"Advanced Beginner" looking to advance my skills

I have been shooting P&S for years and have recently aqcuired a nice

35mm system. After shooting 10 or so rolls, I have a desire to

evaluate/scrutinize my photos so that I can learn from my mistakes

and become a better photographer. Not an uncommon desire I am sure.

 

Anyway, my question is: Is it silly to find a pro-lab to have my film

processed and printed? Not being an expert, I am sometimes finding it

difficult to separate what are my mistakes and what might just be

poor printing. My though would be to use a pro-lab for consistency

and high-quality. Therefore, if the photos do not turn out well, I

know for a fact it is because of something I did wrong.

 

Also, is there a way to have photos printed without any "fudging"?

Meaning, a what-you-see-is-what-you-shot like slides? It is my

understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) that the negative

development is pretty much standard (barring any push/pulling) and is

a true representation of what you shot... and that the printing is

the step that tries to "correct" things.

 

At this time, I don't want to shoot slides, but would like to get a

true representation of what I am shooting.

 

I can't fix it if the printer messes with it!

Simple answer: Shoot slide film.

Any lab, pro or I-hour is capable of correct neg processing and straight proofing. The trick is to find one. A straight print from a good neg can look quite good, but finished enlargements often need things like cropping, fine tuned color correcting, and dodging and burning. Beyond that, you must learn composition, lighting, angles, correct exposure, choice of films, etc., things a lab can do little about. Your mantra should be "Learn, baby learn;" study, research, experiment, keep notes, ask questions, take risks. Stay focused on each problem until it's understood....don't jump around helter skelter. Learn your scales and fingering (or whatever) before you attempt concertos. For some, it's a "gift" and seems to come easy, while for others it takes application.

Slides are the simplest and most cost-effective solution to your desire. Slides do of course react differently to overexposure and underexposure, but are the best method of determining whether exposure mistakes were caused by you or merely reflect poor printing.

<< Also, is there a way to have photos printed without any "fudging"? >>

 

You can request that your negs are printed "without corrections." However, there still may be some minor automatic tweaking that an operator cannot disable. This is true for labs using Fuji Frontier machines (which are superior to older optical printing machines).

 

I have found this to be a decent compromise between cost, quality, and results. I cannot afford the services of a professional lab nor are there any within easy reach of me. My errors are sometimes still far greater than the dynamic range of slide film so I see no reason to shoot slides yet.

 

So while I recognize that the two-step process of neg to print is not exactly what I shot, it is a close enough representation that I can be satisfied with the results and learn from them. (This is especially true for composition.)

 

My goal is to eventually shoot slide film, just not yet.

My suggestion is to shoot high lattitude slide film like Sensia, and not have it mounted. Sensia behaves the closest like print film in terms of lattitude and exposure range.

The reasons you listed are the reasons <i>why</i> I shoot slides. They are far less forgiving that print film so I can see where my exposre isn't right. While prints are more convenient, I found that I learned much more shooting slides. In the beginning, I bracketed every shot & while comparing these, I learned when to trust the meter & when to compensate for a desired effect.

<< Also, is there a way to have photos printed without any "fudging"? >>

 

Theoretically yes, practically, not really.

 

Before I would try to talk a pro lab into not doing anything in the printing step save for filtration to compensate the orange mask, I'd rather shoot slides, it's easier, faster and cheaper.

 

One alternative would be contact sheets, which at least eliminates frame to frame printing variations, but in my experience there is so much information (detail, highlights, shadows) lost in the contacts and for the price you might as well shoot slides right away. Using a 50mm lens as a loupe you can learn a lot from looking at slides: sharpness (focussing and camera shake), exposure, DOF, color balance under different light ...

I think it would be best to shoot slides, for the reasons listed. And plus, you said your learning, so it will cost less to develop and look at the pictures that are part of learning right? Yup guys, the pictures while learning.

 

-Dan

If you don't want to shoot slides, try using a 400 speed pro negative film like Fujicolor

Portrait NPH or, if you want more color saturation, Kodak Portra 400UC (soon to be

renamed Kodak Ultra Color 400UC).

