Flat, muddy images from Hexar AF - Bad film or the camera?

I borrowed a Konica Hexar AF - I used one a few years ago and I was amazed at the clarity and sharpness - however, the rolls of film I have just scanned look flat and muddy, lacking that beautiful sharpness.

 

I bought some Kodak Colour Plus film from eBay - 200 iso - it doesn't expire until 2020. It was cheap, though. Seems to be plenty of it around.

 

I had the film developed in a Supermarket lab to save a few ££

 

I also have a thin, good quality filter on the lens for protection- never made any difference before.

 

I have attached two images - I zoomed in twice on the image on my Mac and took screen shots. Here, I would expect real clarity - it's grainy, muddy and flat - no sharpness.

 

I'm guessing it's poorly stored film/poor developing?

 

Film is so expensive to shoot, so it's a process of elimination before I shoot more, hopefully with better results! Thanks

 

 

When you say 'I zoomed in twice' what does this mean? What proportion of an image are we looking at here? As far as I can see, they look OK to me. The top shot is partly in shade and partly in full sun. Looks like it coped well with those conditions, I wouldn't say it was muddy.

I have got pictures a bit like that when I kept exposed film too long before developing it. That's not your case, I know but I can't see how the camera would do this; I think it's the film or the developing, as you say.

Color Plus is cheap film, even when you get it from a reputable dealer. If you plan to pay someone to process your film, I'd buy more expensive stuff in the first place, and I wouldn't buy it at ebay. Since you're tying to save pounds not dollars, you could try AG Photographic (I have no connection to them, etc. but I have bought film from them in the past).

I haven't used a lab for some years now; last time I did, I posted my film to a place (Peak Imaging in Sheffield) which I know has a reasonable turnover of work. Now, I develop it myself, and it's worth doing if you mind the cost of a lab. Like using film in the first place, mostly I do it because I enjoy it. You swap one problem for another though (actually more than one): I now have a backlog of exposed film waiting to be developed, and I struggle to develop it cleanly in my dusty house!

I had the film developed in a Supermarket lab to save a few ££

 

- There's your problem.

Also, there's a small amount of camera shake taking the edge off the sharpness, and a blue cast to the colour isn't helping either.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

- There's your problem.

Also, there's a small amount of camera shake taking the edge off the sharpness, and a blue cast to the colour isn't helping either.

 

"Film is so expensive to shoot.."

 

- Then shoot digital. Nobody's twisting your arm to use an obsolescent technology.

 

Film IS expensive, but I love it.

 

I had film developed in a branch of Tesco for £1 a roll very successfully for years - so not that isn't necessarily the problem.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

Tesco's photo services are done by Max Spielmann, which at least used to be a decent firm (and I think would have gone bust by now if it wasn't still one). Mostly they offer 7-day turnaround which means it isn't being done in the store by a quickly-trained member of staff with a minilab. A lot of Max Spielmann's own shops still offer film processing (with a 1-hour turnaround) and others send film to a national 'Centre of Excellence' on the Wirral; I guess that's where film from Tesco's goes, but I don't know. I was always suspicious of minilabs run by retail staff. Edited January 4, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

Clicked zoom twice, duh.

 

This answer suggests that you think I should be able to tell what proportion of the image I am looking at from the statement ‘ clicked zoom twice’. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I can't.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

Stuart, I don't think you're missing anything.

 

veganjalapeno, I don't know why you're getting so angry. You've asked us to evaluate what a camera is doing, but used the cheapest film, drugstore processing which will be hit or miss, and shot the photos with some visible camera movement. And I see that you just joined today. Welcome to photo.net. Please wait until your second day to start insulting us.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Hector Javkin

Film IS expensive, but I love it.

 

I had film developed in a branch of Tesco for £1 a roll very successfully for years - so not that isn't necessarily the problem.

 

- Yes, but that was probably when labs put hundreds, if not thousands of rolls a day through their machines, and replenished the chemicals regularly.

 

Nowadays, I imagine that throughput barely covers the running costs and that overheads have been pared to the bone, including regular chemistry replenishment.

 

Those pictures bear all the hallmarks of cheap processing and printing/scanning, leaving aside the film.

 

The blue cast could easily have been corrected in scanning, but that wasn't done, and it makes a world of difference to the vibrancy of the result. Like this:

As Joe says, bad processing. I had the same experience with a local lab. Take a look at the edge id printing and check the density against a film that looked right.

 

Further, you bought it on e-bay. I trust NOTHING (well, almost nothing) from e-bay. For all you know you bought film that went through an airport X-ray machine 21 times.

it is both processing and scan, i guess.

 

i have seen very beautiful results with kodak colour plus 200, though it is not my favourite film at all.

but it is not this bad.

 

it looks very nice. fuji c200 is much better, has greater resolution, (and colours, to me), and it is possible to get it by comparable price.

 

so if i were you i would try it. but that's not the problem here. the problem is the lab.

I use ColorPlus 200 for testing cameras and for B&W I use Shanghai GP3 100

 

For scanning the ColorPlus 200 I've used a Microtek i900 with Vuescan and a Microtek 120tf with Silverfast

 

The i900 with Vuescan produced soft scans with good color and no grain, so that's my preference for scanning ColorPlus

 

This shot was taken with an early model EXA Camera with one of those common Tessar lenses fitted. The image received the usual post processing including sharpening. It's not prefect but considering the low grade equipment used, home processing, the cheap film and my first time go at using a little old Exa, I'm reasonable happy with it.

 

I have other ColorPlus images scanned in the Microtek 120tf but they are very grainy, so the scanner and software can make all the difference IMO

 

This ColorPlus 200 neg was scanned in the Microtek 120tf with Silverfast, it took six attempts to get it looking like this. The camera this time was the low cost SLR Petri FT with it's prime lens fitted. Course grain spoils this image. The Petri and the Ikophot handheld meter worked fine. I don't think there's much latitude with ColorPlus 200, it needs spot-on exposure, exact development and scanning technique to reduce grain. A skill set and the right equipment are required for this film if reasonable results are desired

 

 

I find that exposing ColorPlus 200 at 100--not to cover metering errors--works best because of the film's "soft shoulder" (ability to handle highlights). Using ColorPerfect to invert a linear TIFF gives me the opportunity to "monitor" and control the highlights to a considerable degree.

 

Underexposure tends to make it look a little muddy.

 

It isn't so easy to judge exposure on color negatives, but if it looks mostly clear (well, orange)

they might be underexposed. That could be from many different causes.