Film quality?

[michael_walter1]

I have a question about film 'quality'. I have been shooting for a

while now. I have a Rebel Ti and a Nikon FT2. The pictures are in

focus, the DOF seems right, the composition is nice, the light seems

adequate. Yet, the pictures have no 'POP'. I look at them, I

say "yeah, that's nice". I want to be able to look at them and

say "Wow! That is nice". I use your basic Walgreens 200 or 400 speed

film. Should I try to find something more "professional"? Maybe go to

slides? I get the film developed at a local camera store, not the

department store or drug store.

 

I know that the pictures I see in most photog magazines are shot by

professionals with expensive gear, but still....

 

I keep hearing that it is not the equipment, it is the photographer.

A good photographer will still take great pictures with a light box.

If that is true, I am willing to trade a light box for all of their

unnecessary expensive bodies and lenses.

[celia_bashir1]

[i keep hearing that it is not the equipment, it is the photographer.]

 

That does get bandied about on this forum, mostly as a pontification by the more pompous who've little else to offer photographically-speaking. Behind that useless oversimplification is the truth that "it is the photographer" means having a mastery of the craft, and that includes the diligent choice of kit and combustibles. No matter how brilliant is one's photographic vision one cannot expect to realise it consistently without a mastery of the technology. Books, courses of study, polling real photographers in the field, all will get you farther than poking your head into the noose supplied by anonymous internet braggarts.

[btmuir]

If it's the "pop" that is lacking maybe try some "Professional" grade films instead of

walgreen's. I'm not dissing wahgreens but pro film is fresher and may give you the slight

contrast punch your looking for. If you're comfortable shooting transparency material

shoot some slower film like Provia, Astia, or even Velvia. If yoy prefer Kodak try some of

their E-6. These will definately give a boost in contrast and color over consumer grade

color neg film.

[steve_levine]

It's the printing! Bargain films, processed at a consumer type lab, will give "pop-less" results. Try shooting and projecting slides,f ind a good pro lab, or try printing your own work.

[michael_walter1]

I do take them to a professional camera shop. They have their own lab.

[jbq]

It's probably "the lab where there photographer has the pictures printed". Printing can make or ruin a picture.

[walter_degroot]

it is , indeed the photographer. basically being able to recognize something that will make a good photo and after that pushing a button.

 

there are "record shots" the old house the old bridge, etc. and folks can see it and say yes thats how it was.

 

but to capture an image, the way the light hits something or a child's expression. that's different.

 

techology, better films and amazing cameras has taken us a long way.

but we need to be able to see , not just frame and click.

sometimes it requires courses and reading the knowledge of great image makers. but sometimes one just knows what would look good in a photograph. some technical skills are helpful. to understand the limitations of film and equipment. or the manupulation of B&W in the darkroom.

some are totally clueless. I watched a man point his flash instamatic at a movie screen. did he think it would work.?

some trust to dumb luck and get lucky, others - not.

[alexandru_petrescu]

I had a Rebel Ti and believed having no 'POP'. Then I bought an EF 50mm/1.4 lens, Fuji Velvia film and a film scanner. I "sharpened" the pictures digitally under Windows XP. I believe after that there was much more 'POP' when looking at the pictures on the computer screen.

<p>

I'm using now even more advanced lens/camera/film/scan but still sometimes obtain little 'POP' or other times too much of it. I think it is very much a matter of choosing good lighting to start with.

[red_jenny]

If you were a chef, you'd be familiar with the phenomenon where the guests enjoy eating the food more than the chef himself does. Making the item sometimes detracts from its value and interest to the maker, though others may still appreciate it. There's the reverse trend too -- sometimes the maker over-estimates the value and quality of what he's made.Just one of those things . . .

[leicaglow]

I'd look at the film, but I'd also look at the lens(es). You didn't mention which ones you're using. On the FT2, you should be using Nikkors, preferrably some of the known performers, like the 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm, etc., or good zoom.

 

There were some dogs, including the Series E lenses, and the 43-86mm Nikkor, for examples.

 

Years ago I sold all my Canon and bought Nikon after I shot an airshow with my friend's Nikon and extensive Nikkor collection. The stuff my friends shoot with Canon now makes me believe the quality of good Canon lenses are at least as good as the Nikkors, so you might want to try some newer Canon lenses.

 

Can you borrow some Canon or Nikkor lenses from friends? Does your local pro camera shop rent good quality lenses? This would be a good test with a) professional quality film, and b) professional quality processing. You'll find that a slightly better film and processor won't cost you much more than the "drugstore" variety you're using.

[michael_walter1]

I am using Vivitar lenses on the Nikkormat (mostly 50mm). On the Rebel, I quit using the "kit" 28-90 lens. I use a Canon 50mm or a Tamron 70-300 lens.

[tom_s.]

Minilabs can be spotty. I've had both good and bad experiences. The best experiences I've had are when the people behind the counter take a genuine interest in producing good results and realize that you do as well, or where the owner is a photographer himself (and keeps an eye on quality).

