A little sad & disappointed with the result of my first roll from the FM

<p>OK I know I went out in bad weather. I know I had a 400 ASA film roll and I know I was only testing the camera. But I'm a tad sad with the result....<br>

Now I know there may be many reasons things look the way they do - but I would like some feedback...<br>

OK - some shots are extremely grainy. I mean really bad. Shots are very pale - bad colors not at all what I'm used to from Nikon.... Some shots are too dark (probably me) but the weather was strange that day.... The CD they scanned in for me is absolutely horrible.... :-( There's dirt on the scans, but not on the prints.... Not that the prints look like anything either....<br>

My concern however is at least two faint lines going horizontal across the shots. In some shots more visible than in the others.<br>

Now I'm figuring it needs service & I'm hopeful this one place I know of will do it for me. They do Nikon, but I'm not sure if they'll service an old FM.<br>

Please help me with these two horizontal lines.... Could it be the film roll or do we believe it's the camera? If the camera.... do we believe it's something which can be fixed?</p>

<p>Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p>Hi Lil,</p>

<p>I'm no expert on film backs (nor expert on any other subject ;-) <em>But,</em> have you considered repeating the exercise with a different make of film just to give the FM another chance before considering surgery? I'd be out there having another try with brand Y instead of brand X film. </p>

<p>Actually, come to think of it I do recall my Godfather's Ricoh XR producing endless exposures with a pair of unequal thickness horizontal bands across the bottom of every print he had, he blamed the photo lab but his wife later discovered years later there was a mirror / shutter synch problem. Just my 20 cents worth......</p>

<p>Very possible the lab scratched the roll of film during processing</p>

<p>maybe post a couple of the photos... Thanks.....Bob...:)</p>

<p>Hi Matthew,<br>

I did consider doing that. I have another roll of the same file & I have two rolls of B&W & 2 of slide film. Problem with slide film is that the lines might be hard to see. And the B&W film is a thought.... But I need to locate a lab for B&W.... It's been so long since I developed any film.... OK I just remembered.... Both Samy's & Bel Air Camera have B&W labs.... <br>

So either I try a B&W roll or another film roll.... I'm wondering how bad they were at the lab.... I mean the prints look just horrible & the DVD is just pathetic....</p>

<p>Thanks Dennis,<br>

so you agree with Matthew that I might consider shooting another roll & have it developed.... But at another lab needless to say. I just used one near our home. Not a professional one.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>Hi Lil,</p>

<p>In that case - I'm backing the FM to come good with maybe some care taken in processing......fingers crossed! I have a friend with an FM which looks like a child's football, all ragged like it's been tossed around over it's lifetime - still rolls the film on just fine and goes click at the appropriate speed...........</p>

<p>Don't get discouraged, it may just be processing. So far no lab scanned CD has matched my own, even from a pro lab.</p>

<p>The horizontal lines sound like scratches. Pretty typical of indifferent minilabs. I've seen 'em literally drag negatives across the floor, stepping on 'em as they go. I watched one button pusher "clean" a lens by licking his thumb and swirling it around on the lens.</p>

<p>It's getting harder to get good results from minilabs. Just a few years ago even a drug store minilab could deliver decent results. Now even some "pro" labs are hit-or-miss. The worst in my area bills itself as a "pro" lab and does nothing else. The two camera shops that offer minilabs do much better work.</p>

<p>But when the results are good it sure beats the hours I've spent editing my own photos.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

they're so bad I'd be ashamed to post them here. The scanned images are just so bad they look like they've gone through a laundry machine or something. I mean - charging me $ 4.99 for the scan is just a joke.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>Thanks again Matthew,<br>

I'll contact the labs on Friday & I'll shoot another roll to check.</p>

<p>Thanks Lex,<br>

I'll get working on a second roll & I'll take it to a better lab for developing. At least it doesn't look like any light leaks. It's an old camera after all...</p>

<p>Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p>In a recent thread, a fellow photo.netter offered up 3 rolls of Fuji pro portrait film to the first person that sent an email, and I "won" the offer. I've been devoted to slide film for so long that I'm now faced with the difficult decision of what subject to use this print film on, since I'm concerned about getting crappy prints!</p>

<p>I'm so glad my brother clued me into slide film early on in my photographic endeavor. It saved me a lot of heartache concerning foggy, low contrast, unsharp prints.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't think your FM can be completely at fault for all of this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>>> "Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)"</p>

