Sorry, thought I did add some examples. Ignore the dust. I forgot to clean my scanner.Of course grain is a matter of personal taste so an example would be helpful.
Scanned results from color film can be a cause.
Unless you know how to evaluate the film directly, it may or may not be improperly exposed in which case the scanner will exaggerate grain.
An old unused camera may only need to be exercised but it also may need work.
Looking at my computer monitor it's reading at 1/30 with 200 iso I should be using f5.6. My pentax K3 reads I "should" be using 1/5 with that aperture. My Pentax ME however gives the same reading as the Canon.Put the camera into manual mode and see what the meter is telling you. Compare this to something you know gives accurate readings. That should solve your mystery pretty quick.
I'll take it outside after breakfast to do some testing.It would help to see the negs to determine if your shots are underexposed. Maybe hold them against your monitor (blank white screen) and take a digital snap of that. Based on the images you've shown, I'd suspect underexposure as you've got very little shadow detail captured. Grain will be more visible if your shots are underexposed and the lab tried to make an acceptable print. It could also possibly be processing error on the part of the lab.
If your Pentax ME meter is accurate, take both cameras outside and compare the readings for different scenes. If you're shooting the camera on auto or program, try using manual settings instead. There may be a problem with the autoexposure, but I haven't heard of any common problems like this with the AE series cameras. Of course the battery is fresh and the ASA is set correctly, right?
Assuming that your scanner glass is clean and undamaged, I'd look at the inside of the camera for the cause of that line. As it's slightly fuzzy, it's probably not on the film itself, or on the lens. Take the lens off, open the back and fire the shutter on B. Look for any fibers or hairs in the film gate, or protruding between the lens and the shutter.
Could this be partly my fault then? How would I go about avoiding this?They look under-exposed. The edge printing looks normal, so they probably are developed properly.
I think I'll go outside right now and practice the sunny 16 rule with my digital camera, that way I'm not wasting film. I'll read the manual before I go to bed tonightIf you haven't done so already, download and read the manual. I would recommend this link:
http://www.cameramanuals.org/canon_pdf/canon_ae-1.pdf
Pay attention to pages 18 and 19 of part 2 of the manual for AE lock. I don't own this camera, but on similar cameras, pointing the camera at the part of the scene you most want exposed correctly and holding down the lock button and then reframing the scene can help.
I would also learn the Sunny 16 rule - there are also multiple smart phone apps that help with this. Even on my more automated cameras, I frequently use Sunny 16 as a reality check. Cameras can be quite smart, but the camera has no way of knowing which part of the scene is most important to you.
The best way to learn the camera is just to keep shooting with it and make notes about what works and what doesn't. From this first roll you shot, you have learned that when the center of the scene is composed primarily of sky, that you may get underexposure. To compensate for this you could aim your camera at land first and then lock the exposure, or adjust the aperture or shutter speed, or adjust the ASA, or hold down the back light button. Although that makes it sound very complicated, once you read the manual, and possibly a basic photography book, the relationships of all these factors will become clear and it will make perfect sense.
APUG can be a great resource, but also a daunting place for beginners. I was on the site for over a year before I made my first post. There are many established experienced experts, but at times they overcomplicate things for beginners. I am not an expert, but have shot film and and off since I was 12 years old and taught myself from reading a few basic books, but mostly by taking bad pictures and learning from them.
For clarity, sunny 16 is good on its own, but I find it most useful to use sunny 16, my experience and the meter as cross-checks for each other.Alrighty, so it does appear to be my fault and not the camera's.
First image was 1/250 at 5.6 and the second was at f8.
The canon read 5.6 when I looked at the cliffs while it read f8 when I just looked straight ahead.
I'll just have to be careful and follow the sunny 16 rule I suppose.
How would that work when I'm inside?
I'll run another roll of film through it and try to expose everything properly. Perhaps I'll take a quick shot with my digital camera first until I get the hang of "reading" the light my self. Out of curiosity, what type of colour film developer do people mostly use here?No apologies necessary. Your AE-1 could be malfunctioning, or it may be that you are using it in a way that causes the meter to read incorrectly. Although with the negatives you posted, the scenes looked to be the sorts that the AE-1 would generally expose properly.
I wish lol.Are those shots of Howe Sound?
The Shuswap is a wonderful area. I envy you!I wish lol.
I live on shuswap lake. We own a lot of property (like 400 acres in total) so I tend to just wonder around outside.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?