Why does this keep happening to my photos? 35mm

Hi there. I'm new to 35mm film and keep having the same problem when I try to work with colour film. I use a Canon AE1. The particular film used here was Fuji Superia 200.

I was wondering if someone could help me out and tell me what I'm doing wrong :)

Thank you!

Hello claire. The film looks underexposed. It also appears underdeveloped.

How old is the film? Did you develop it? If so, which chemicals did you use, and how old were the chemicals?

Hello claire. The film looks underexposed. It also appears underdeveloped.

 

How old is the film? Did you develop it? If so, which chemicals did you use, and how old were the chemicals?

The film is brand new, I didn't develop it myself I took it took my local camera specialists to be developed so I have no idea what chemicals were used either :(

It appears your light meter may be off, causing underexposure. Or perhaps the lens wasn't set to "A".

Do you have the instruction manual for the camera? The AE-1 is more finicky than I remembered, so be sure to read it. Find the manual here:

Canon AE-1 instruction manual, user manual in multiple languages, PDF manual, free manuals.

You might want to find another lab to develop/print your photos too.

Either you're dramatically underexposing your film or your lab's processing chemistry is way off.

Just to be sure, do you have the ASA set on the camera's film speed dial? It's the one around the rewind crank. Also, make sure exposure compensation is set at 0.

If all of that is correct then, if possible, try another lab.

One other thing-IIRC Superia 200 was discontinued about a year ago. I think Fuji usually dates color print film 2 years out from manufacture(slide film is 18 months), but double check the expiration date. I would expect print film stored reasonably to be decent for a couple of years. With that said, leaving it in a hot car for an extended period of time or leaving it in your checked luggage at the airport can kill film pretty quickly.

Even allowing for underexposure, the pictures look diffused in some way.

Check the lens condition. It could be full of fungus, scratched or smudged with fingerprints.

And is using film a step forward?

Hi Claire

Are you familiar with the normal controls of aperture and shutter speed to achieve a correct exposure? If not this could be user error. If so, it looks as if the cameras meter is malfunctioning. Point the camera at a clear blue sky on a bright sunny day, you should be getting about 1/125 or 1/250th at f16

I think your camera has a faulty shutter.

I punched up the contrast in your posted images, and the bottom of both frames is almost totally black. This would indicate a slow or 'sticky' first curtain in the shutter.

If that's the case, then I doubt the camera is economic to repair.

This is typical of the sort of photographic Russian roulette you're going to encounter with 35mm film photography.

I think your camera has a faulty shutter.

 

I punched up the contrast in your posted images, and the bottom of both frames is almost totally black. This would indicate a slow or 'sticky' first curtain in the shutter.

 

If that's the case, then I doubt the camera is economic to repair.

 

This is typical of the sort of photographic Russian roulette you're going to encounter with 35mm film photography.

It would be true if the shutter was vertically traveling. But AE-1 has a horizontal cloth shutter, so in case desynchronization, either left or right side would be underexposed.

It would be true if the shutter was vertically traveling. But AE-1 has a horizontal cloth shutter, so in case desynchronization, either left or right side would be underexposed.

- In that case the mirror isn't clearing the frame properly, or returning too soon.

Unless the OP is using an upside-down grad filter, or obscuring the lens with an ER case. I would have thought she'd have noticed either of those two problems though!

Pretty sure it's a camera fault.

- In that case the mirror isn't clearing the frame properly, or returning too soon.

 

Unless the OP is using an upside-down grad filter, or obscuring the lens with an ER case. I would have thought she'd have noticed either of those two problems though!

 

Pretty sure it's a camera fault.

Indeed, "A" series Canon cameras are well known for lubrication going bad over time, catching slow mirror disease, "squeak" noise et cetera.

I think it's a bit early to condemn the camera. I see there is some detail all the way to the bottom of the frame, and the density is graded from there to the top without an obvious edge. So I see no reason to suspect the mirror, and certainly not the edge of a case (you'd see that in the VF). I think this is either bad film or bad developing.

