Could someone please explain this?

Two cameras...both with the same film, from the same lot numbers. developed
at the same time in the same tank with the same chemicals. the difference
is, one came out fine, the othe came out as if way underexposed.
the scenario:
one camera was a nikon fe-2 with a 105mm 2.5 lens. these are the pics that
came out fine. the other camera was an older pentax spotmatic with a 55mm
1.8 lens. this camera yielded the softer results. now, these were also done
with a studio lighting setup, so there was no difference in lighting
conditions.
now that i am typing this, i can only think of one thing. the spotmatic had
two pc connections on it. i used the top one. i don't have an old manual for
this camera, so maybe it was synced differently or something. i still don't
know how that would explain the overall underexposed look. the lens also has
a manual/auto slider that may have been in auto, instead of manual. would
that have mattered?
the lens looks fine. it is very clear. i doubt that it is the problem. the
flash sync speed was only 1/60 of a second on it, but i don't know how a
slower sync speed could account for underexposure. you'd think the opposite.
any help would be great.....

Joe mama

Re: Could someone please explain this?

don't even start with me!
I won't.

Jeremy

Re: Could someone please explain this?

wake up and smell the bi-polar in those statements.
wow, and gear slamming is a novel approach...news flash: i am NOT a
professional either. i do some film in many formats, and some digital as
well. each one has their place. this thread was started by me, with a simple
querie as to the flash sync. if you want to go on about your gear, and your
pet projects, why not start your own thread? or better yet, just go about
your business and don't reply out of context.
and to begin with...i got the spotmatic with a 50mm 1.4 SMC takumar. a lens
that the digital hacks have "fallen over themselves" scavenging on the net.
i wasn't even planning on using the Spotmatic. now that i have, and have
gotten used to its nuances, i may shoot it more than my FM2 and 50mm 1.4
nikkor for a while (i know, another dinosaur setup), who knows? i eben like
my 55 1.8 as well. and it is as clear as the day it came out of the factory.
focuses smooth as silk.
i'm curious to see how these plastic covered gems will be doing in thirty
years.
truth is, the second roll i shot with the camera and lens came out
fantastic. i still would choose this setup over digital any day. digital is
fun, but film is for keepers. the subtleties of this lens are amazing. and
the awe-inspiring SMC bokeh!?!?! don't even start with me!

Joe mama

Re: Could someone please explain this?

I agree. But parts and service from the manufacturer have been unavailable
for 20 years, and those old bodies and lenses can hardly be expected to
stand up to the rigors of professional use without requiring service. The
only way to obtain parts nowadays is via cannibalization.
I stand on my assessment that these are no longer professional tools.
I am not a professional. I am in a line that is completely unrelated to
photography. I have always been an amateur and I shoot for my own
pleasure--not to satisfy a client or an editor. I continue to use the same
digital camera that I bought in 2000. It produced good images than and it
continues to do so now. I continue to use my Spotmatics, ES, ES-II and P30t
bodies. I am not concerned about the eventual need to replace a camera. I
already own about 15 bodies, counting my digitals, M42, K-mounts, film P&S
and my TLR. They are merely diversions for me. I do not rely upon them to
earn a living. I use them for pleasure.
I mainly photograph historic structures and cityscapes that are about to
change. Many of my subjects are places that nobody else has even thought
about photographing. I'm content to let others photograph the Statue of
Liberty, ad nauseum.
I have already accumulated more gear than I could possibly require.
Fortunately I did it over a period of 30+ years, so it did not cost me much
and I enjoy having the stuff around.
If I find myself wanting to get an updated, plastic, digital camera it won't
be any big deal. I am fortunate in that I have the best of both worlds,
with excellent legacy gear and the availability of getting the latest stuff
if I so desire. If I shell out a couple of bucks, I won't lose any sleep.
It's cheaper than having a mistress, and it doesn't nag, either!

Jeremy

Re: Could someone please explain this?

Hogwash. The Spotmatic was a super high-quality camera, compact and robust
and a couple of the lenses were superior to any of the day, and are still
very fine. The Nikon F diminished its place in the market because of the
Nikon's adaptability (changeable finders, screens, backs), but it was not as
compact or durable.
Unless you are at the brink of death, and if you take a lot of pictures
under professional circumstances, indoors and out, you will probably go
digital and replace your plastic fantastic digital camera several times in
your life.

Re: Could someone please explain this?

You're running a bit late in discussing synch for flashbulbs, aren't you?
Kind of like comparing the merits of the Model "A" against the Model "T"
Much as I have received enjoyment from my Spotmatics and SMC Takumar lenses,
they are antiques and cannot be considered professional tools. And I've
grown weary of carrying around all those lenses, filters and accessories.
It may be okay for those times that I feel nostalgic and want to fiddle
around with classic metal equipment, but I find that I spend more time
fiddling with equipment than I spend in actually taking photos. The older I
get, the less I want to fiddle with equipment and the more I want to create
photos. It's a dilemma.

Jeremy

Re: Could someone please explain this?

No need. I reshot a roll and plugged the cord in the "right" socket (X), and
all was well....

Joe mama

Re: Could someone please explain this?

Little Green Eyed Dragon spake thus:
I love it; you make an ad hominem attack (an idiotic one at that), then
cry fowl at "fowl language".
Sheesh.
--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.
Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.
- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

David Nebenzahl

Re: Could someone please explain this?

In article <12di9jb10l9l68d@news.supernews.com>,
In need of attention so bad that to resort to Fowl language "again". We
won't go any further down your misguided path JJS. Further we shall just
choose to ignore. Peace be with your blighted soul.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Little Green Eyed Dragon

Re: Could someone please explain this?

"Little Green Eyed Dragon" <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez@myplace.com> wrote in
message
Empty insults get you nowhere. Put up your pictures or shut the fuck up.

Re: Could someone please explain this?

4 Butt scratching and nose picking no doubt.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".