Overall Problems

[vonDrehle]

Well I just got back some of my pictures from Key Biscayne and heres what I got.

On alot of them the sky, instead of being nice and blue with a couple small clouds, its just plain white.

My pictures during the day are grainy

(Shot at about 6:15) The sun was about maybe 40 degrees in the air behind me on the rights (I was taking the picture)


And lets not talk about the night shots. Though I knew they wouldn't turn out.

All shot with my Elan 7ne w/28-105mm lens.
Kodak High Definition 400 Film. (All I had with me)

Suggestions are appreciated. Esp. since I'm going to the Bahamas tomorrow and don't want all my pictures from there during out the same way.

(Wasn't really sure where to put this because the photos are more examples than showing them off)


Edit
Here is a decent picture of the sky that day...

 

[selmerdave]

Well shot #1 is pretty typical, there is a high contrast between the light in the sky and the light on your (backlit) subject in the foreground. Your camera's meter told you to expose somewhere in the middle and you wound up with an overexposed sky and underexposed subject. If you expose for the subject (fill the frame with the subject and make your exposure settings for that) she will be properly exposed, and the sky will be even more overexposed but you can't go any further than white anyway so it will look about the same. To get proper exposure of each you could expose for the sky and then use fill-in flash, or use a graduated filter, or best of all recompose the shot so that she is not backlit as in your last photo. Looks like it was probably an overcast sky and therefore not much different than what you got.

The colours look similar to what I got the one time I shot HD400, I would recommend Gold 200 or Gold 100 if you only have access to standard films.

Dave

 

[Artemis]

That shot with noise has been posted a long time ago...id say a year...but I HAVE seen it before...

 

[vonDrehle]

That shot with noise has been posted a long time ago...id say a year...but I HAVE seen it before...

Not that shot.

The colours look similar to what I got the one time I shot HD400, I would recommend Gold 200 or Gold 100 if you only have access to standard films.

Even the store where I bought my camera only has 200, 400, and 800 film.
Anyone know any safe places online to order film?

 

[wharrison]

vonDrehle:

I am in disagreement with selmerdave, since the scene is "sidelit" not backlighted - you will notice the slightly brighter exposure on the right right of your subject's face and the slight shadow area on the left side. In addition, most of the scenery behind your subject is under exposed. Since both of these conditions exist, it raises the logical question as to why there is no detail - blue sky and white clouds - in the background. Exposure for the "middle tones" really isn't a satisfactory answer especially as the last photograph does exhibit an exposure more closely akin to the "middle tones".

Since we are dealing with a film medium, the solution might be in the printing, but one would have to examine the negative to see if it is well exposed. I also suspect that there might also be a problem with either the battery - it's nearly dead or dying or with the exposure meter - it may be going haywire and/or affecting the setting of the lens aperture and/or the shutter speed. I am not familiar with this Canon model, so I am not entirely certain of this "crystal ball" analysis.

Given these factors, I am not certain that the proposed solution of "fill in flash and/or a graduated filter would do the needed correction. I might be very tempted to have the camera's battery checked and, possibly, the camera itself.

The second photograph doesn't exhibit that much grain. In my mind, there is no reason - under daylight conditions such as these - to make use of ASA/ISO 400 speed film. A 200 ASA/ISO or a 100 ASA/ISO film would be more than adequate.

Outside of appearing to be unsharp - due to lack of depth of field, improper focus, or camera movement and/or a combination of anyone of these factors - there isn't anything wrong with the third photograph. The sky is well exposed as it should be as are the brighter areas. If you had opened up either a half or a full stop, you might have gained more detail in the shadow areas, but you would begin to lose detail in the sky. In short, it is often difficult for film to "bridge" the wide gap between the light and darker areas, although our eyes accomodate the difference quite easily.

With regard to the fourth photograph, I would have composed it differently by simply moving in closer so that your subject is photographed from the waist or arms upwards. On the other hand, I might have taken two entirely different photographs - one being the scene from the hotel room or balcony and the second being a far tighter composition of the lovely subject. In this photograph, the exposure is correct.

Hope this discussion has been more than useful.

Bill

 

[vonDrehle]

Thank you that really does help.
In the first one the sun is up and to the right of where she is standing. I always have trouble focusing night shots. I have very light sensitive eyes at night so when I am looking through the view finder nothing ever looks right so I normally just have to switch it to AF and hope it knows what it is doing. Only scary part about the night shot is that was taken at about 11:00pm. Miami is a very bright city; I’m glad where I live it gets nice and dark.
I've had this camera since Christmas and the battery bar on the display screen is full. But considering the number of shots I have taken you would think it would be getting low by now.
Just a side question.

Would a speedlite or fill in flash be a wise purchase for the future? I currently only have the built in flash.

 

[selmerdave]

I think most modern cameras have a fill-in flash function with the built in flash, if you check your manual you should be able to read about that. The main reason for external flash would be power, added distance between flash head and lens and the possibility of using the flash off camera. I think I would make power the main deciding factor, if you're not doing a lot of flash photography and you can get by with the on-camera then may as well save the money. Chances are if you are doing more than that you may feel the need for something more.

I suppose we can debate about sidelit and backlit but dealing with the situation is basically the same. I bet following a center-weighted meter reading of this composition with 100 out of 100 cameras with fresh batteries would yield the same exposure. Another alternative is to use spot metering if your camera has that function and meter off a middle-toned area of the shirt for example. I guess it doesn't hurt to check batteries but I would be quite surprised if a fresh set of batteries would give you a different reading.

Dave

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The first image is technically back-lit.
With side-lit subjects the light is at 90 degrees to the camera axis.
In the first image the sun position is approximately at 135 degrees to the camera axis which means that the light is coming from behind and to the right of shot (there is light falling on the shoulder to the left as well as the right).
This has put the face in shadow and, in printing, the print exposure has been adjusted (more exposure given) to try to lift the details in the face. This has resulted in the highlights and background blocking out.
The position of the sun relative to the lens may also be giving a bit of flare, which will reduce contrast.
Fill-in flash is one way of dealing with this situation, but watching out for sun position and moving your PoV is better - if it is reasonable to do so.
It is unlikely to be a meter problem seeing as how the other images are exposed OK - but it is a good idea to take a spare (if your battery is replaceable, not rechargeable) if you are going on an important trip.
The night shot is probably a little under-exposed and in printing the exposure has again been upped to get a 'better' print. The printing machines are set to give a 'standard' exposure so they average out the exposure for each print - which is why you often get two pictures taken at the same time and under the same conditions, but because one has slightly more (or less) sky the exposures are different.
In adjusting the exposure to get more detail into the print the grain of the film has been enhanced, particularly in the blacks and mid-tones.
Pictures 2 and 4 are fine.
Enjoy your trip.

 

[Artemis]

Can no one else remember seeing that picture? I have a photographic memory and im like 100% certain because I saw that picture when someone was explaining grain when I first joind the forum....the picutre stuck in my mind and I know this is that shot again...I dunno why...