problems with grain, detail with Kodak film

I'm just getting back into shooting film again after shooting only digital for the last 5 years, and I am a bit

disappointed in my results. In the past, I shot many rolls with a Minolta, and going through my old phots have

discovered excellent 8 x 10 prints. Recently I have started using a rangefinder, rollei 35s campera, which is

refuted to have a sharp lens.

 

But when I got my first roll back, the detail seemed terrible, a defect I blamed on the lens. But I shot another

roll. In the second roll, I took a picture of my girlfriend against a wall painted with a mural. The mural came

out so sharp and clear it looked painted on the print. The lens does produce sharp pictures.

 

But the pictures of faces did not please me. I realize now that the first film lacked detail in part because the

face was underexposed. The second roll had some of the same problems. But even when the face was exposed

correctly, the grain detracted from the clarity. I dug through some of my old pictures, and saw that in fact

grain was nearly absent for a face in a similar sized photograph of the same size.

 

I had a local camera shot develop and print the film.

 

The film I am not shooting is Kodak Gold 200 ASA. In the past, I'm not sure what I shot--probably mostly 100 ASA,

and some 200 (and even 400) ASA

 

So what should I do now?

 

(1) Change cameras? (I don't think the camera is to fault)

 

(2) Change to a different negative film?

 

(3) Change to a slide film?

 

(4) Change the way I expose the film?

 

On the second roll of film, the face wasn't necessarily underexposed. For example, many of the photos were taken

in shade, and the skin of the arms is perfectly exposed. It seems the negative film should handle 1/2 EV

difference between the arms and the face.

 

I know I am asking a big question here, so I'm more looking for some general direction. In the past I just used a

low ASA film and got excellent results. Even the cheap digital camera seemed to give me better results.

The Rollei 35 has often been called the thinking man's camera. I have an original 1966 model made in Germany and a later Singapore made model. If you are shooting landscapes at the infinity setting and if your exposure and camera steadiness are good then you will get excellent results. If you shoot closer than infinity you must estimate the distance because the Rollei 35 has no rangefinder for focusing. This is why I like to use fast film for closer shooting. It allows me to use smaller apertures so if my focus is a little off the extra depth of field will compensate for it. The Rollei 35 has an averaging CdS meter. It is very easily fooled by backlit subjects. The result will be underexposure and this will cause the prints to show more grain. A more modern camera uses TTL metering with a sophsticated matrix system, has automatic focusing, has image stabilization and might even have automatic fill flash for tricky lighting situations. You can compensate for most of these things if you know what you're doing but using a camera like the Rollei 35 is not every person's idea of a good time. I enjoy using a Rollei 35 even if my focus is off on a few close shots. Some of the new digital cameras have face recognition too. If you enjoy using a digital camera more then that's fine too.

I'd suggest that you look at your negatives under a loupe to determine if the problem is with the negs or with the printing. Most minilabs scan and print, so it's possible the scans aren't done well.

Paul, I believe what you are experiencing is a first hand, side by side comparison between conventional optical printing, and what has become the industry standard, computer prints from digital scans of your properly exposed negatives. All of this, brought to you by the good folks who gave us the Disc Camera. We're not discerning enough to see the difference. You may get the typical responses (from fellow Photo.net readers) that claim the technician was not properly trained, or something was not tweaked just right. The bottom line is that the caliber of the technician has not changed, the process has, and for the worse.

>>If you shoot closer than infinity you must estimate the distance because the Rollei 35 has no rangefinder for focusing. This is why I like to use fast film for closer shooting. It allows me to use smaller apertures so if my focus is a little off the extra depth of field will compensate for it. The Rollei 35 has an averaging CdS meter.

 

Some of my prints did come out a bit out of focus, but I don't think that accounts for the problem I describe. The Features seem sharp enough.

 

I actually don't use the light meter on the camera at all. (I'm not even sure it works.) I use my head:

 

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

http://www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/guide.html

 

And I also cheat a bit and use another camera with a light meter, or my cheap light meter (which frankly isn't very accurate). In the case of the picture I'm talking about, I believed I checked the light against another camera. Open shade is almost always exactly 11.5 EV in my experience. That doesn't mean I got it right. The blouse came out perfectly exposed, as did the bare skin. The light was pretty even, so I can't imagine that the face got all that much less. When I look at the negative, it *seems* about right, not too dark or not too light. Maybe I needed a fill-in flash?

