WHY on earth do they turn out so bad?

[Axel]

I have taken a few pictures with a tripod and with an ISO 100 film. Some of these are manually focused, others automatically.

However, I wonder why they don't have that crisp, clear colors and the clear focus? I am aware of the fact that I should have taken the pictures at dusk instead so more of the surroundings would come out. That can be fixed easily by taking more of the same another day. But the focus is horrible. Some of them are taking with high exposure speed and other with low. But none turns out good IMO! :cry:

It should be said that the film MAY be old. Since I got the rolls for free, I don't know if htey are outdated. But that shouldn't affect the focus and the crispness, right? I mean the colors would be affected if that was the case...

OK, here we go:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

#5 is simply horrible! I don't understand why the colors and the focus is so horrible! Do I have to give up photography or is there a solution?

Thank y'all!

 

[Digital Matt]

It's tough to focus in lowlight. Your camera might not always auto focus on what you want, and it's hard to tell through the lens if you are manually focusing correctly. I don't think you should have necessarily taken these at dusk. Night shots can be taken just fine. Since you have a tripod, I would stop down your aperture and shoot a longer exposure, and hopefully with the increased depth of field things will be more in focus.

Most of my night shots are on a tripod at f/8-f/11 and anywhere from 1/2 to 30 seconds or more. If your shutter speeds are that slow, you should definitely use a cable release, and if you don't have one, use your self timer. None of these were action shots that couldn't have waited 10 seconds to take. If your camera has mirror lock up, you can try that as well.

 

[Axel]

Self timer may be the answer! I guess you move the camera very little, but enough, to make the picture rather blurry.
But how do I focus in dark? Is there a trick to it? Or is it just to stop down the aperture? I think some of them are set to even f/22 and 30 secs and still pretty bad...
It's pretty discouraging when you have shot like 20 films in the past months and the pictures still don't turn out well... Maybe I am having too high expectations for a camera like mine (N50) with a lens like mine (Sigma 35-70)?

 

[Axel]

BTW, what about if a car was passing by the street with lights on. Would that affect it since it would light up the scene for less than a second and then it would return to dark again...?

Also, the problem is that people may be walking by when I have it set on 30 secs and the self timer...

 

[Digital Matt]

If your lens has a focus distance scale on it, you can use that to aproximate the focus, and the DOF will be enough at f/8 or f/11 to render a sharp photo.

If your lens does not have a distance scale, then you will have to either rely on your eyeballs, or light up the scene with a flashlight perhaps, and let the autofocus do it's job.

At 30 seconds, if people are walking by, you probably won't see them. If a car passes by you will see light streaks from it most likely. I can't say what exactly it will do. Night photography is somewhat of a guessing game. It all depends on ambient light, length of exposure, speed at which the car is travelling and angle to the camera, which affect how long it's lights are in the frame vs the length of exposure.

 

[Axel]

My lens has a focus scale on it...

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I would be inclined to suspect the printing.
Did you take them to a lab, perchance?
If you did that'd be it. I've returned more prints to the lab.....
I'd really need to have a look at the negs to sy for sure though. Can you get hold of a neg scanner and scan one. You should be able to tell from that.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Colors are off bc you're using a film balanced for daylight while shooting tungsten lighted scenes.

 

[Axel]

I would be inclined to suspect the printing.
Did you take them to a lab, perchance?
If you did that'd be it. I've returned more prints to the lab.....
I'd really need to have a look at the negs to sy for sure though. Can you get hold of a neg scanner and scan one. You should be able to tell from that.

I took them to one of the typical C-41 labs...

However they seem to be pretty good with film. When I left my TX 400 they claimed to have done the development by hand!

But, I am not saying that they are flawless by any chance!

I wish I had a neg scanner, but unfortunately I don't and the friends I've got don't care the least about photography. That's basically why I have to ask a lot here...

Thanks anyway!

 

[Axel]

Colors are off bc you're using a film balanced for daylight while shooting tungsten lighted scenes.

So what film (please post an example) should I use if that is the problem? I see a lot of good night shots (taken with slow film), so a faster film I doubt would do it, but that's just my guess as an amateur...

Thanks Doc.

 

[Jamie R]

Axel - you could continue to use the same film and add a blue filter (type 80a/b/c or 82 series). Fuji 64Tungsten type film or Kodak 64T can be used without the need for filtration.

As the posters above have stated - the lab's limitations at correcting tungsten colour cast is not unusual. If you were to shoot Fuji Superia 100, you might be surprised at how well it handles tungsten colour cast even without filtration.

No.2 seems to have a lot of unintentional shake btw. The rest are fairly (respectably) sharp on my monitor.

Can't post an example - clients would kill me if they found out. Sorry.

 

[Axel]

Could you link to a tungsten film seller please? I've been looking at adorama and can't find it...

And BTW, what is the main difference between tungsten and regular film?

 

[Jamie R]

Could you link to a tungsten film seller please? I've been looking at adorama and can't find it...

Try B&H? I don't know the American market very well. Fuji 64T is fairly easy to find over here. Don't you have a blue filter of the 80 or 82 series? That would be cheaper......


"And BTW, what is the main difference between tungsten and regular film?"

- Colour balance. Simplistically put - tungsten balance is cooler. In normal sunny daylight, pictures on tungsten light take on a blue hue (you don't want this). In sodium vapour lamps (or anywhere where the light is orangey), the tungsten film 'balances' the orangeyness. So it would get rid of the murky orange your shots show.

Tungsten film is mostly used for indoor shots, specifically to address the colour balance issues on a technical level. It is also an excellent film for cross-processing, but let's not get into that.

Other differences include price ;(
_____

____________
"How many rolls must a man shoot,
before he learns how to do it?
How many pics must he take every day,
before he can say HURRAY? "

Experience comes in different shapes and sizes. Expressing yourself is more important. Misery creates character; Hurray lasts for a day and not much more. No man can rest until he is dead

 

[ferny]

http://www.adorama.com/KKP100T36U.html

That's their only 35mm that I can see.


Tugnsten light is yellow. But our wonderful eyes can correct the hues so that we see white as pretty much white in most lighting conditions. Film can't change like our eyes, it can only record what is there. So tungsten comes out yellow with film designed for daylight. To get around that, you can buy a filter to correct it, allowing you to use daylight film with tungsten lights. Or buy film specialy designed for tungsten lights.


Edit - Oh, and if you plan to use your flash with tungsten film you'll need a filter on it. It's designed to give of a similar type of light to daylight. So it doesn't record as some odd colour with daylight film.

 

[probe1957]

With perhaps the exception of number 5, I am not so sure you have a focusing problem at all. At least, they look adequately sharp to me. I can see details such as the bars on the windows and detail in the door reasonably well. Even number 5, the gift or whatever it is in the foreground looks like it might be sharp. Hard to tell for sure.

Generally when someone has a picture they call "out of focus", something in the picture will be "in focus", just perhaps not what they intended. In other words, it would be unusual to focus so poorly that DOF doesn't put at least something in the picture in sharp focus.

Night pictures can be challenging and really, in my experience, involve a degree of luck. I would try again. Stop the lens down as much as practical and bracket your exposures.

If I had taken the pictures, I wouldn't be happy with them either, but I really am not sure you have a focusing issue. I think you have an exposure issue.