trouble w/ film photography

[bobaab]

Im sorry in advance that I haven't really searched for my answers...time and my impulsiveness is an issue..

With that said, I have a few questions I'd like to address, and hope to get a reply back for those kind enough to do so.

I've really had not had pictures where I have been satisfied with with my film camera. I'm not exactly sure what is to blame, film, camera itself, or me. But most likely, it's me, and my lack of experience with this camera. I am using a Canon EOS 650 35mm film camera.

The thing that is bothering me is that none of the pictures are as clear as I want them to be. I will give two examples from my last roll of film.

Example 1:
http://img289.imageshack.us/my.php?image=falltrees10242rp.jpg

In this picture, there is discoloration in the picture, and it's still a bit grainy. Can I blame that discoloration to the picture being taken about a month before I developed it?

Example 2:
http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chains10243kx.jpg

In this picture, there is a lot of graininess (please click pic for full view). How do I get rid of that?


From these pictures, what I'd really like to get is a real deep, saturated color. Is changing film recommended? Is it my lense? And most likely..Is it just me?

Just for background info, I used ISO400 Kodak film that you can basically buy at any store. The lense used for both was the 74-300mm Canon lense. Settings of the camera when taking these shots, I don't remember unfortunately.

Thanks so much in advance, hoping to hear back with some good answers.

PS. what is the best way to get pictures from film to computer? I just got these pictures put on a CD from Walgreens, and I KNOW that possibly cant be the best way to get a picture put on a CD. If anyone can tell me about that, that would be great also

 

[darin3200]

If you want a lot of color try kodak ultra-color 400, its a bit more expensive, but worth it. The first pic looks like something went wrong in development or that the film was in bad conditions for the month before development, try refrigerating film if you have to wait a long time for development, and then let it warm up before developing. The second one looks like something that would happen with a CD. Are the prints like that? I've noticed that the CDs from 1-hour places tend to suck. I just scan my prints or if they are really big just photograph them with a digital under good light conditions.
The grain on the print could be that the shot was underexposed and the 1-hour place tried to brighten it up.
650 is a good camera, if you are troubling learning it, there are probably some manuals online
Hope that helps a bit

 

[Hertz van Rental]

In the first shot it looks pretty much like you've fogged the film slightly. Could have happened through a number of causes.
The second one looks fine. Grain is a standard characteristic of film. It is more pronounced in films of higher ISO. It can also be increased by a number of other factors.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

1) your 75-300 is not a sharp lens
2) 400 ISO film is not a very low grain film
3) you didn't use a tripod, did you?

You lab may scan the negative instead of projecting it on paper, so you're at the mercy of their scanner.

But 650 is a good camera. But it only holds the film :meh:

 

[Marctwo]

The first one looks a bit like lens flare to me. Could the sun have been hitting the lens directly?

As said, the faster the film, the grainier it generally is. You can use GEM or NR software to reduce the grain.

You can do a heck of a lot with colour balance and saturation etc. using software like Photoshop.

I'd say get a film scanner. You'll have so very much more control over your images. I'd also say try developing the film yourself. It really is very simple and I've never had a good, clean set of negs from the highstreet labs.

 

[binglemybongle]

Is it possible the first shot had leaves in the VERY near foreground that have blurred so much that theyve just left a smattering of colour over the rest of the shot?

The second i have to agree that 400 film is going to give a certain amount of grain. Also if it was quite a well lit area, the shutter speed is going to have been quite high which increases grain. Possibly a tripod and long(er) exposure/near to smallest aperture may help.

 

[Jeff Canes]

In the first shot it looks pretty much like you've fogged the film slightly. Could have happened through a number of causes.
----.

AGREE 100%

 

[DocFrankenstein]

High shutter speeds increase grain? Why?

 

[Jeff Canes]

High shutter speeds increase grain? Why?

High shutter speeds do not increase grain when you’re using the right film, equipment and the shooting conditions are right for the film. But when you push the limitation of most films. Grain seems to be one first issue that arises. At less that’s my experience.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

High shutter speeds do not increase grain when you’re using the right film, equipment and the shooting conditions are right for the film. But when you push the limitation of most films. Grain seems to be one first issue that arises. At less that’s my experience.

Do you mean you get grainy prints when you underexpose and push the film?

 

[crotograph]

A couple of questions: On the second photo, what filter, if any, were you using? What type of lighting was predominate in the photo? It looks like sodium vapor overhead street lamps. These will give the yellowish cast. You must compensate for artificial light situations in some cases. For instance, fluorescent lighting will give photos a greenish cast.