<p>Thanks for mentioning the "willing subjects"...happy new year.</p>

<p>You can get lines on the film as it is dragged out of the canister, and during development in the processing lab. As for dirt, there may well be dirt on the film which is not easily seen. I often saw lines on developed slides, specks of dirt, and sometimes what looked like drying marks i.e. where dirty water had formed drops then evaporated. Part of the process of using film is scanning. For good results you need good scans, and the shop ones used to be awful, though maybe they are better these days. Using a decent scanner with automatic dust removal (ICE) makes life easier. Otherwise you have to spot by hand in Photoshop (or equivalent).</p>

<p>It sounds like faulty developing to me and that's the problem with shooting b&w film. You have to develop it yourself or have a lab that knows what they are doing or you are wasting your time. Run a color roll through and see if you get the lines, if not, you know it was in the processing. </p>

<p>First a happy new year 2009!<br>

Lil a few suggestions.<br>

Inspect the camera's interior in good light, perhaps even at 3x magnification.<br>

Dust off all areas with a blower and wipe over all parts that get into contact with film. (I do not have to tell you that the shutter should not be touched^^.)<br>

An old soft cotton cloth, slightly moist with a minute amount of clear detergent can be used to wipe all parts. If you prefer high tech a microfiber cloth will be a good choice as well. Make certain that the moisture evaporates immediately.<br>

If all parts that touch the film look without contamination and without scratches you should get a clean negative without scratches!<br>

Use a high quality 100 ISO negative film. For California sun you could go for a soft portrait film like Fuji 160S pro but do not use that film in dull light. For not so extreme contrast scenes use a film with standard gradation. Send it to a good lab. I got fed up with "regular" labs for processing many years ago. First I got variable results in terms of negative density and second I got lots of dirt particles sticking to the film and got scratches in varying degrees. Whenever I complained about scratches it was my "fault". one time I got many identical looking scratches on several films from two different cameras. Needless to say that it could "not possibly" be from the lab^^.<br>

With the low quantity of negative film developed today pro labs are an expensive way to go. Here in Germany the development cost a lot and mailing film both ways adds even more. When I decided to develop my film on my own again I was lucky because several years ago when many sold their developing machines I got an excellent small unit for a few Euro. I suppose by today the market is no longer flooded with such offers since most changed to digital long time ago. Chemicals for color (C41) process are not cheap but chemicals for silver based BW film cost almost nothing.<br>

For scanning some films are best exposed a slight bit denser (almost 1/2 f-stop) than "normal" (using a good scanner e.g. a high end Nikon scanner, that can handle the high density) .<br>

For first testing I would spend the money for a pro lab and shoot a few rolls of say Fuji Reala 100. Pro labs can also get you pro-scans at a high price. From a pro lab you will get no scratches.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This question used to pop-up often in the old days when only a few people used digital...almost makes me nostalgic :-)<br>

- With negs, you need to look at the neg unless you're sure that the printing/scanning is top-notch. Graininess usually means poor exposure (esp. underexposure). Too light/too dark is a printing problem.<br>

- B&W is best when developed by oneself. If you want to use a lab, either use Tri-X or ask what film they are most used to do.<br>

- Slides are pretty standard and unforgiving in terms of exposure, so they should show your technique well :-)</p>

 

<p>Lil,<br>

Don't get discouraged. I know you really wanted that FM replacement. A couple things. Make sure the film rails are clean. Also check the ASA knob adjustment. It may be out of whack and your exposures might not have been correct. Compare your exposures with a camera that is tried and true. (side by side exposures are never exactly the same on any 2 cameras) every camera has it's own "personality." Shoot a roll of transparencies, then there is no room for exposure error.</p>

<p>Best wishes and have a wonderful January 01.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>I'm suspicious of underexposure.<br>

Try rating your 400 film at 200. Negative film, both color and B&W, hate underexposure. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Hi Eric</strong> ,<br>

Congratulations on the rolls Eric. Like you I prefer slides. I have two rolls right next to me. I just felt that since I had rolls of print film, problems would be easier to see in the prints.... :-( Maybe my logic was wrong...<br>

<strong>Hi Shuo Zhau</strong> ,<br>

of course subjects must be willing. :-) Happy New Year to you too. :-)<br>

<strong>Hi Leif</strong> ,<br>

the dirt in question are on the DVD & not on the prints. I therefor have to believe the dirt was placed on the negative while they were scanning the film for the DVD. It's a test roll & not a huge issue. Mainly I wanted to test the camera. ;-)<br>