 

I've never used a pro lab and I probably never will-they're too expensive (the closest

pro lab to me charges almost $30 to develop & print a 36 exposure roll of film!), and

the fact that the quality gap is narrowing fast thanks to digital processors such as the

Fujifilm Frontier (at all US Wal-Marts with photo labs, a growing number of Ritz

Camera Centers, and over 1,500 Walgreens stores) and Noritsu QSS Digital labs

(harder to find, but getting more popular every day). If you want no corrections on

your prints, just ask the operator. However, whatever film you choose, DON'T use

overpriced, poor-quality Kodak Perfect Touch processing.

When starting out, rather than shoot slides, I just set up my own

darkroom. Doing my own film processing and contact printing guaranteed

that what I did was what I got. <BR>

 

Learn to eveluate a negative. It shouldn't take long to learn what a

good negative looks like compared to a thin or dense negative. You might bracket a scene 1/2 under, normal and 1/2 over and all three prints may look the same (adjusted while printing) but you will see the difference on the negatives.

"You can request that your negs are printed "without corrections." However, there still may be some minor automatic tweaking that an operator cannot disable."

Ditto.

 

Go with Scott Eaton on this one. I learned more from my first five rolls of Sensia 100 than from 50 or so print rolls I had shot before trying out slide.

 

Plus, try these good tutorials on exposure:

 

http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/sunny.html

 

http://www.photozone.de/4Technique/ec.htm

 

http://www.photofocus.com/zine4/zine11.htm

 

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understandexposure.shtml

 

The only thing though, unless you are definitely not going to ever project your slides or use a viewer like the one attached and you are only going to scan them, then it makes sense not to mount them. Otherwise, mounting is the way to go. There has been talk here that slides curve slightly when mounted and so you lose some sharpness when scanning them. I don't have any empirical evidence on this and I also like handling mounted slides because I use the attached device to view them. I like it a helluva lot better than holding a loupe to my eye and stare at only a portion of the image.

 

But.. that's me or.. to each his own.<div></div>

Take 35 mounted slides and try to view them all at one at a time with one hand. Now take a sleeved page of cut slide film and try to tell me the individual mounted slides are easier to view at one time. When I look at a roll of film, I like to see everything on the roll, and sleeved film in a clear page is much easier in that respect. I also think they hold up better over time this way because they have some protection from the elements.

 

Take slides that have been sitting in a box for 20 years and try to scan them. New slide film might be flat when mounted, but older slide film has a tendency to curl real bad, which is a pain for either projection printing or scanning.

 

Last Arguement:

 

If mounted slides are easier to handle than cut/sleeved slides, then we should also cut and mount our 35mm negs and B/W film as well. The fact one is positive and one is a negative has no bearing on the mechanics/handling if they are mounted or not.

 

The advantage with using a film like Sensia 100 over other slide films is Sensia doesn't exagerate as much as Provia/Velvia, or even E100G. I see too many beginners learn bad habits by using the hyper saturated slide films vs the more mild slide films because the 'disney chromes' invent color that isn't there. Learn to walk before dancing.

<< Learn to walk before dancing. >>

 

Thanks for the tips on Sensia, I'm looking forward to stepping (read: crawing) into slide film now. :)

I would have to agree that for learning exposure and

composition, unmounted slide film is best.

 

It's much easier to evaluate strips of film held in

pages. It costs less in processing(around a buck less here).

It's much easier to store in a binder.

I get to see the WHOLE image frame unobscured by a mount.

That last point is important in regards to composition since

my camera has a 100% viewfinder.

Another word in favor of non-mounting here: When I shot slides in the UK, the local lab did a good job of processing and mounting them in plastic mounts - no problem. When I moved to the US, many more labs seemed to default to card mounts. Yuk! Look at those under magnification (or try to scan them) and you'll see this hairy forest of ...stuff at the edge of the mount. Stuff that seems very willing to migrate around the slide's surface as well. If you're planning on scanning, naked film is definitely the way to go.

"Look at those under magnification (or try to scan them) and you'll

see this hairy forest of ...stuff at the edge of the mount."

 

Well, I have to concede there. Hairy forest it is indeed.

I used a different alternative...

I bought a negative scanner. You have to lay out about $300-400 up front. It saves cash in the long run, but does cost you in time scanning. Next, buy a bulk of film, shoot away and get it processed "negatives only." The local Longs Drugs does it for less than $2 a roll.

 

Now, when you scan in your negs, you can immediately see where you were out of focus, over exposed, etc. And the screen offers you a bigger view than a 3"x5" print. If you get something you really like, take the negative in and get an 8"x10" of that single frame.