In the first photo,trees, I agree that the foreground branches were either closer than your lens could focus on, in which case YOU would have to back up. Or, you didn't set the focal distance of your lens, in number of feet, as indicated on your lens barrel, to the correct distance from film plane to object.

As far as quality of your lens I have no idea. Have never used that lens before.
Generally speaking, the faster the ISO the grainier the film. I think, though, that with the new films, Kodak and Fuji, this is not the issue that it was 10-15 years ago. The silver halide grain has been changed to a T grain, on some film, that allows less graininess at faster ISO's.

In summation, there are a few factors that can be controlled with correct filters, knowledge of focus factors and the right film. Check http://www.kodak.com and go to their films pages. There is a ton of info that is worth knowing for us who take photos. :thumbup:

The best way that I have found to get photo to CD to computer is to pay a bit more money and have a professional processing lab do the developing and transfer to disc. I have used Dans Camera in Allentown PA for a couple of years and have found them to be excellent. When they transfer to CD the format for the photos is TIFF. Excellent results. I'll put up a few here so you can see the difference, or, at least compare.

Thinking about it it may very well be Walgreens whose chem batch was old. That could easily have placed the color haze on your photos. In developing color, temp of chems must be tightly controlled from any variance. A change of temp by.5 degrees can affect the entire batch of photos. Hope this helps.

 

[crotograph]

If you want, these are some images from my processor. Go to:
http://photobucket.com/albums/c320/crotographer/
A couple of these are also taken with my D70s Nikon. the scenics are from Dans Camera processing. 220 Agfa Optima 400 ISO. Mamiya m645 80mm f1.9

The snow scenic is from my Nikon FTN- 55mm 2.8 macro. Yep, you can use a macro like a normal (prime) lens.:mrgreen:

 

[Jeff Canes]

Do you mean you get grainy prints when you underexpose and push the film?

[font=&quot]
[/font]Yep. When I shot sports like baseball with film in the passed. Day and night I used Kodak 400VC, EOS1, 70-200 f2.8 IS lens and 2x(day only). The day shoots came out mostly (70%) clear and made nice 8x10 prints, but the night ones where opposite mostly bad

 

[bobaab]

Wow, thanks for all those replies. Everyone one of them is very helpful for me.

-To answer back to a few questions, in the 2nd photo, I DID use a tripod, and I even used the timer so there wont be any jossling of the camera when I push the button.

-I have a circular polarizing filter on in both pictures, could that effect anything in either picture?

-Should I try ISO200 film when shooting night photos?

-I know the lense is not the best, seeing that my mom bought it at Best Buy. Any suggestions on lenses? I'm not looking to buy yet, becuase I think I should try to fix the problems through experience and skill, not just from buying better equipment. A nice outlook of a decently priced lense would be nice...

-I'm hoping it's not the lense because I've done much better photography with 3 different, point and click, digital cameras. examples here:

http://bobaab.deviantart.com

-Also, what setting on the camera is best for a beginner like me? Shutter speed priority, Aperture priority, or should I just straight out experiment with full manual? And also, any tips on getting to know my camera?

Sorry for all these questions, but I really appreciate everyone's advice. Hopefully, I'll be shooting some good photos soon

-Bob

 

[crotograph]

The best thing you can do is sit down with a Kodak book on photography and read that in conjunction with your owners manual. I am not too familiar with the Canon and I doubt that it is the lens. If it is a Canon lens then it should be descent.

As I have mentioned to people who are beginning in the art and tech of photography on other forums, there is no substitue for knowledge of the basics. Depth of Field, Composition, aperture control in conjunction with shutter speeds which all leads to proper exposure. My advice to you would be to read and experiment, take notes of what the camera settings are in EACH photo you take, what accessories you are using at the time and compile a list of what works and what doesn't under the different lighting conditions you shoot. High contrast, low contrast etc. But, above all, educate yourself on basic photography. A camera cannot think. You have to do that. Once you know a bit more you will see a lot of improvement in what YOU like and don't. Getting a critique here or elsewhere is necessary, but, it all comes down to your personal satisfaction. FYI, I think your photos show a very good aptitude toward composition. I liked the comp in both photos I looked at. As I said above, just read and learn and look at others photos and try the same thing as others did. Above all, keep the photo simple. If you saw the Wilson basketball in the leaves on my photos at photobucket you will see that there is nothing else for interpretation. Just leaves and a BB. Try something along those lines. TCrowe :thumbup: