New to film, lackluster results???

[aloomens]

Greetings!

I've been shooting with a digital camera for about 5 months now, and have recently got a Canon A-1 and enlarger and darkroom equipment. I will eventually be shooting B&W and doing my own processing. Before trying that though, I shot a couple of rolls of color film, and had them processed. I was, to say the least, underwhelmed. The pictures just seemed flat. Textures where mostly, fairly well defined, but the colors where flat, maybe even a little washed out.

I was shooting outdoors, landscapes, horses etc. I was using a Fuji, ISO 100 film, slightly towards evening. I was using auto-exposure.

So, I have some questions:

I question my technique. Am I doing something wrong (although I've been pretty happy with my digital results)?

Is there possibly a problem with the camera (leaks, meter not working correctly)? It's pretty old, and was sitting for a while.

Was I using the wrong film, or is the processing possibly not very good?

Thanks for any suggestions!

 

[blaze-on]

100 iso towards evening on auto exposure is probably a bit too slow a film and you had it lab processed and most are scanning the negs (quickie style) then printing digitally, which tends to give a flatter look I feel.

Without seeing samples or exactly which film, that's my guess.

 

[Jerry Basierbe]

Try using the camera on manual mode, aperture priority or shutter speed priority. Take meter readings then bracket some exposures and see which exposures get you to what you like.

Jerry

 

[keithwms]

Let me suggest rating your film a little bit lower. In other words, if it is ISO 100, shoot it at ISO 80. Then develop it normally. In other words, slightly overexpose the film. This is a very common and simple way to get punchier colour out of colour neg film. You can see the effect by bracketing your exposures by a third or half stop. Bracketing will teach you a lot about colour neg film and how to manage contrast and saturation.

Coming from a digital background, you may expect more popping colours (and there is the tendency to oversaturate digital captures). You will soon see that you have a lot more exposure latitude with film and can get a variety of effects without having to resort to postprocessing.

Let me also recommend Fuji pro s. I like reala for basic shooting but definitely prefer pro s for anything critical.

It could also be your processing but c41 is pretty hard to screw up, so that is likely not the issue (I guess).

 

[tac]

Without seeing the negatives and prints, I can't really say for sure. It could be bad film,or bad processing, but those are lower probability. Problems with the camera are a bit higher probability.

Shooting towards evening and using autoexposure might suggest that the camera's meter may have been 'fooled' by the light, and underexposed your film. Make some exposures with your back to the sun and see what you get.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Try another roll in broad daylight; evening light is touchy, and many auto-exposure systems can be fooled by it. Perhaps modern matrix metering is better, but personally, I expose manually most of the time, so I don't know.

You also have to bear in mind that as lights level go down, so does contrast. An evenly lit scene at noon has far higher contrast than an evenly lit scene at 6PM. Evening light is flat light, so to have a useable negative in B&W, you may need to develop more and/or print on a more contrasty grade of paper. In colour, unless you do your own printing, and can use contrasty paper, you're stuck with whatever the lab technician deemed appropriate.

 

[colrehogan]

Without film in the camera, you might want to point the camera at yourself and set the shutter for something long, like 1/2 or 1 sec and make sure the aperture blades of the lens are closing down when the shutter fires.

 

[aloomens]

Without film in the camera, you might want to point the camera at yourself and set the shutter for something long, like 1/2 or 1 sec and make sure the aperture blades of the lens are closing down when the shutter fires.

I did use the depth of field preview button to be sure the aperture closed down. I'll definitely try it like you suggested.

Thanks.

 

[Uncle Bill]

Hi,

I would have gone with 400 ISO film in late afternoon/very early evening. The one upshot with negative film is you have a lot of stop leeway either way off the box speed. Digital is a lot like shooting slide film and your exposure tolerences are a lot tighter.

There is a learning curve and believe me, I have a huge pile of my early mistakes. I would try shooting with the AE (trust the force) and shoot manual as mentioned the meter can be fooled.

Welcome to the world of film.

Bill

 

[jd callow]

For colour neg Film...

• Shoot good film,
• rate it at half the box speed
• bracket every shot +/- 1 stop (Take notes and be consistent)
• have a pro lab develop the film
• Get a contact sheet or even 2 depending upon the range of exposures
• Ask the lab to help you identify the best exposures
• shoot another roll and repeat using the best speed setting and bracketing in 1/2 stops

I'd be willing to bet that at the end of the process that you'll be happy with some of the results and the ones you liked the best were expossed at anywhere from 1/2-2 stops under the box speed depending upon your style and the accuracy of your equipmement.

 

[DBP]

You may also want to check the lens for haze and fungus, as it might have collected some over the decades. Just look directly through the lens against a strong light, preferably a colored one.

 

[copake_ham]

My initial reaction, like some others here, is that ISO 100 is a bit too slow for late afternoon/early evening.

Also, it would be helpful to know what film you were shooting. Braxus here has done some interesting color comparisons of different Kodak films by ISO and the side-by-side shots show quite striking variations in color shades, tones and "punch".

You might want to do a search here of his threads in that regard.

The other suggestions are worth looking into also.

My first camera years ago was a Nikkormat FT-2 and I found that it delivered best results when I shot with the TTL meter slightly biased toward the negative setting (i.e. I somewhat "overexposed") so setting the ISO to 80 for 100 might well do the trick.

Most importantly, don't be discouraged by a few "failed" rolls. Digishots will be consistently "good" but once you get familiar with shooting film I think you'll find it much more rewarding. Just keep in mind that you're on a learning curve and doing well because you thought to ask the question.

 

[jd callow]

I doubt it is the film speed as kodak's 100 speed consumer films have lots of punch and I suspect the same for Fuji. Guessing and setting the 'iso' to 80 is one way to do it, but rolling dice might be as good or even better. Testing and finding out what your metering skills will give you with your equipment is the first step toward finding where you should be when rating film.

I have only run across one colour neg film that worked well at or above the box speed. This is not to say that film speeds are not what the manufacturer says they are, but that multi layers and ability of most films to handle extra exposure without blocking up means that you will get 'more' colour, more shadow and the appearance of finer grain when you give the colour neg film more light. You will find your sweet spot by testing.

Of course your camera could be crap and all the testing in the world won’t help.

 

[mark]

Callow makes sense, and check the guns and hair on the boy. He'll beat you up if you don't do what he says. I would mistake him for Billy Idol if I did not know any better

By the way John, the shade got here and it is great thanks. As usual the Canadian Post played rugby with it before shipping it. I swear they know people are sending things to me. If my wife's name is on it, the package tends to fair better.

 

[tac]

Might also make sure your AE exposure compensation is set to '0' (zero)- or maybe +0.3 (plus zero point-three)

 

[Andy K]

So let me get this straight, to get better richer colour using colour neg (without the use of filters), you have to over expose it?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

So let me get this straight, to get better richer colour using colour neg (without the use of filters), you have to over expose it?

Yep, it helps. Not too much, otherwise you're going to have blocked highlights. A little testing goes a long way.

 

[walter23]

Try a professional film, too. I find the pro films to be much nicer than the drugstore grade fuji / kodak stuff. If you want more saturated colours like you get from digital there are some very nice saturated films (kodak portra 160 VC, for example, and the fuji analogue nps 160).

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Keep in mind your color negatives were not wet printed; they were scanned. In converting them to positive prints, they have to compensate for the orangy cast that color negs have. Of course, that cast is slightly different for different films. I think this has more than anything to do with your unsatisfying prints.

The last roll of color I shot, the prints looked like hell. They told me their program was set to compensate for a certain Kodak film, and I was shooting something else.

 

[titrisol]

I don;t know but shooting cheap film (Walgreens, Ritz, MalWart or Eckerd's brands) never produced bad results for me at least.
Amonge the comments named, I would consider the one about forgetting Autoexposure for a while the most important. The camera system measures the licght to attian and "average" and that can really screw you up royally. Try exposing manually, point to the image see the settings your camera gives, then point a bit towards the "land" and check if it is more than 1 stop more open then correct to have that more exposed.
However if you prefer to have the sky well exposed be aware that the land is going to be dark.

Also, try opening +1/3 or +1/2 to the AE setting on a test roll and see when the results are better. So if +1/2 is better set the ISO scale in the camera accordingly.


I always found that scanned negatives in the store produced lackluster results but the prints were always good.

 

[aloomens]

I'm sitting here looking at the thumbnails of the scanned negatives, and they all have the same peculiar (wrong) tint to them. I think it probably was from the (wrong) color compensation when they where scanned. And since the print where made from those scans, they also look that way. So, that give me some confidence that the camera is OK, and that I didn't do something wrong.

I just got through shooting a roll of B&W (XP2 Super) and am much happier with the results. I took the camera in to get it check out and cleaned. Next, I'll be shooting some standard B&W and doing my own processing and printing.

Thanks for all the suggestions! I learned a lot!

Keep in mind your color negatives were not wet printed; they were scanned. In converting them to positive prints, they have to compensate for the orangy cast that color negs have. Of course, that cast is slightly different for different films. I think this has more than anything to do with your unsatisfying prints.

The last roll of color I shot, the prints looked like hell. They told me their program was set to compensate for a certain Kodak film, and I was shooting something else.

 

[Ken Ford]

aloomens, PJ's on Roosevelt in Glen Ellyn has a pretty decent lab - you may want to take your next color roll to them. They can also help you diagnose what's going on.

 

[spiralcity]

I suggest metering off a gray card, be sure your getting the same light on the card that is falling on your subject. This will give you a nice incident reading instead of the reflective reading your getting by pointing the meter at your subject.
Use this reading from the card then bracket a few shots as suggested. I guarantee you good results or your money back. ;-)

 

[spiralcity]

Try Gamma Photo on Superior in Chicago. It's a very good lab and extremely professional.

 

[JBrunner]

JD Callow knows color.

When you say washed out, that makes me think immediately of under exposure, because thats what color neg film does. It loses contrast, then as under exposure increases, turns milky.