Issue with camera or lens?

[dylan77]

I have recently bought my first film camera and a testing it out to try and work things out. So far both rolls of film that I got back are looking very average.

I’d love any opinions by looking at my photos if this may be a camera or a lens issue. The focus and colours seems quite off and not what I expected, From looking at other people’s photos.

If it helps I have a Nikon f100 and a 50mm 1.8g, And shot Portra 400.

 

[Old_Dick]

Which film?

 

[removed account4]

it looks like the lab prints/scans aren't really very good, if you adjust the levels and burn/dodge a little bit
i am guessing you will be very happy with your results. lab prints and cheep scans are usually kind of bad...

 

[shutterfinger]

Were you manual focusing or AF focusing?
What metering mode?
How many AF sensors were selected if using AF?
Which exposure mode?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have recently bought my first film camera and a testing it out to try and work things out. So far both rolls of film that I got back are looking very average.

I’d love any opinions by looking at my photos if this may be a camera or a lens issue. The focus and colours seems quite off and not what I expected, From looking at other people’s photos.

If it helps I have a Nikon f100 and a 50mm 1.8g, And shot Portra 400.

This is how scans from color films looks on average from average lab. If you came from digital only cameras, it is not going to looks the same. Hair is in focus at all free. You can't zoom in with film at 100% like with DSLR image. Here is grain on the film emulsion .

 

[dylan77]

it looks like the lab prints/scans aren't really very good, if you adjust the levels and burn/dodge a little bit
i am guessing you will be very happy with your results. lab prints and cheep scans are usually kind of bad...

I’ve had 2 different labs do photos and they’ve come up the same

 

[dylan77]

Were you manual focusing or AF focusing?
What metering mode?
How many AF sensors were selected if using AF?
Which exposure mode?

This cameras af is supposed to be very good and with matrix. I used middle

 

[dylan77]

it looks like the lab prints/scans aren't really very good, if you adjust the levels and burn/dodge a little bit
i am guessing you will be very happy with your results. lab prints and cheep scans are usually kind of bad...

Yes I’m thinking time right. Maybe it’s easier for me to shot digital then edit to a film look

 

[kevs]

Without seeing the negatives, these pictures look fine to me; they're sharp, fairly well exposed shadows and highlights, and the colours look fairly accurate. There's a bit of grain and a minor scratch mark in the first one. About what I'd expect to see from a less-saturated portrait film like Portra. A pic of the negatives might help the regulars here to see what's gone wrong.

 

[shutterfinger]

This cameras af is supposed to be very good and with matrix. I used middle

So you used P(hd) [push here dummy] mode and expected spectacular results based on pedigree and other user reports. I don't know what "middle" is.
I currently own a F4s, D800, D300. If I picked up a F100, F5, or F6 it would take me less than 5 minutes to understand its controls including what each position is.
I suggest you get a copy of the instruction manual and go through it with the camera in hand until you can operate it blindfolded after not picking it up for 2 or more weeks.
You can download a copy here: https://www.cameramanuals.org/nikon_pdf/nikon_f100.pdf
While Program mode produces good results it rarely achieves the optimal for the scene. Practice until you can equal or exceed program mode.

I agree with others about lab scans. They're only good enough for you to decide if you want to use the photo without having to purchase the high end print or high end scan. A bad exposure will not scan well.

 

[Smaug01]

I think it's the scanning and post-processing.

Even with film, there was always some level of post-processing. In the 90s, the people making the optical prints would look at each negative then decide whether to add or subtract exposure, and whether to add or subtract yellow, magenta or cyan until the prints looked "right." Paper had something to do with it, too.

With digital scanning, there is a lot more interpretation being done by someone or something. Contrast, colors and many other things can be manipulated easily, once the negative is scanned.

 

[removed account4]

I’ve had 2 different labs do photos and they’ve come up the same

yeah labs don't really do scans very well, and sometimes labs don't make good prints. people down the road from me took 2 rolls of film to 2 different labs and at their register had a sign that said " xyz lab" and "abc lab" so you knew if you took your film to abc you'd get good prints...
if you have your negatives take a magnifying glass/loupe to them and look at how they are. my guess is they have a machine spit out prints without anyone to mind the machine and the scans are ... meh good enough for posting on facebook...

