now and then I see something acceptable out of an X700 but the overwhelming majority of what I've seen from my own X700 and from the various Flickr groups have been underwhelming.

[TheSohnly]

gear gear gear
lets drop the name CANON so gearheads will agree with me and hate on fantastic and cheap manual focus minolta glass

I think i understood you and lets agree to disagree

[viridari]

I like to pretend that people wrote things that they really didn't because I don't respect them enough to take their discussion points seriously.

I can see that, but can we get back to the topic at hand?

[cyberspider]

wow my posts seem to get heated lol

ok first off i only have jessops and they offer to put on cd but not at this store

second they are not so muddy looking in the hand but i do see your point but i think its more to do with my skill than the camera and maybe the uv filter

i guess one of the things i was wondering is do i show any talent or an eye for a good shot

and please be honest

thank you

[Excalibur2]

****For those who say the X-700 is a great camera, what makes you say that?***

HUH! For a start it's the person and the lens that makes a great shot, but you need the bit (the body) in between to achieve this, and the X-700 is one of those cameras that just does the job and feels/sounds right.....ok saying "great" might be an exaggeration and used in more of a slang way. Anyway I would say it's an excellent camera especially for the cheap price you can pick them up.

[cyberspider]

well im yet to get a really good shot thats sharp and clear but i cant work out why im not really getting that as my lens is fine camera is spotless

[ooze]

i guess one of the things i was wondering is do i show any talent or an eye for a good shot

and please be honest

thank you

For me, they are bad photographs. The lighting and composition is poor for a start. I can't see "you" in the photograph, in the sense that a good photograph usually also says something about the photographer. The subject matter is also uninteresting (is there a subject matter?). Not that you necessarily need interesting subject matter; there are spectacular photos of uninteresting things in the history of photography.

Don't be discouraged. The way to good photography is a long long road.

Telephoto lenses look impressive themselves but should be used sparingly IMO. Before trying to make great photos with telephoto lenses you should be able to make great photos with normal focal lengths.

[cyberspider]

so what your saying is there rubbish the lighting by the way looks better than the scans you see

even though this scanner is 2400x4800 dpi
thank you for your comment

[Excalibur2]

well im yet to get a really good shot thats sharp and clear but i cant work out why im not really getting that as my lens is fine camera is spotless

Well assuming the camera is not damaged and working OK......believe me, you can get excellent results with the X-700 (well and any decent camera) and I could post shots of what quality you can achieve from a £1 Helios 44m lens from a boot sale as well as zooms from £1-£12, but I don't think it would be of much help to you.
But if you have a useless scanner there is not much point in showing your shots on the forum.

[cyberspider]

iv been checking ebay for lenses but so far not much going

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I can see that, but can we get back to the topic at hand?

Unless the lens is so awful or the body/film collimation is totally out of whack or the light meter/film speeds are completely off, you won't see very visible different results between different cameras in postcard sized photos....

Perhaps directly comparing a top len's result to a mediocre one, you'd see a difference at that size, but how a camera is used will usually outweigh that (again, unless the camera is defective).

So, while certainly not my first choice asa camera, a Minolta X700 is undoubtedly good enough for most purposes.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

well im yet to get a really good shot thats sharp and clear but i cant work out why im not really getting that as my lens is fine camera is spotless

A simple test:
Find a landscape you like.
Take the filter off.
Set the lens to infinity.
Make sure the sun isn't shining into the lens.
Close the diaphragm to f/8.0
Take a light reading off the ground/mid-distance (don't meter sky).
Put the camera on a tripod/fence (if possible)
Shoot several shots, bracketing the exposure (= also using faster & slower shutter speeds than indicated by your meter).

If your shots are then less than vivid & sharp, there's something badly wrong somewhere (the bracketed shots might help track down an exposure or shutter problem).

A new lens is *not* the solution, unless yours is defective or you want a different focal length.

[Excalibur2]

iv been checking ebay for lenses but so far not much going

Well just don't get any lens, check the forums for the best "bang for buck" ones to get. The reason I got Minolta cameras (also have SRT101b with 58mm f1.4 for £12) to my collection was because:- lenses e.g. Vivitar were going a lot cheaper than for say a Nikon.
Anyway you haven't said what lenses you are using...........................