Olympus OM10

[Nancy B]

These pictures were shot with my sister's Olympus OM10, which I rescued from her camera bag. She hasn't used the camera for years, as she has gone over to the dark side (digital). So, I brought it home, put some Kentmere 400ASA film in it, and took it out a few times.

I used to think the pictures she shot with it were not so great, and I could never figure out if it was her, or the camera, or the film or a combination of all three. It did take me a while to get used to the metering on it, but all in all, I'm fairly pleased. I think I'll try it again when the weather is warmer, as most of these were shot on a very cold day, and I don't think the film liked the cold!

I think it's a bit grainy, but not too bad.


\

[jamesmck]

Nancy, your shots have a nice timeless quality to them (the grain contributes to this, of course). I have an OM-1 and an OM-2n, and am very fond of them. Have you drawn any conclusions about your sister's work with the OM-10?
--- James

[Nancy B]

Thanks James, "timeless quality" is a good way of looking at the shots. You're right about the grain, I guess I'm more used to film that is much less grainy.

I think maybe the camera doesn't do well in shutter priority mode, and my sister should have used it in manual mode. She had the adapter that goes on the front of the camera the whole time, but maybe it was confusing for her. I know it took me a little while to figure it out, and I've been using analog SLRs a lot longer than her. The instruction manual I found online is so odd!

Either that, or she just used crappy film. It's hard to tell. Maybe next time I'll run some colour film through it and see what I get.

[Brazile]

Nancy,

I'm pretty sure that's just the film. My old OM10 (with the FC module) was my first camera and did very well for me. Here's a shot of my wife and son from 1987:

bat4-149 by rbrazile, on Flickr

and a more recent shot (2012, a roll of expired Reala 100 I used to test the camera and make sure it was still working)

OM10FC-029, Motif #2? by rbrazile, on Flickr

These are both with the kit Zuiko 50/1.8 that came with it. I later inherited an old OM-2n from a relative that came with the 50/1.4. Aside from being a bit faster, I didn't find that it was any better than the f/1.8 model.

Robert

[Nancy B]

Rob, seeing your shots, it makes me think the film is likely the problem. I will put some nice Fuji colour film through it soon and see what I get.

[Julio1fer]

The second shot in the series is beautiful, the reflections in the pool at the left are very interesting subject matter.

The grain looks a bit too much for a modern 400 ISO film, although I have never used that film. Could there be some development issue?

[Nancy B]

Thanks Julio. I agree that it is a lot of grain for a modern film, but as I developed the film myself, then I am to blame. I followed the guidelines in the MDC, but maybe it was not the right recipe. I didn't use a chemical stop bath with this roll, I only used water, that couldn't be the problem, could it?

[davela]

The OM10 is quite a capable camera for its relatively low cost today

[Julio1fer]

I didn't use a chemical stop bath with this roll, I only used water, that couldn't be the problem, could it?

No, it should not be the stop bath. It is something that happened before that stage. As I have never used that film, I really cannot comment very much. What developer did you use and for how long? Temperature? I am sure that there is somebody in the forum with specific experience.

Usually you will get less grain if you:
- use more concentrated developer for a shorter time
- pull the film, i.e. expose at one stop over (expose as if for 200 ISO film instead of 400) and develop by about 30% less.
- use a fine-grain developer

On the other hand, many people would work hard to get that grain on purpose! Please share the details!

[LarryD]

I have used the Kentmere 400 but only in 120. I found it similar to HP5+ for grain.