this > < close to packing it all in

[markc]

You mention a laser printer. I'd think the idea of taking them to a pro lab and having them printed on actual photographic paper is a good idea. Having someone experienced look at the negs would be good, too.

Unfortunately, getting good at photography comes down to practice, which means taking a lot of pictures, which means taking a lot of crappy pictures. No way around that.

 

[walter23]

A grainy 100? I'll confess to never having used 100 (yet) but that sounds odd. As motcon said, try to post some. Did you get them printed at the local chemist/one hour shop or at a "proper" place?

It could be a case of underexposure that's been compensated for by the lab. Usually my grainy awful shots are ones that are pretty dark (on the negative) and the lab has pumped up the brightness, instead of just printing them as is. Usually happens at dusk or in dark pubs, that kind of thing. Maybe you could try sliding your exposure compensation dial to +1 if this is a very common problem for you, or go to a different lab and insist they print everything as-is.

 

[walter23]

i am hoping to go digital as my sig says but i'm a student with little cash!!

Heh, a fellow "20D drooler"... I'm looking at getting one in maybe 6 months if I'm careful (or lucky with the scholarship applications)

 

[walter23]

thanks for the help. i will take some negs to a pro lab and see what they come up with. i wish my F80 was the Date version then it would print the aperture and shutter on the negs! ah well

Don't fret, I don't think it helps much to have your shutter &amp; aperture printed on the negatives anyway. Unless you are also good at remembering exactly what every scene looked like to your eye before you shot it, and what your meter read on different parts of the scene, knowing your exposure values isn't that helpful in my opinion. Developing your own general strategy for choosing your exposure based on meter readings is probably more useful. Also, with film anyway, overexposure (relative to the meter reading) is usually nicer than underexposure. The opposite seems to be true for digital where blown out highlights are a bigger problem and you can just dodge the dark areas in photoshop.

 

[elsaspet]

Hi ajmall,
I feel your pain! It's an especially big bummer after seeing all the striking photos on this forum. At least you are getting two or three photos out of a roll. I'm lucky if I get two or three out of five rolls. It's gotten so bad my husband has put me on a "developement budget".
I can't remember if it was Ferny or who said it, but I did learn one valuable lesson lately. I had been taking my photos to the same pharmacy I've been taking film to for years. I found out I could get them developed for the same price where I bought my camera so I handed over the rolls. HUGE DIFFERENCE. My composition still sucks, but man it was apples and oranges to the pharmacy developement.

Unfortunately, getting good at photography comes down to practice, which means taking a lot of pictures, which means taking a lot of crappy pictures. No way around that.

If it wasn't for hearing this a few times already from other people, I probably would have packed it in long ago. But dangit, it's so freaking fun!
I'll hang in there if you do.
Take Care
And PS-please try to upload a photo. There is so much helpful advice here. As bad as my photos still are, they have gotten much better after spending so much time on this forum.