Why do my photos look like this? Me or Camera?

[RyanOtekki]

Hi Everyone

I am new to 35mm film photography but have been shooting on digital DSLR for some years and have a good understanding of photography. I was recently given a Minolta 7000 and I bought some cheapish (iso 200)35mm film. I set the camera to P and went out and took some snaps, keeping an eye on Shutter, Aperture and ISO. However they have come out looking like this... Is it something I am doing wrong or is there something wrong with the camera? They all have like a haze to them? Out of the 24 photos I had developed there is probably 1 usable image.

 

[amellice]

did you develop yourself? looks like processing problem

 

[RyanOtekki]

did you develop yourself? looks like processing problem

No I sent to a photographic store in London, they sent me back the negatives and they seem very faded like those images...

 

[amellice]

there could be also a light leak in your camera that's fogging the film (specially in the first shot)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi Everyone

I am new to 35mm film photography but have been shooting on digital DSLR for some years and have a good understanding of photography. I was recently given a Minolta 7000 and I bought some cheapish (iso 200)35mm film. I set the camera to P and went out and took some snaps, keeping an eye on Shutter, Aperture and ISO. However they have come out looking like this... Is it something I am doing wrong or is there something wrong with the camera? They all have like a haze to them? Out of the 24 photos I had developed there is probably 1 usable image.

I think the camera or the lens might be the culprit;flare from sunlight;missing lens hood or light leak in camera.is it possible light got into the film canister?

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG.

The 4th photo is vignetted. It looks like you used a lens hood that wasn't designed for the lens or focal length you used.

In general, all of the photos look under-exposed to me. The "haze" is the result you get when the lab tries to extract as much detail as possible from negatives that have very little to start with.

The film, of course, has a single ISO - 200. What sort of exposure settings were you using outside in sunlit situations? You should have been using something close to 1/200 @ f/11 - f/16.

 

[cramej]

The dandelion looks like a little bit of a light leak. Everything is severely underexposed.

Looks fine if you're into lomo, though.

 

[RobC]

fogging or flare, probably in camera but could be in processing.
Are results always like this or is it just one roll of film from that lab. If the latter then I would suspect its the lab who have fogged your film somehow.

 

[Ian Grant]

It would be easier if we could seethe negatives, if there's fogging in the margins it's possibly light seals, On the other hand it could be poorly stored film,

Ian

 

[pbromaghin]

Agree with the underexposure resulting in grain when the lab tried to produce a decent amount of detail. in pic 2 the bright bit of bright sun probably made it worse and that purple blob on the left is flare. The film could have been really old or poorly handled before you purchased it. Your camera might be misreading the DX coding on the cartridge, or the metering may be off. After all, that circuitry is 30 years old.

If you don't have the manual, find one online and read it. These cameras were pretty advanced for the time, but act a little differently to the modern dslr. I would try another roll of good, fresh film and pay attention to the iso that shows when you load it. Adjust the iso manually if you have to. Then shoot it in R and S modes, playing around with the f-stop and shutter speeds and writing down it's responses to those changes, and finally in M mode with a handheld meter (use sunny 16 rule if you don't have a meter). Do this all in the same light with the same subject

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[pentaxuser]

Ryan,this looks very similar to a problem raised on a UK forum called FADU(Film and Darkroom User) using C200 film which sounds as if it may be the same kind of film. The consensus there was that it was underexposure or faulty film. Try a new film such as new Kodak Portra or a comparable Fuji film from a reputable dealer and see if the problem disappears.

pentaxuser

 

[jimjm]

Ryan - as others have mentioned, possible culprits are faulty film or processing, or your camera is underexposing the shots. Underexposure would explain the overall muddy, flat look you see with no true black tones. Negatives would also be faint-looking and hard to see any details in the shadow areas. The reason your prints aren't really dark is the lab would have tried to get the best print it could from a severely-underexposed negative. Try another roll of Kodak or Fuji color film. I usually shoot color slide film when I'm first testing a new camera, as it's more unforgiving than print film and the resulting slides give me a good idea if the camera's meter is functioning correctly.

Also, compare your meter readings against those in your digital camera. Same ISO settings, focus on an evenly-lit wall and compare the shutter/aperture readouts. They should be reasonably close, within half a stop or less. If you're still seeing bright flare-like areas on your images, then it's possible you've got a light leak somewhere.

Welcome to APUG!

 

[RyanOtekki]

Thanks for the replies guys! I am thinking maybe it was the shutter? As I say I left it on P with an ISO fixed at 200 to match the film. I did notice the shutter go up pretty high in some shots. Should I go with the sunny 16 rule and test another roll of film?

 

[Saganich]

I bought a new Minolta 7000i once and it nearly caused me to quit photography. I pitched it into the Niagara River somewhere near Tonawanda
...or was it in Lake Erie near Lackawanna...regardless it was a relief.

 

[ic-racer]

Not easy to know without seeing the negatives. Would that be possible?

 

[tomfrh]

Show us the negs.