Some of my frames have good color, others dull?

<p>I just processed a new roll of Kodak gold 200 film. It has 36 exposures on it and I would say about 5 or 6 have really nice colors but the rest are pretty dull. Is there a reason that some are good and others aren't? I was shooting in a place where the lighting was constant but I used Av mode. Thanks</p>

<p>-Nick</p>

It may have to do with which way the light was falling. At certain angles there may be more light reflecting off of surfaces masking the color.<P>

 

I just took the following photos outside in my backyard with Av f/8:<P>

 

<center><img src="http://jdainis.com/shrub2.jpg"><br><B>

Shrub in the shade</B><B><P>

 

<center><img src="http://jdainis.com/shrub1.jpg"><br>

 

Shrub in the sun with light reflecting off leaves</B></center>

<p>James, are you a Shrubber?</p>

<p>Shiny leaves? That's why they invented the polarizer. It is not enough to put it on the lens, you has to turn it to block the unwanted reflection of the leaves.</p>

Bela,

 

I was trying to give an answer to Nick's question. I don't know if he was outdoors, indoors, taking photos of leaves or statues or what not or what "constant" lighting he had.

<p>Nick It would be helpful if you could scan and post a couple of the good ones and bad.</p>

<p>Ditto, what James said. Any differences on the same roll of film are usually due to lighting - assuming the film and processing were good.</p>

<p>Unfortunately nowadays you're at the mercy of labs and scanning that may be substandard. When in doubt, take the same negatives to another lab that has a solid reputation and have them reprint the same frames. You'll often see significant differences.</p>

<p>Daylight is never as "constant" as we think it is. Our eyes and brains are very adaptable and fool us into interpreting what we see to conform with what we expect. Film doesn't work that way. It records what's there.</p>

<p>As an example, use a wide angle lens and photograph a 360 panoramic view of the sky and surrounding horizon. Don't worry about making it level and even - it's just to test the light. You don't even need a tripod. Just take a photo, rotate yourself a bit, take another, etc., until you've covered 360 degrees. Try this early in the day, at midday and later in the day. When you compare the results you may be surprised to see how differently the film sees things. For example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_sky_model">a blue sky is already polarized</a>. Occasionally I'll read questions from folks asking why their lens seems to show "vignetting" in some photos but not others, even at the same focal length and aperture. It isn't vignetting or light falloff in the lens - the sky really does look like that in some conditions. But we tend not to notice it. Photographs notice. Add a polarizing filter and the effect can be exaggerated, taking on the appearance of vignetting or light falloff.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If it's like the examples, try a polarizer to cut down on reflections off the leaves. That will result in more saturated images.<br>

According to the Knights Who Say Meep.</p>

<p>Hey guys, thanks for all the responses!<br>

Here are a few examples, it was indoors:</p>

<p>Good<br>

http://imgur.com/SVChe8u</p>

<p>Dull<br>

http://imgur.com/Yqy2MhD</p>

 

Another possibility is your exposures. Significant underexposure of negative film typically leads to a loss of saturation.

<p>Lighting is complex. Sorry for the brief comment, but to go into a long dissertation on lighting would be a long, long response. Lighting not to be underestimated. Not that you do, but many today because of the stigma of what modern camera's can do rely on the path of least resistance, and just shoot with disregard for what light actually looks like. I've done the same thing. It all changes from shade, to front lighting, backlighting to side lighting.<br>

Unless, you camera is under, and overexposing your film creating crossover, and color shifts.</p>

<p>I'm guessing the light source was a basic fluorescent light? With fluorescents the color temperature changes when the light flickers and with the right shutter speed (short enough) you capture the different color temperature from one blink to another.<br>

<br />Looking at the pictures I cannot think of any other explanation.</p>

<p>I think What Mike said applies. Since you're using Av mode and the exposure setting is changing from one shot to the other, the exposure is slightly different among all the shots. So some shots or more saturated than others. </p>

<p>For pictures all taken under the same lighting, you might want to lock in the aperture setting using the AEL lock button if you have one or switch to manual exposure mode.</p>