A Brief Return to Film, Could Use Some Help

[Brev00]

Warning: lots of pics!

I recently took my film camera out for a little fresh air. I wanted to see how its images would turn out these days. I finished off an old roll and bought a fresh roll of basic Fuji 200. I am not particularly happy with the results. For several, I shot it alongside a dslr to help confirm exposure settings. Yet a few seemed to have blown highlights. Maybe not blown in some cases but without much highlight detail. I was surprised by how much grain was in each shot. I didn't think iso 200 film was that grainy and most were shot in plenty of light. The grain was consistent throughout the set. The focus was off in several shots so user error but not something that happens too often shooting a dslr. I will post several images below and welcome your thoughts. I have plenty of pics from decades of film shooting that came out perfectly clear with the pics looking just like the scene. I will start out with one of the worst:

Here is one of the best in terms of natural reproduction. Looks like the D700 shot right below it. I took pics of this scene with several different cameras to evaluate colors--not to make great images!

This is a kind of pic I take fairly often while doing my daily 10K steps around my neighborhood. Pretty life-like. Not very sharp with the grain seeming to cloud the image:

Here are a few of the landscape type:

Very bright, little highlight detail

Held the highlights, very little shadow detail. With digital, I could recover much of the shadow detail.

A complete loss of contrast here though the starburst held up

My favorite shot:

Am I expecting too much? Is it the old maxim that one out of hundred shots is a keeper? Are these limitations of the specific film I used? Am I messing up in some way? Or, are these pics mostly pretty good?

Another test shot in which the N80 did pretty well:

D500:

Not bad:

With a D40:

D700:

D610:

The comparisons are not scientific being shot at different times. Just for general comparison purposes. I am probably most disappointed by the out of focus shots. Not necessary to share them here.

Thoughts?

--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[PAntunes]

how did you get your film digitalised?

 

[Barry Twycross]

One thing I didn't see you mention is the scanning method. That makes a lot of difference.

Another is how do the negs look? If they're thin, you're underexposing, and that does lead to grain.

Negative film is almost impossible to overexpose, so I suspect your scanning method for blown highlights. I deliberately overcooked, by up to 4 stops, some of the last roll of Fuji 200 I used to see how it did. I had to change the scanner exposure, and change the gamma to make it look good.

 

[Overrank]

A couple of comparisons between Nikon F80 / Ektachrome E100 and Nikon D610 -https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4570371

As has been said some issues could be down to the scanning. C200 probably isn5 the most “digital” like film either. New Ektachrome is superb

 

[Brev00]

A couple of comparisons between Nikon F80 / Ektachrome E100 and Nikon D610 -https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4570371

As has been said some issues could be down to the scanning. C200 probably isn5 the most “digital” like film either. New Ektachrome is superb

I will have to try the Ektachrome. The film was scanned by my local photo shop. I know nothing about what they did. I will have to look further into that. I know I never had these problems when I shot film and it was developed from negatives into prints. I have no idea what the effects of scanning may be. I have tried two different shops with two different rolls and had similar results.

 

[DenWil]

Use film as film. None, or very little, post adjustment expectation. Nail the exposure pre shutter press. If you do not want shadow area to be shadow area within the frame, light it up.

I meter off a grey card through the camera lens after I have framed and focused. That eliminates any errors from focus breathing, filters or lens variations which a hand held meter does not. The hand held is for emergencies or second opinion.

Currently I shoot with Provia 100/ 120 and Acros 100/ 120 - both rated at 84. My E-6 comes out within a quarter stop and the B&W comes out exact.

Cheers.

 

[Brev00]

At a local camera shop. I don't know what equipment they use. I expected the results to be similar to those when I shot film back in the day and had it processed in the analog way. Would the digitalizing method really mess up my images so much?

 

[Brev00]

One thing I didn't see you mention is the scanning method. That makes a lot of difference.

Another is how do the negs look? If they're thin, you're underexposing, and that does lead to grain.

I think you can see in my hydrant shot that it was properly exposed or even overexposed as some of the reds look oversaturated. A couple of others seem right on the money. The daffodil one looks blown. Yet all the pics seem to have the same amount of grain.

Negative film is almost impossible to overexpose, so I suspect your scanning method for blown highlights. I deliberately overcooked, by up to 4 stops, some of the last roll of Fuji 200 I used to see how it did. I had to change the scanner exposure, and change the gamma to make it look good.

I guess my not doing the processing keeps me out of the loop about all this. Perhaps I should show the results to the folks at the store.

 

[Barry Twycross]

I would never expect scans with developing to be anything more than a preview of the frame. If I want a good image, I'm going to be doing it myself. Especially with negs there's a lot of scope for twiddling which can totally change the end result.

