Damaged photo - how to fix

Discussion in 'Beginner Questions' started by norakharma, Jan 25, 2020.

  1. Back to the OP's question of how to improve the image: The brutal answer is to reshoot it using a more reliable medium. Either with faster film, more light, a better camera or digitally such that the captured image could be verified, and without the intervention of (what appears to be) careless processing.

    The existing image is, IMO, beyond salvage. There's a vaguely recognisable image of two people standing in front of the camera; too small in the frame, with one in a patterned shirt, but that's about it. Further reconstruction would be more guesswork than factual.
    IMG_20200126_105925.jpg
    I find it quite ironic that the OP insists on shooting film, and yet is looking for a digital means to salvage the mess that film use has left them with.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020

  2. I checked the rolls and they are orange with barely any images on them. I am so upset as i lost most of the images. And there's nothing we can do to fix them.

    I wanted to ask if anyone knows where i can buy a good film camera 35MM that's not super expensive.

    Thank you,
     
  3. A good camera isn't going to keep the mucky paws of a careless minilab operator off your film!

    You can probably pick up a good used digital for less than the stupid prices being asked for good quality 35mm cameras these days.
    Ignore attachment- finger trouble.

    I can't believe you can't edit out an attachment.

    View attachment IMG_20180416_134551.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2020
  4. Are you really upset?
     
  5. If you want images and not shooting film it's better to get a digital camera. I do understand that you can't get a new digital camera for less than the price of one disposable but you can buy good used digital camera for like $100 or less.
     
  6. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    Or, for a 35mm point-and-shoot, try one of the on-line auction sites.
     
  7. A couple of years ago I paid only £80 UK for a neat little Nikon CP 6000, complete with box, leads and all the other bits. A recently bought CP 5000 with no accessories cost me only £25. Both camera will deliver, in my view, better colour pictures at 400 ISO than any 35mm negative film of similar sensitivity. And with no clumsy processing monkey involved.
    Here's a couple of examples from the little CP6000:
    IMG_20171107_155614.jpg
    IMG_20190116_095317.jpg
     
    norakharma likes this.
  8. I can probably send you one of mine - depending on what you are looking for, of course. In what region to you live? If you like it you can refund me the postage. If you don't like it, well, give it to someone else.

    Also, do you want me to ask people on another site about this image? Maybe they can offer some ideas. The image itself can't be saved but the weird lines might be able to be cleaned.
     
    norakharma likes this.
  9. The fine parallel lines look like scanning artefacts, from a scanner with dust in the calibration window. So they won't be on the film to be cleaned away.

    The trouble with fingerprints is that they tend to etch themselves into the film emulsion and need a degree of rubbing to remove. Hence any effective cleaning is likely to cause almost as much damage as the fingerprints.
     
    norakharma likes this.
  10. It’s 2020. Can we not rehash film vs digital?

    Anyway. If you want a good 35mm film camera system you have a few main choices.

    If you have a lot of money to spend, you can get a Leica. Great quality, a lot to get used to and a decent kit costs thousands of dollars.

    For a medium amount of money you can get a Nikon SLR (manual or auto focus - F3, FM/FE/FA and F100 are all good choices) or Canon autofocus. In manual focus SLR you can’t argue with Nikon quality. Even the led expensive Series E consumer lenses are great.

    For less money you can have an “orphan” (not compatible with current models) kit. Canon manual focus, Minolta manual or auto, Konica, Olympus OM, etc. There’s some great gear to be had in these systems. Personally I’m a big fan of the Minolta XD series.
     
    DrBen and norakharma like this.
  11. I recommend the Canon FTb, mostly because I have one, and not one of the others listed above.

    I think you can get one, with lens, for about $20.

    I believe it is built a little tougher. While many pros would go for the F1, many others would
    probably use an FTb, with one or two more as spares.

    Canon film SLRs that use EF lenses aren't all that hard to find, and you can use the lenses
    with the Canon DSLRs, also.

    Do note that you can underexpose just as much with a fancy camera as with a disposable one.
    With more settings, there are more ways to go wrong.
     
    Tony Parsons likes this.
  12. Yes, but this is a beginner forum, and there's no arguing that the immediacy and reliability of digital capture make learning the basics of exposure, composition, etc. much, much easier than with film. No matter what the date.

    Also, the destination of images is increasingly for online social media in digital form. Why the heck would anyone start out with a bit of plastic, gelatine and dye, only to have to convert it to a digital image to post it online?

    I see no sign of this trend reversing, and increasing concerns over environmental issues make the waste of resources that film use entails become more relevant with time, not less. I mean; disposable camera - how environmentally unfriendly is that?
     
  13. Are the edge markings clearly defined on the negatives? There should be film brand, frame numbers and such.

    Asking as I think a disposable should have done a little bit better than that, looks like the subjects were about 3 metres from the camera (assuming people of average height and a 35mm focal length) and the flash fired (black background). Maybe not a lot better, but a bit...

    So the blame might lie with the lab? Given the appalling state of the negs, what's the betting they change their chemistry on schedule?
     
    norakharma likes this.
  14. Disposable cameras are supposed to be recycled, though that assumes that they actually get to a lab.

    I have some around that never got used, probably never will.

    My general rule when someone makes a statement about the environmental cost of something is that it is wrong.

    There are so many things to consider, that more often than not, the obvious answer is wrong.

    And if you want to actually print those digital images, the big labs that I know of use Fuji Crystal Archive
    and RA-4 (or the Fuji equivalent) chemistry. I got 260 5x7 Christmas cards from one of those big
    labs for about $50, including shipping, which say "Fuji Crystal Archive" on the back.

    There is been discussion over the years for a disposable digital camera.
    I am not sure what you would do with one, but there are plenty of cameras with
    low resolution and low price.

    I am not sure what happened on that picture. Maybe the flash was only partly charged, or
    partly covered up. WE don't know that it is the whole image, though you might figure it
    out from the fingerprint size.
     
  15. General rules are usually wrong too!

    Recycling also has an energy cost. Probably much greater than the original manufacturing energy cost, and certainly greater than the tiny amount of electrical energy it takes to shoot 24 or 36 digital pictures.
     
  16. Today I still use film but because I like to use film. I simply like the process of using film. However, if my goal is to produce good images especially digital images (as in the case of the OP what he got were digital images although they are taken with film) then a digital camera is the way to go. While I bought some very good film cameras very cheap, Some I paid less than $20 but the cost of film and processing is not cheap so not having a lot of money is not the reason to use film. Actually I think using disposable cameras are the most costly.
     
  17. Aluminum takes a lot of energy to produce, so for that recycling is definitely good.

    Yes, I am much less sure about the rest.

    Much depends on good sorting, so no contamination with the wrong material, and people
    still aren't as good at that as they should be.
     
  18. Doing your own black and white processing is fairly affordable, pretty easy, and fun!

    For color, it is much less affordable (unless you do it in large quantities), not quite as easy,
    and the fun wears off after a while.
     
  19. I rarely ever did an B&W. I used to do a lot of color printing. Now when I use film I shoot slide and project.
     
  20. Hello again,

    Sorry for taking the time in getting back to all of you, i've been away with not much access to my internet. I want to thank you guys again for keeping the advice coming etc.

    Karim, i live in Dubai, UAE. not sure if you'd be able to send your camera. I'm just looking for a simple film camera, nothing too fancy.
    It would be great if you could ask anyone if they could edit the pictures. I have a few others that would need editing and not sure where i could get them edited and get the image visible as the grainy effect and lines are taking over the whole image.
     

Share This Page