<strong>Hi Tim</strong> ,<br>

I must have confused you. This is about a roll of color film, not B&W. I do have two B&W rolls I can use. But at this time they remain unexposed. But I will run a second roll through the camera & test again. I will however use a more reputable lab next time. :-)<br>

<strong>Hi Walter</strong> ,<br>

and Happy New Year to you & yours.... Thank you for all your help. :-) I will check the camera in good light & I will use the blower & potentially clean it as well. I have slide film & B&W film with an ASA 100 rating. I only have a supposedly good ASA 400 Kodak film somewhere in the house. We just remodeled a lot due to fire damage (only smoke, soot & ashed everywhere) & a lot of stuff has been moved. So I will look around & try this. I may even try one of my good slide film rolls for this second test. Do you have a chemical for the cleaning to recommend for me. I have none at home.<br>

<strong>Hi Oscar</strong> ,<br>

the graininess is mostly evident on the DVD, but visible on some of the prints. The more I look at the prints, the more I realize that I've just gotten lousy prints as well. There are just some really inexplicable things on the prints as well, which simply could not have been the camera nor the film. But I also believe I need to do some adjusting in my photography. It feels like going back to school. I will do so. :-)<br>

Hi Steven,<br>

Happy New Year to you too. Yes, I so want this to work. :-) I think the ASA knob is fine. If felt right from the very beginning. Some shots look fine in print. I think it's also a question of me being more careful in my exposures. :-) But that can not be explanation in regards to the lines in the shots. That's something completely different. I'll shoot off a roll of transparencies/slides that will be a good thing to do. And I'll be far more careful with my exposures.<br>

<strong>Hi Joe</strong> ,<br>

I may have underexposed some of the shots. But I don't think that's the camera, but rather my illogic in exposure. Still - it does not explain the lines going horizontally through the shots.... I will try to compare with one of my digital cameras. Or even just use the N90s as a reference camera. - now that's the trick... I should simply load a roll of film in both of them. Use similar lenses & compare the settings. I can do that easily..... I have an AF 50mm f/1.8 I can put on the N90s & I can just keep the 50mm f/1.2 on the FM & run two rolls of the exact same thing & see how they behave against each other..... Sound like a good idea?</p>

<p>Thanks guys & as always...</p>

<p>Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :-)<br /> <br /> Lil :-)</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3918763"><br /> </a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>OK - some shots are extremely grainy. I mean really bad. Shots are very pale - bad colors not at all what I'm used to</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most likely significant underexposure. Use your digicam to check the accuracy of your FM's meter. Zoom the digicam so that it covers the same scene as whatever lens you have mounted on the FM. Make sure it is also set to the same ISO and same aperture as that of the FM</p>

<p>Take a shot with the digicam then read off the shutter speed information recorded with the image. Point the FM to the same scene. Adjust shutter speed until the camera indicates correct exposure. If the shutter speed differs significantly from the digicam reference, then the FM probably needs adjustment.</p>

<p>Thanks Robert,<br>

will do. :) But it still does not explain the lines in the shots.<br>

Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p>Hi Lil , I am a pro lab owner, and I know the developing machines are build in a way that make almost impossible for them to scratch a film roll durring process. So you have to follow Walter's and Steven's advice and clean your camera. When shots are pale and grainy it means they are underexposed. In time the metering system can shift from normal, and you need to use exposure compensation. Usually the labs scan films at low res (1500 dpi) . On demand you can get quality scans (4000dpi) with automatic scratches correction, but the price is high , and I think is not sutch a bad ideea to buy your own scaner. Good luck, and try again !</p>

<p>Thanks Paul,<br>

I will clean the camera to the best of my ability & try again. I will also try to check the exposure to see what I get. It could be underexposing or maybe it's just me getting back to it all.<br>

Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p>Would not pass judgement on a camera with just one roll of film. Shoot several rolls. Try different labs. <strong>Try shooting digital along side with the FM, replicating the settings on the digital.</strong> Compare your frames when you get the film back. Good luck.<br>

BTW, went shooting last weekend with my old FE2. Loved the analog feel of the old body. Afterwards, wished Nikon would get moving and create a digital version of the FE2. Nothing better than moving the dials around without having to squint at LEDs, and all in a light package. It was like seeing an old friend.</p>

<p>What exposure is your meter reading under sunny conditions? You should compare that to the 'Sunny 16' exposure of about 1/500 @ f/16.</p>