Film grain, or Walmart?

[battletone]

4 photos

2 on Kodak Gold 200, taken on Maxxum 5000
2 on Fuji 800, taken on Maxxum 4

Cloud/Sun with 80-200mm Minolta 4.5-5.6 (i think)
Other 3 with Minolta 50mm 1.7


​

Click on the image for the 100% image that Walmart provided.


I have started shooting much more since going digital now that I can afford to shoot well over 5000k photos so far this year and figure out the whole exposure thing.

However, I bought a couple new lenses for my film camera and wanted to test them out.

I have a theory, please correct me if I am wrong.
Does Walmart/Walgreens/etc, scan in and then auto adjust the 8 bit jpg to create the 8bit jpg that I receive? My guess is that in the case of the cloud exposure, they "corrected" the crap out of the small file, inducing 10x the noise/grain than there really is. Now why the barn photo is so grainy, I don't have a theory on. (but even the file they gave me has room to recover the clouds over the barn, however the barn and silo have so much noise/grain, I probably should have photographed a grain bin. That would be more fitting.)

So is that just the grain structure of "cheap" film and I like Fugi 800 better than Kodak 200? Or is it Walmarts doing?
I posted because of another users thread where someone noted the photos looks like drugstore variety film and a photo CD.


iso200


iso200


iso800


iso800

 

[ErectedGryphon]

I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that. Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.

 

[battletone]

I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that. Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.

So you are saying both of these lenses are problem? Wouldn't the 800 speed exposure exaggerate the problem?

 

[ErectedGryphon]

I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that. Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.

So you are saying both of these lenses are problem? Wouldn't the 800 speed exposure exaggerate the problem?

Not "Are" just "Could be", try a roll with these and other lenses, keep note of settings. It could have been the lab, or even been a bad batch of film.

There are a lot of variables, different lenses, rule out the lenses, if the whole roll comes out grainy. To rule out Lab, shoot several rolls of different film, and send them to the same lab. Or shoot multiple rolls (same batch) of the film, and send them to different labs. Either option will let you know if its film or lab.

 

[battletone]

I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that. Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.

So you are saying both of these lenses are problem? Wouldn't the 800 speed exposure exaggerate the problem?

Not "Are" just "Could be", try a roll with these and other lenses, keep note of settings. It could have been the lab, or even been a bad batch of film.

There are a lot of variables, different lenses, rule out the lenses, if the whole roll comes out grainy. To rule out Lab, shoot several rolls of different film, and send them to the same lab. Or shoot multiple rolls (same batch) of the film, and send them to different labs. Either option will let you know if its film or lab.

Okay. Because I also have a Quantaray 28-90mm that I got new with my camera and have had the same grain issues using Walgreens and CVS.

I am just wondering if mail ordering "quality" film is going to rid what I am seeing in the 200 speed film, because the 800 photos I posted do not have too much grain for me, but I wonder if the stores are "fixing" some exposures to an extreme causing it to show much more.

 

[Derrel]

The entire shooting match looks like AUTO exposure and AUTO levels, on everything. Machine-think. Automatically rendering your carefully done work as quickly and as mathematically possible into 18%, averaged-out masterpieces. This is automated, economy film processing and image-handling at its "average", not at its finest. It works great on average scenes, but on many scenes, the image will be artificially lightened up or darkened, depending on what the magical software decides to do.

 

[ErectedGryphon]

I've looked at Quantaray lenses before and wasn't overly impressed. They make good filters in my opinion, at least the PRO-Digital Line.

Heres a review for the lens you specified above: Quantaray 28-90mm

 

[Rifleman1776]

Most of my shots are taken with the 'auto' setting.
I get quality exposures.
But, the prints I get from Walgreen's and Wal-Mart, the only local places I have to get photo services, are, in a word 'lousy'. Grainy, smudgy, detail lost, too light from WM, too dark from Walgreen. I don't/won't use anymore.
My prints come either from my own printer (sadly not with archival inks) or on-line ordering from Kodak. The exception would be very large prints which I get done at a local poster printers.
Do test this by sending some shots to Kodak. They usually have some introductory free offers. You can't lose and will learn where the problem really is.

 

[apertureman]

I don't think the problem is Walmart. They don't do any adjusting, at least I don't think they do, the employees there don't know the color theory.

Since 800 film should be apparently more grainy than 200, my best guess is lighting. Shot #1: Aiming your lens at the almost direct sunlight and projecting that on Kodak Gold (I wouldn't use anything other than professional film) is a recipe for a lot of grain. Been there, done that.

As for your second shot, I really don't know. Like I said, I would suggest using professional film.

 

[battletone]

I've looked at Quantaray lenses before and wasn't overly impressed. They make good filters in my opinion, at least the PRO-Digital Line.

Heres a review for the lens you specified above: Quantaray 28-90mm

I was just pointing out that 3 separate lenses have produced this.

 

[Toronto111]

Maybe digitally cleaning it up really IS the way the original director wanted it to be seen in the first place, but the technology to do that just didn't exist at the time. Besides, this is an issue of personal taste - some people like grain, others are bothered by it... so the studios will do whatever is necessary to make the most people happy. If most people don't like it (which I suspect is the case), then it will be removed and those few who do like it are out of luck.

 

[Battou]

I don't think the problem is Walmart. They don't do any adjusting, at least I don't think they do, the employees there don't know the color theory.

Since 800 film should be apparently more grainy than 200, my best guess is lighting. Shot #1: Aiming your lens at the almost direct sunlight and projecting that on Kodak Gold (I wouldn't use anything other than professional film) is a recipe for a lot of grain. Been there, done that.

As for your second shot, I really don't know. Like I said, I would suggest using professional film.

Yeah they do

The entire shooting match looks like AUTO exposure and AUTO levels, on everything. Machine-think. Automatically rendering your carefully done work as quickly and as mathematically possible into 18%, averaged-out masterpieces. This is automated, economy film processing and image-handling at its "average", not at its finest. It works great on average scenes, but on many scenes, the image will be artificially lightened up or darkened, depending on what the magical software decides to do.

Like Derrel said, it's all automated, the employees there don't need to know the color theory, the machines do it all for them.


@the OP, This is not the film, at least not genarically. individually you might have gotten a bad roll but over all this is not the kind of results you should be expecting.


Some sampling of my Kodak 200 processed through Rite Aid sendout service and scanned at home.

And Sampling os Fuji 800 processed through Rite Aid sendout service and scanned at home.

Now, if you are using the inhouse processing the results are going to be different, sadly I don't have any samples of riteaid in house processing because I was unsatisfied with the splochy apperance in the negitives from it, not to mention my local branches machinery is constantly down.

 

[apertureman]

Yeah they do

Well, I didn't think they did, but I guess if you know they do, you got it. However, I process my film at a dedicated photo center and they scan way better than Walmart. They do adjusting as well (by professional designers), but whenever I process film with them, I indicate on the order form to not adjust any pictures and to develop all frames.

 

[Battou]

Yeah they do

Well, I didn't think they did, but I guess if you know they do, you got it. However, I process my film at a dedicated photo center and they scan way better than Walmart. They do adjusting as well (by professional designers), but whenever I process film with them, I indicate on the order form to not adjust any pictures and to develop all frames.

I have the eveidence if you would like me to post it, just say the word.

 

[apertureman]

I have the eveidence if you would like me to post it, just say the word.

That's alright, I believe you