>>Paul, I believe what you are experiencing is a first hand, side by side comparison between conventional optical printing, and what has become the industry standard, computer prints from digital scans of your properly exposed negatives.

 

Ugh! So you think the prints were made after they scanned them and made them digital? That would be awful. There would be no reason for me to continue shooting film, since all's I'm getting is an imitation of film. The lab lists its price as 24 cents for a 4 X 6, either digital or a film negative. This led me to believe they actually printed from a negative, since having to scan the negative in requires an extra step, and hence should cost more. This same lab scanned some 4 X 6 prints (I had lost the negatives), and the scans came out terrible. Each scan was only 1 MB, which seems much too small to give good detail.

 

I'll have to ask them tomorrow. Like I say, there is not sense in shooting negatives if I can't find a lab that will print from negatives.

That "Extra step" saves the lab money. You get what you pay for. Find a lab popular with traditional wedding photographers. Ask them for a cost to process and proof your roll film. You may be pleasantly surprised.

A high-quality scan can do your film justice. But you'll either need to scan yourself (on a good scanner) or find a good service.

Optical prints in minilabs may have been sharper in the middle of the print, but they were mostly blurry and vignetted in the corners, and had lousy color. The digital process makes for much better process, and demands much less labor, and less skilled labor, to make prints that the uneducated consumer will be much happier with. They also do a much better job of saving an underexposed negative than optical printing ever did.

 

Good prints always have cost money, because of the labor. Consider a 4x6 minilab print a "proof print".

I think I would rather consider a 4x6 machine print from a pro lab a proof print. What John describes falls more

into the "Drunk monkey" category for discerning consumers.

Don't give up on film. Look for a better lab. Scanning film and printing from the resulting digital file can produce beautiful results if the film was exposed right, or at least not too much underexposed, and if the film was scanned properly. How do you know that your negatives were well exposed? It takes a densiometer, or at least some experience, and since you haven't used film in 5 years, perhaps you are mistaken about whether the film was properly exposed? If using the sunny 16 rule, overexpose by 1 stop just to make sure. Color print film doesn't mind being overexposed by 1 or 2 stops. Even 3 stops doesn't hurt much.

 

I'm afraid that nowadays, it is probably best to buy your own scanner and learn how to use it, like the Nikon film scanners. It is getting more and more difficult to rely on labs to get good prints from negatives. To me, it is a hobby, as it is for most of us. I have a Nikon scanner, and use lightzone to do a little contrast adjustments. The results are very good...as good as what I was getting from a well respected pro lab.

well If you are so used to editing digitally try scanning and editing them digitally. get hi res scans and do what you would

do a digital. Maybe you are not used to manual everything? try renting a film body (if you shoot canon like a 1v if nikon an

f100) and put your lenses on it and see if that changes anything. Good luck.

Paul, I use Kodak 200 film which is processed and scanned by my local lab. If you look at any of the photo's in my folder http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=400615 except photos 4 and 5 they are all scanned film. Perhaps you can compare and see how they look against what you are getting from your lab. I use film cameras from the 50's to the 2000's.

Benny wrote: >>I'm afraid that nowadays, it is probably best to buy your own scanner and learn how to use it, like the Nikon film scanners.

 

Yes, I think you're right, but that defeats on of my purposes of shooting film, to not have to use a computer at all. Plus, how much does an adequate scanner cost? Thanks for the tips on exposing negatives. With digital, you obviously don't want to over expose, because you blow out the high lights. So I guess it's a little better to over expose (when in doubt) with negatives?

 

Ian wrote: >> Paul, I use Kodak 200 film which is processed and scanned by my local lab.

 

Thanks, Ian. Yes, those images look really good. I'm suspecting that my local lab doesn't do a very good job. I did some searching on the internet, and this lab got mixed reviews. How large is the file size after your lab scans them?

Paul, my lab uses a Noritsu machine and the file sizes are between 5-6Mb on a CD-ROM for 5 pounds.

