JeTexas Posted May 31, 2011 Share #1 Posted May 31, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I went shooting with my new-to-me M3 this weekend. Having not shot film in many years and having never shot without a meter in the camera, I took care to meter every shot and make sure I was setting my aperture and shutter speed. However, I still got some really varied results. I was shooting with 800 ASA FujiFilm. I knew it would be somewhat grainy because of the speed, but I'm still not sure what's going on here. For instance, this shot shows some grain in the background but seems very usable. 47050006 by ffacker, on Flickr But this shot is REALLY grainy and noisy. 47050008 by ffacker, on Flickr Does the noise mean I underexposed the shot or is it very dependent on aperture? Help me understand this film. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Hi JeTexas, Take a look here Do grainy shots mean the frame was underexposed?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted May 31, 2011 Share #2 Posted May 31, 2011 That looks pretty typical to me. 800 ISO film is always going to have some grain. Who did the processing and scans for you? (The second shot shows a stripe about 1/5 of the way up the frame) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted May 31, 2011 The CVS drugstore near my house did the developing and scanning. I knew better than to take it there, but I was in a hurry to see how the shots turned out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted May 31, 2011 Share #4 Posted May 31, 2011 I disagree with Andy. The grain in the second photo is not typical for 800 ISO as can be seen from the first photo. My guess would be that what you're seeing in the second photo is scanner noise and not grain. And that could indeed be due to the negative being too thin or too dense. You should probably be able to see this yourself if you look at it closely. It might make sense to try again with a decent scanner or to have a competent lab make an analog print for you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted May 31, 2011 Share #5 Posted May 31, 2011 The second frame looks like underexposure to me. ISO 800 film can look MUCH better than that. The first frame is probably typical, though it's somewhat hard to tell without seeing larger crops. Sorry for the dog picture, but it's a good example of ISO 800 film in semi-poor light, and the dog is black, so you can see what the shadows and highlights might look like. Also, if you click on the original size, you can see a 4000x6000 scan of the film to see the grain. This was on Portra 800. max bath by ezwal, on Flickr Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted May 31, 2011 Share #6 Posted May 31, 2011 The first frame is probably typical, though it's somewhat hard to tell without seeing larger crops. There are Flickr links below the photos for the full scans. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted May 31, 2011 Share #7 Posted May 31, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) There are Flickr links below the photos for the full scans. Which BTW makes me jealous again: You can get scans larger than 3000x2000 at a CVS and probably for a price as low as what Ken Rockwell quotes in his "RealRaw" rants? I wish we had something similar in German drugstores, but they all seem to agree that 1500x1000 (a quarter of what you have) is enough... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted May 31, 2011 It was $14 and some change to get the film developed with a set of matte 4x6 prints and a CD-ROM. However, it's a risk using the drugstores. My ex-girlfriend was taking a photo course last year and after spending a week shooting class assignments, she took her film to a CVS where they forgot to check the chemicals in the machine and handed her back four rolls of ruined film. On this roll, I was astonished to find that they only developed my daylight shots. I took some night shots of the Kemah Boardwalk skyline, but they didn't bother printing or scanning them. I don't know if that's because they were too underexposed or if they just didn't bother looking closely at the negatives. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 31, 2011 Share #9 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Color negative films do get substantially grainer if underexposed. Always remember that what we see as grain - with negative film - is the GAPS in the image, where light gets through in the printing process to produce dark spots. In color negs (and C41 B&W like XP2), the image is formed by dye clouds created during developing. The silver is bleached out. Normally the dye clouds overlap to produce a relatively smooth image - but if the film is underexposed, the dye clouds don't overlap and blend at the edges, leaving bigger and more distinct gaps that then print as bigger and harsher "grain." Basic rule with color neg (C-41) film - if you must err in exposure, err towards OVER exposure. It will smooth out the grain. In this specific case, metering the bright sky likely is the cause of the underexposure. Edited May 31, 2011 by adan 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted May 31, 2011 Share #10 Posted May 31, 2011 I agree with AndyP -- the first frame looks broadly OK< the second probably under-exposed. Bear in mind that under-exposed colour film will produce more grain ('noise', whatever you wish to call it) and it won't be pleasant, it will have the lacklustre muddy look that it does in the sky in your second frame. Generous exposure (over-exposure) helps. But you also tend to get more grain in skies -- large areas of colour and or texture emphasise the grain and especially if also under-exposed. Scanning also accentuates grain, as does the quality of the scan -- and these don't look like great scans to begin with. I'd say persevere and expose generously. Sometimes the fact that one is using fast 800 film makes one think it's faster than it is, if you see what I mean... But if you get readings that look a bit suspicious (i.e. too fast) then remind yourself that 800 film is only one stop faster than 400 and meter again... Meter for the shadows or for a really good solid mid-tone: I know that is the old stand-by rule for B&W neg film but I find it serves me well for colour neg film too. And if I'm in doubt I open up a stop... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted May 31, 2011 Share #11 Posted May 31, 2011 It was $14 and some change to get the film developed with a set of matte 4x6 prints and a CD-ROM. Thanks. OK, that's more expensive than what I've heard from other places in the US, but it still is cheaper than the least expensive you could get over here (assuming you want bigger-than-normal scans). On this roll, I was astonished to find that they only developed my daylight shots. I took some night shots of the Kemah Boardwalk skyline, but they didn't bother printing or scanning them. I don't know if that's because they were too underexposed or if they just didn't bother looking closely at the negatives. Very likely the whole process is done automatically and with the standard settings the machine (Noritsu maybe) probably wasn't able to identify the frames which were too dark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorman Posted June 2, 2011 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2011 It looks to me as though the second picture has been sharpened, possibly over-sharpened, somewhere along the line. Sharpening will exaggerate the grain and the effect is particularly noticeable in skies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted June 2, 2011 Share #13 Posted June 2, 2011 Why on earth do you use an 800 film with the sun blasting away? Besides the grain issue, 800 forces you to use small apertures and that is not where lenses are at their best. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted June 3, 2011 Share #14 Posted June 3, 2011 I'd say persevere and expose generously. Sometimes the fact that one is using fast 800 film makes one think it's faster than it is, if you see what I mean... But if you get readings that look a bit suspicious (i.e. too fast) then remind yourself that 800 film is only one stop faster than 400 and meter again... Meter for the shadows or for a really good solid mid-tone: I know that is the old stand-by rule for B&W neg film but I find it serves me well for colour neg film too. And if I'm in doubt I open up a stop... Thanks so much for this advice. I've had these issues even with 400 speed film, and I am learning to meter for shadows or midtones. With the M9 I tend to meter for the part of the image I want properly exposed, and I am doing the same with the M7 with fairly consistent results. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted June 6, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 6, 2011 What do the negatives look like? Is the image light and faint or contrasty? I had a similar problem recently with underexposure, but it was only occurring at certain shutter speeds because they were incorrect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted June 7, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 7, 2011 both shots are underexposed IMO. This affects the appearance of grain a lot.So does correct scanning. If both shots has had double exposure I guess they would look quite a bit better..... andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted June 7, 2011 Share #17 Posted June 7, 2011 Looking at the flickr stream most of the M3 shots from memorial day look under exposed. How did you meter your shots, direct or incident? Have you used the meter before and can you check it against the X1 you used the same day? Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.