You still need to look at the negs to judge the exposure, and colour neg does benefit from over exposure, I set the ASA to 100 for Fuji 200.

 

[Brev00]

Use film as film. None, or very little, post adjustment expectation. Nail the exposure pre shutter press. If you do not want shadow area to be shadow area within the frame, light it up.

I meter off a grey card through the camera lens after I have framed and focused. That eliminates any errors from focus breathing, filters or lens variations which a hand held meter does not. The hand held is for emergencies or second opinion.

Currently I shoot with Provia 100/ 120 and Acros 100/ 120 - both rated at 84. My E-6 comes out within a quarter stop and the B&W comes out exact.

Cheers.

All good advice. The problem for me is that I have taken thousands of shots with this camera back at the turn of the century and never had any exposure problems. Pics looked like real life. Tones were fine. Sharpness good. I did nothing in terms of processing as I had the film developed for me. I think the exposure is pretty good on several of the shots yet the images still look cloudy to me.

I set the exposure as I have in the past but took shots with my dslr using the same settings to see if I was in the ballpark. I guess that is not a good way to check. I have better pics taken when I was in my early teens. I never spent so much time thinking about what I was doing when I shot film. Loaded the film, changed settings based on what the meter read, took the pic. Worked for a long time. The only time I got this much grain was when I shot with higher iso film.

 

[Brev00]

I would never expect scans with developing to be anything more than a preview of the frame. If I want a good image, I'm going to be doing it myself. Especially with negs there's a lot of scope for twiddling which can totally change the end result.

I have never developed my own film and don't expect to be doing so now. Would be ideal for me to learn and do I agree. But, working within reality, I will have to find a way for these to be developed better. I guess the general opinion is that this is probably about the development of the image rather than the quality of the negative.

You still need to look at the negs to judge the exposure,

But, yes, I will have to check the negatives. Thanks for your time.

and colour neg does benefit from over exposure, I set the ASA to 100 for Fuji 200.

 

[Barry Twycross]

I would never expect scans with developing to be anything more than a preview of the frame. If I want a good image, I'm going to be doing it myself. Especially with negs there's a lot of scope for twiddling which can totally change the end result.

I have never developed my own film and don't expect to be doing so now. Would be ideal for me to learn and do I agree.

It's a little confusing you saying "developing" when I'd say "scanning".

But as an example, here's a frame of Fuji 200 I took, in various versions.

As the shop scanned

As I scanned without trying too hard

As above, but with a little colour correction, trying to still have a film look

As above, if I don't care about a film look.

 

[sprocket-docket]

You bought cheapo consumer color negative film and are surprised it is grainy? I actually like the look quite a bit, for what it's worth. But it is definitely in line with what I'd expect.

The ones with missing highlight detail do look as if the lab scanned it that way, not that it's all missing in the negative. Those highlights should be more recoverable but commercial scanners often use a blanket setting for film types, if I remember correctly.

 

[Brev00]

Sorry about the term. Yeah, I am not about to invest in scanning equipment and learn the ins and out of it. Maybe I should send you my next roll and see what you can do!

 

[Brev00]

You bought cheapo consumer color negative film and are surprised it is grainy? I actually like the look quite a bit, for what it's worth. But it is definitely in line with what I'd expect.

The ones with missing highlight detail do look as if the lab scanned it that way, not that it's all missing in the negative. Those highlights should be more recoverable but commercial scanners often use a blanket setting for film types, if I remember correctly.

A different perspective. Appreciated! If this is not all that surprising for this particular film, is there a film you would recommend that might get more what I am after? If you can infer that from what I have said.

I do like a couple of the pics so I think I may want to pursue this further. I was unaware that there was a predominant way of scanning that might do so poorly with highlights. I will discuss this with the folks at the store. Maybe they can send a roll to another photo shop with better equipment. Or, do it themselves. Seems possible that some of the sales associates at my local store are still shooting film and developing it. Would cost a bit if they were into it.

 

[Barry Twycross]

Sorry about the term. Yeah, I am not about to invest in scanning equipment and learn the ins and out of it.

You already have most of the equipment you need to do a pretty decent job.

 

[Overrank]

A couple of comparisons between Nikon F80 / Ektachrome E100 and Nikon D610 -https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4570371

As has been said some issues could be down to the scanning. C200 probably isn5 the most “digital” like film either. New Ektachrome is superb

I will have to try the Ektachrome. The film was scanned by my local photo shop. I know nothing about what they did. I will have to look further into that. I know I never had these problems when I shot film and it was developed from negatives into prints. I have no idea what the effects of scanning may be. I have tried two different shops with two different rolls and had similar results.