OP said 'keep having the same problem when I try to work with colour film'.

..so have you had good pictures from this camera with B&W film, or have all the films you have taken with it been bad?

Also, have you had any good film back from this processor; and are these your own scans (and how did you do them), or done by the processor?

It would be good to see the negatives, as James suggests.

One other thing-IIRC Superia 200 was discontinued about a year ago. I think Fuji usually dates color print film 2 years out from manufacture(slide film is 18 months), but double check the expiration date. I would expect print film stored reasonably to be decent for a couple of years.

Really??? Still in production and widely available in N. America. Will only be available in 36exp rolls soon but not dead yet.

"So I see no reason to suspect the mirror"

- Then what else could explain consistent graduated shading of the bottom of the image = top of the frame in the camera?

Agreed we're all guessing at the moment, but the balance of evidence points to a sticky mirror.

I've seen some very dodgy processing in my time, but surely a company churning out unusable negatives and prints like this would quickly go out of business? And it's difficult to see how a continuous roller processor could give a side-to-side density variation.

I think it's a bit early to condemn the camera. I see there is some detail all the way to the bottom of the frame, and the density is graded from there to the top without an obvious edge. So I see no reason to suspect the mirror, and certainly not the edge of a case (you'd see that in the VF). I think this is either bad film or bad developing.

 

OP said 'keep having the same problem when I try to work with colour film'.

 

..so have you had good pictures from this camera with B&W film, or have all the films you have taken with it been bad?

Also, have you had any good film back from this processor; and are these your own scans (and how did you do them), or done by the processor?

 

It would be good to see the negatives, as James suggests.

Below I've attached some black and white images I took with the same camera. These were scanned in by a specialist, the colour scans were scanned in using my crappy printer/scanner I had to hand haha. I've had no good colour film back from this processor, the black and white film I get processed by another company. And yeah, I'd say the negatives look kind of dense.

Thanks for those. I think we can acquit the AE-1. If you have more of the same film, maybe you could quickly run off a roll and try another place for processing. Since you put a 'u' in colour, maybe you're in the uk? I've had good results from Peak Imaging in Sheffield. Good luck!

Thank you very much! I am from the UK indeed :) I'll give Peak Imaging a spin! thanks a lot!

"the colour scans were scanned in using my crappy printer/scanner I had to hand"

- AFAIK, nobody makes a combined filmscanner/printer combo.

So what you've posted are scans of prints, right?

"And yeah, I'd say the negatives look kind of dense."

Yet underexposure would result in faint negatives.

The second B&W shot has all the hallmarks of underexposure. No detectable detail in the shadows, and huge grain.

printer/scaners are very popular and do scan negatives.

https://www.staples.com/printer+and+scanner+combo/directory_printer+and+scanner+combo

Even allowing for underexposure, the pictures look diffused in some way.

 

Check the lens condition. It could be full of fungus, scratched or smudged with fingerprints.

 

And is using film a step forward?

What is wrong with using film?

What is wrong with using film?

It's just his way to put things. Internet forums are strange places sometimes :rolleyes:

On each of them there's usually at least one person who says that using film is a step back, no matter the subjective reason of each individual.

Basically that's true, but still, our reasons are our reasons, sometimes objective reality can be neglected.

"What is wrong with using film?"

- Well, you only have to look at the number of threads like this; listing a catalogue of faults that are almost impossible to diagnose at a distance.

Film is an unreliable medium for a beginner, with too many variables to get to grips with. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Especially as good processing labs are getting harder to find.

I think anyone new to film has to just ask themselves exactly why they're taking up using film.

If it's because it's considered 'hip', then that's not a good reason.

If they think it'll improve their eye for a picture - it won't.

If it's for some perceived commercial advantage. That's ethically questionable.

For the 'fun', challenge or masochistic pleasure of it. Fair enough. But then don't complain that it's difficult to gain the skills and throws up strange results occasionally.

If it's for some perceived commercial advantage. That's ethically questionable.

What does that mean?