Yes I’m thinking time right. Maybe it’s easier for me to shot digital then edit to a film look

not sure what that means but if it means photograph your negatives ( or prints ) with your digital camera and adjust them yourself yeah i'd do that, you might be happier with the results you get. i'm not sure if you have an interest in learning how to develop your own negatives (B/W), its not that hard, and you will get results you can control better, see the relation between camera light and processing better &c.
not to say lab prints aren't OK .. i'd take the scans you just uploaded here, and just go to whatever image software you use and tweek them a little, you might just do that for whatever lab print you get, no matter the lab ( i know i do ) and be happy ..

have fun !
john

 

[dylan77]

So you used P(hd) [push here dummy] mode and expected spectacular results based on pedigree and other user reports. I don't know what "middle" is.
I currently own a F4s, D800, D300. If I picked up a F100, F5, or F6 it would take me less than 5 minutes to understand its controls including what each position is.
I suggest you get a copy of the instruction manual and go through it with the camera in hand until you can operate it blindfolded after not picking it up for 2 or more weeks.

Actually I used all modes and got the same results

You can download a copy here: https://www.cameramanuals.org/nikon_pdf/nikon_f100.pdf
While Program mode produces good results it rarely achieves the optimal for the scene. Practice until you can equal or exceed program mode.

I agree with others about lab scans. They're only good enough for you to decide if you want to use the photo without having to purchase the high end print or high end scan. A bad exposure will not scan well.

 

[dylan77]

yeah labs don't really do scans very well, and sometimes labs don't make good prints. people down the road from me took 2 rolls of film to 2 different labs and at their register had a sign that said " xyz lab" and "abc lab" so you knew if you took your film to abc you'd get good prints...
if you have your negatives take a magnifying glass/loupe to them and look at how they are. my guess is they have a machine spit out prints

That’s a good idea I will do that

without anyone to mind the machine and the scans are ... meh good enough for posting on facebook...
not sure what that means but if it means photograph your negatives ( or prints ) with your digital camera and adjust them yourself yeah i'd do that, you might be happier with the results you get. i'm not sure if you have an interest in learning how to develop your own negatives (B/W), its not that hard, and you will get results you can control better, see the relation between camera light and processing better &c.
not to say lab prints aren't OK .. i'd take the scans you just uploaded here, and just go to whatever image software you use and tweek them a little, you might just do that for whatever lab print you get, no matter the lab ( i know i do ) and be happy ..

Great idea, I should try that

have fun !
john

 

[awty]

Looks pretty normal for portra 400 in strong light. 160 maybe a bit better or ektar 100.
400 is better in subdued light.
Other than that you could work on your composing, bend your knees, better position your model so they don't look so awkward, get rid of the sunglasses, get closer or switch to 85mm lens, use f5.6 or there abouts etc,....

 

[Kino]

Nothing wrong with the equipment and film you are using. Like others have said, only use lab scans as a sort of "proof" to judge if it merits further work in either the digital or photo chemical realm.

I'd also agree with others who suggest you need to start working on your composition skills. Doesn't matter if you have the best film or digital equipment in the World unless you compose the image in an interesting fashion.

There are many, many online guides and tutorials on composition; here's one:

The camera takes the image, you have to make the image.

 

[shutterfinger]

"Actually I used all modes and got the same results"
Good for you!
A 50mm camera lens (any brand) turned around so you look through the lens backwards makes a good loupe for evaluating negatives. Place the negative emulsion down on a light box and view the fine details in the negative. A monitor screen with a blank text document opened full screen with white background selected makes a substitute light box.

in the 1990's The Darkroom operated a custom lab in the area I was living in. I was shooting ISO 100 at EI80. I was told to double my film speed as the density of my negatives was slowing their work flow down and they did not need the extra density to make an excellent print.. They routinely did gallery quality work.

Color is no more difficult to process tan B&W with this requirement, the film, tank, and developer must be kept within .5°F/-17.5°C for the entire development time and optimal results are achieved if the other chemicals are kept to the same temperature as the developer. Its not that hard to do. Color chemicals do not last long so wait until you have several rolls to process before starting. Mix the chemicals and let them sit for at least 12 hours but 24 is preferred.

 

[dylan77]

Nothing wrong with the equipment and film you are using. Like others have said, only use lab scans as a sort of "proof" to judge if it merits further work in either the digital or photo chemical realm.

I'd also agree with others who suggest you need to start working on your composition skills. Doesn't matter if you have the best film or digital equipment in the World unless you compose the image in an interesting fashion.

I had no interest in composition or other. This is the second roll of film that I’ve shot, And are purely testing for focus reasons only, due to using it for my photography business

There are many, many online guides and tutorials on composition; here's one:

The camera takes the image, you have to make the image.