If you want to use colour negative film you may also want to try Ektar - which is also cheaper and cheaper to develop. My intent is always to get the photo I want from the camera / scanner with no post processing, I absolutely want to avoid having to PhotoShop the image later, that is one of the main reasons I shoot film. If you are relying on a lab to digitize your film then it may be worth getting them saved as 48 bit tiffs which would allow you to recover some of the detail in the petals, for example. They often charge extra for this so it might be worth looking around at lab prices (or looking / asking on here for recommended ones)

My suggestions are

* Use a quality film like Ektar or Ektachrome (others like Portra are available but I have no experience with them)

* For negative film, if there’s a choice then overexpose rather than underexpose

* It looks like you have a F80 (N80): trust the matrix metering on the camera, it’s pretty good

* Use a grey card to check the exposure (or a patch of grass )

* As you're not doing your own scanning, get 48 bit tiffs back from scanning so that you can recover the highlights if necessary

You should be getting images back which look like what was there, Kodak, Fujifilm etc spent a lot of money trying to achieve this for people using point and shoots and disposables.

The following is a recent lab scan of mine, resized but otherwise straight out of scanner

Nikon F3, Ektachrome E100, metered using an incident light meter

 

[Brev00]

Sorry about the term. Yeah, I am not about to invest in scanning equipment and learn the ins and out of it.

You already have most of the equipment you need to do a pretty decent job.

How so? A cell phone?

 

[Brev00]

A couple of comparisons between Nikon F80 / Ektachrome E100 and Nikon D610 -https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4570371

As has been said some issues could be down to the scanning. C200 probably isn5 the most “digital” like film either. New Ektachrome is superb

I will have to try the Ektachrome. The film was scanned by my local photo shop. I know nothing about what they did. I will have to look further into that. I know I never had these problems when I shot film and it was developed from negatives into prints. I have no idea what the effects of scanning may be. I have tried two different shops with two different rolls and had similar results.

If you want to use colour negative film you may also want to try Ektar - which is also cheaper and cheaper to develop. My intent is always to get the photo I want from the camera / scanner with no post processing, I absolutely want to avoid having to PhotoShop the image later, that is one of the main reasons I shoot film. If you are relying on a lab to digitize your film then it may be worth getting them saved as 48 bit tiffs which would allow you to recover some of the detail in the petals, for example. They often charge extra for this so it might be worth looking around at lab prices (or looking / asking on here for recommended ones)

My suggestions are

* Use a quality film like Ektar or Ektachrome (others like Portra are available but I have no experience with them)

* For negative film, if there’s a choice then overexpose rather than underexpose

* It looks like you have a F80 (N80): trust the matrix metering on the camera, it’s pretty good

* Use a grey card to check the exposure (or a patch of grass )

* As you're not doing your own scanning, get 48 bit tiffs back from scanning so that you can recover the highlights if necessary

You should be getting images back which look like what was there, Kodak, Fujifilm etc spent a lot of money trying to achieve this for people using point and shoots and disposables.

The following is a recent lab scan of mine, resized but otherwise straight out of scanner

Nikon F3, Ektachrome E100, metered using an incident light meter

Fantastic pic. Yes, I am not about post processing my film shots. I want them good straight out of the camera just as I got them before digital. I appreciate your tips like trusting the matrix meter. That was sufficient for me in the past. I will try some Ektar film and talk to the shop that will be doing the scanning of my next roll. Unless I figure out how to scan the negatives myself. Thanks again.

--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Overrank]

Fantastic pic. Yes, I am not about post processing my film shots. I want them good straight out of the camera just as I got them before digital. I appreciate your tips like trusting the matrix meter. That was sufficient for me in the past. I will try some Ektar film and talk to the shop that will be doing the scanning of my next roll. Unless I figure out how to scan the negatives myself. Thanks again.

Ektar has very good colours for the types of photos you’ve posted. It can be a bit red for portraits. You can find lots of discussion about it on the internet. One of the very nice things about it is it’s almost grainless, even in 35mm.

You can scan yourself in a few ways -

* You can get standalone scanners like the Kodak Scanza that are effectively a simple digital camera, lens and lightsource in a box. They are very quick and deliver an inverted image if your using negative film.

* You can use a flatbed scanner or dedicated film scanner like a Epson V600 or Plustek 8200i, which are slower but deliver a better quality scan. These normally come with software to do the scanning and invert negatives. This is what I do if I’m not using a lab for scans.

* You can use a digital camera, a macro lens and a light source and film holder. You will normally need to have software to invert negatives, or use Photoshop and similar and do it by hand.

There is *lots* of discussion on this forum about the advantages and disadvantages of each.

You can also get attachments for your phone