 

Ian

Just to add to your comment of "...but that defeats on of my purposes of shooting film, to not have to use a computer at all" is one of the reasons I still shoot film. When I am out with my camera, I enjoy taking photos of places I go and trying to be a little artistic, but I have no interest at all in computer editing, downloading, software, batch editing and anything that involves staring at a screen with my photos on it. I work with computers a little at work (not photos) and I don't want to do more of the same at home.

 

Maybe my photos won't win any technical awards, but I am having fun with my photography and as it is only my hobby, then that is the most important thing for me.

 

If I could only use a digital SLR (film unavailable for some reason) then I would leave the hobby and do something else I enjoy instead.

 

Ian

Ian ,

 

Note: you don't need a computer to use a digital SLR. You could just drop the media card off at the lab to have prints made, the same as you do with film. The advantage would be, you could instantly see the results on the LCD screen and delete the ones that were too artistic, like with your thumb over the lens.

As James mentioned, you don't need to deal with a computer. With film, one can just drop if off for prints, and with digital, one can just "drop" off the digital files for printing. In either case, someone else (or a computer) is adjusting contrast, color balance, etc., to produce what is hopefully a good print. For me, this is a pastime, so I enjoy scanning and using lightzone to adjust contrast, crop, burn, dodge, etc. I dislike computers, but nowadays the software is becoming so powerful and relatively easy to use, that even I can get good results!

Film processing is dieing. Firms that still process film are keeping their chemicals to the last minute and then some. I have been noticing a distinct drop off in quality: processing, printing, and scanning.<p/>God is dead and He took film with Him.

Well, perhaps it's because my lab (also a pro wedding photog) has reported a lot of difficulties with working with digital files (wedding dresses burnt out to a detail free glaze) but it has been 2 or so years since I looked at a DSLR so things may be better now. I have worked hard with my photography for around 7 years now, and goodness knows how many rolls of film, so I am trying to keep it going as it is something I do love to do.

 

Ian

>>You could just drop the media card off at the lab to have prints made, the same as you do with film.

 

Yes, I've considered this as well. But what do you do if you ever want to re-print any of the images, or print them at a larger size? You have to store them on a hard drive, and always back up the hard drive. You can't count on keeping the images on a CD, because a CD will eventually fail.

 

>>Film processing is dieing.

 

I hope not. People once thought AM radio would die, and it's still around. There may always be a place for it.

Switch to slides to get the most from film, especially with even lighting. Still, there is no reason you shouldnt be getting stunningly beautiful results with negative film. I do, thru Costco and Walgreens believe it or not. They use Fuji Frontiers which do excellent digital prints. But Gold 200 isnt a particularly good film. I scanned some last night, and was disappointed with the grain (but liked the colors). Go with Kodak 400UC, it is incredible stuff. And for close in shots like you describe, egt either a Stylus Epic, or a manual focus film SLR, to assure precise focus.

>>Go with Kodak 400UC, it is incredible stuff. And for close in shots like you describe, egt either a Stylus Epic, or a manual focus film SLR, to assure precise focus.

 

Thanks for the tip. Slide film is a bit too expensive for me (unless I don't print from the slides), but I'll definitely try the 400UC. I almost bid on a stylus epic yesterday on ebay. You really think you can take close ups with this camera? It has a 28 mm lens, so I would think you might get some strange looking faces. But yes, an SLR is the tool for portraits. I just got back a roll shot with a Minolta with a 135 mm lens, and they look good--washed out, but I think that is because of the poor scan. (Snapfish--what do you expect?) I'm hoping the prints will look right.

400UC is being discontinued soon. However, there are better films than Gold 200 for today's scan and print labs. The portra line of films does skin tones justice with fine grain and, if you pick the VC version, good saturation. The dyes in portra are engineered to scan easier than the older tech films like Gold 200.

I just shot a 36 exp. roll of Fuji Superia X-TRA 400 last weekend. My local camera store does an excellent job with this particular film. I don't know if it scans better than other films but it just looks great. The weekend before I shot a roll of Portra 400VC. If I look at the negatives with a high powered magnifier the 400VC film seems to have finer grain but the Fuji X-TRA 400 looks sharper. I still sometimes use Fuji Pro 400 if I think I want lower contrast but I wish Kodak would make plain Kodacolor 200 in 120 size.