New Old Camera Film Questions
I got so many good answers last quest, I am here to submit my latest more advanced questions.
Shooting with a new to me 35mm Canon EOS Rebel G....
If it turns out that this body is bad, I have another similar used GII.
Have not tried the GII with film yet.
1. First roll of film (Fujifilm 200 color 24 exp processed at CVS). Negatives look weak except for one near the end of the roll. I did not get physical prints since I can make my own and do extensive post processing (digital camera images). Got positives on CD. When viewed on my computer screen, they have a hazy look with little contrast. These images are retrievable but surely the end result could be better if the negatives were better. I have had much experience with B&W film processing and printing in days past while teaching photography to high school students. Have no exp with color film, only exp with digital cameras and images. I think the camera is OK. but the processing is at fault. Developer may have been depleted or another chemical. What confuses me is that one negative is good. Any suggestions?
2. Photos from the film camera (Rebel G) seem small on screen compared to my digital images. I have enlarged them by increasing the resolution. Up to a point they look good, but in the background areas which I have purposely blurred, a grainy texture has appeared very unlike the same treatment on digital images. It does not look too bad, but my efforts are toward perfection in image quality. Thought film would yield better results. Maybe better images would satisfy me more.
Lens used in this test was a Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8 II Prime.
Next test will be with the Canon Zoom EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 V USM Lens. Just got it used too.
Many thanks in advance to all that endeavour to help with this problem.
Christian Amateur Photographer
Dan Hudson wrote:
What confuses me is that one negative is good. Any suggestions?
I suggest that you shoot some slide film. With slides you can tell at a glance if the exposure and contrast are good. It can be difficult to judge color negatives, especially if you don't have experience with them. Slide film will make it easy to test your camera's light meter, shutter speeds, and aperture settings. Make sure you take careful notes about the camera settings for each picture.
2. Photos from the film camera (Rebel G) seem small on screen compared to my digital images.
That will depend on the resolution setting of your film scanner, which determines the pixel dimensions of the image file.
I have enlarged them by increasing the resolution. Up to a point they look good, but in the background areas which I have purposely blurred, a grainy texture has appeared very unlike the same treatment on digital images.
I guess what you're seeing is the film grain, or to be more precise, the dye clouds (since strictly speaking color negatives don't have grain like black and white negatives). In general the lower the ISO of the film the less noticeable the "grain" will be, but it will probably never be as smooth as what you can get from a good digital camera at a low ISO setting.
Dan Hudson wrote:
Got positives on CD ... seem small on screen compared to my digital images.
Presuming that I properly juxtaposed those two bits:
When you get a Picture CD from the photo lab, the images are 1.5 megapixel JPEGs. They're made by projecting onto a 1536x1024 Bayer sensor — sort-of a digital contact print. If you want higher resolution, you'll need to scan the negatives with a real scanner. For top quality, you'll probably want to find a shop with a drum scanner.
The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/
I would second the call for slide film. Get some Fuji slide film (I like Velvia 50) and buy a Fujifilm processing mailer and let Fuji process the slides as well. After that, it's up to the scanner you have, but that's another thread . . .
You mention fogging. Could the camera have a light leak or was the film otherwise exposed to stray light? I don't see any evidence of that in the two photos you posted, though. The images don't look too bad (on the web). Sharpness could be a little better on the flower, however.
As suggested by this group, I used a different processor (Walgreens) and got very good negatives. I have an Epsom Perfection V500 Scanner which makes good positive scans. At first My scans were better than the CD images that the first processor provided, but were still a little hazy. I changed scan DPI and sRGB and the scans became fine without haze. Started at 300 DPI and went to 1200 DPI. I do not believe the DPI had anything to do with the quality improvement. It must have been that I checked ICC sRGB. What DPI should I scan at for images of sharp quality at 11 x 14 and larger?
Thanks again everyone!!!
Christian Amateur Photographer
A rule of thumb for 'how much resolution do I need for a print' is 300 dpi. Since your 35mm negatives are about 1" x 1.5", and you want to enlarge to 11"x14", you'll be enlarging about 11 times. So you'll need to set your scanner resolution at 11 x 300 - or 3300 dpi. (3200 would be fine) For a bigger print, you'll need more - to print 16x20, you'll be enlarging the negative 16x, so 16x300 = 4800 dpi.
Hope this helps, and is not too confusing.
Not confusing, beautiful.......Thanks
Christian Amateur Photographer
Steve Throndson wrote:
A rule of thumb for 'how much resolution do I need for a print' is 300 dpi.
Good rule of thumb if you are going to be examining the print with magnification and if your printer really has that resolution. My big printer's real 24bit color resolution, determined experimentally, is 150 dpi.
My boss has a photo from a g10 printed five feet wide. It's maybe 72 dpi. If you stand far enough away to see the whole thing it looks fine.
A five foot wide print must be pretty spectacular. I agree with you that at normal viewing distances, the 300 dpi rule doesn't have to be strictly followed. I've made 24x36 prints from very small files and found the detail to be acceptable. Much depends on subject matter, lighting, texture, viewing distance, etc.
The OP is scanning negatives, so more resolution is easily achieved. Better too much than not enough.
I'm really curious about your experiment to find that your printer is outputting 150 dpi. How did you measure? PM me if you like - I really want to know about this. I know printer resolution is independent of image file resolution - but I always assumed that setting the printer to 1440 dpi would result in 1440 dots of ink per linear inch of paper.
Steve Throndson wrote:I'm really curious about your experiment to find that your printer is outputting 150 dpi. How did you measure? PM me if you like - I really want to know about this. I know printer resolution is independent of image file resolution - but I always assumed that setting the printer to 1440 dpi would result in 1440 dots of ink per linear inch of paper.
If you have Photoshop or another pixel editor it is simple.
Pick two colors that aren't primary or secondary colors. Draw single pixel lines in alternating colors. Now set the dpi to what you think the resolution is and print with scaling turned off. Repeat as necessary until you can see the lines.
I'm assuming your printer is Epson? You will probably find that at 1440 you don't get alternating lines, but rather a uniform blob. Try 720 and 360. You can actually make a target with 1 pixel lines, two pixel lines, and four pixel lines and try all three resolutions at once. HP printers are always multiples of 150 while epson are 180. Here is a target like I'm talking about:
My printer will actually do 300 dpi in the B&W lines, but only 150 in the others. It's a 42" designjet 5500, which was designed for outdoor advertising. Window displays and such. It's not the best printer, but it's pretty good.
Thank you for that detailed answer. I'm going to make some tests to see how that works with my Epson printer. Not sure why the colours can't be primary or secondary - but will follow your instructions.
. . . . . Steve