 

If you have the means to view slides, I would definitely recommend shooting a few rolls of slides, as it removes the issue of labs and printing from the equation. It will also help you determine if your exposure technique is correct, as slides have almost no latitude.

[jon_noble]

yep, its the photographer alright. without him the gear will sit and do nothing!

[alexandru_petrescu]

If I could permit myself a critique of the "ship" picture on your photo gallery. The composition is excellent, it suggests straight lines crossing (shore line, mountain peak line, leaves' border line, boat line, etc.) However the light is very difficult to tackle because much contrast. From the leaves' shadows on sand I can deduce the sun is not far from zenith, mid-day? The same composition but shot little before sunset, with a tripod, on Velvia, would have given blue sky, detail on the leaves, no shadows on ground, etc.

 

Just a beginner's oppinion.

[edgar_njari]

If you switch to slide film you will indeed take a first look and say "wow this is wonderfull". I remember when I got back my first slides from processing, they were mounted, and I was walking back home, and couldn't wait so I looked at a couple of them up against the sky.

I was blown away by the 3D image. I've never seen anything like it before, really nothing like it.

 

But that doesn't mean slide film is higher quality than negative.

It only means that the image is better presented to your eye (dircetly). Negative film would probably be just as mind-blowing if you had real time orange-mask removing (and inverting) software in your brain software.

 

 

There really is no better way to view an image than on a transperency against a light source like sky or lightbox. The light is projected onto your eye directly in a purity and range that no current monitor, projector or any display mechanism can achieve.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that you use slide film for best prints or scans, I'm just saying that you are going to feel like a hero when you shoot on slides. Nothing is more satisfactionary than seeing slides of your work with a loupe or a lens.

[michael_walter1]

Next roll of film will be slides. The bummer I find with the pictures on my web site http://www.hbci.com/~mwalter is that I have a crappy low-end scanner. Ergo, crappy low-end looking scans :-(

[edgar_njari]

If you are going with slides, I'd recomment that you start with something that will amaze you with colors and depth first, and later move on to something more subtle that is more flexible and scanable.

 

So I'd say that you start with Provia or Velvia, or Kodak E100VS. It's instant out-of-the-box punchy colors, and that "pop" that you are looking for.

 

Just be carefulll how you expose, these films are sensitive to even a third of a stop exposure.

 

Buy yourself one of those small cheap slide-viewers (for like a dollar or two), the ones that you point at bright light that comes through the back, the sit back in an outdoor coffy-shop, point it at the sky and enjoy your slides.

[michael_walter1]

My father-in-law is very good nature photographer. He has a lot of his stuff in DNR brochures, etc. He wants me try slides also. So, I guess I'd better shoot up the current roll. :-)

[steve_swinehart]

I've looked at your photos and am not sure what you mean by "pop." One of the problems with shooting negative film is getting good prints no matter where you take them.

 

Straight prints from a Frontier printer, or mini-lab optical printer probably do lack the "pop" you're thinking about. Unless you get a custom print made, you probably won't get what you're looking for.

 

Kodak Ultracolor film has the most "pop" of any negative film I've ever used, but until it's printed properly, I don't expect to get the most out of the film.

 

Transparencies will give you a more compressed tonal range, and won't be subject to the degradation of the machine printing process (non-custom print). They present a positive image to look at and have high color saturation. If you want "pop" shoot Velvia 50 (I can't believe I said that....). That's the extreme in screaming color in transparency film.

 

If you have Photoshop or a like photo program, my suggestion would be to take one of your favorite negatives to a lab and have a high quality scan done. Take the image home, manipulate it in the photo editing program until it looks like you want.

 

Take the manipulated image file back to the lab and have a LightJet or Chromira print made on a good paper - my bet, your images have all the "pop" you want, they just haven't been handled correctly.

[michael_walter1]

Now, that's an interesting angle. I do have Photoshop CS, although I am not very experienced with it. There are a couple of those pictures that I would like 8 x 10. Maybe I will try that. Thanks.

[edgar_njari]

One more thing worth mentioning.

Even if you use slide film or professional negative film , you will still have problems with getting great prints, specially with slide film because it is so hard to scan it properly.

But at least when you are using chromes, you can take one look at them and blaim the lab for a bad print.

 

The best way to get a good print at consumer cost is to bring your files to a frontier machine. It's recording system is really good and accurate. But don't give them your film, because the frontier's built-in scanner is not that good.

Wheather you are shooting slides or negatives, find a place where you can get a good scan (on a stand-alone dedicated film scanner, not on a minilab machine), then take it home, edit it in photoshop CS, and take the final files to a frontier machine that prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

 

It is my opinion that the most beautifull scans come from reversal film if the scanner can capture a high dynamic range, but some might disagree.

[eye-of-searle]

No doubt, a good lab is key. Also, not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but....

 

Looking at your website, One easy thing that may improve the pop in your images is a polarizer. It will intensify colors and help give you bluer skies. It's not a magical cure but could have helped with a lot of your shots.

 

Also, shooting early and late in the day when the sun is less intense and lower in the sky will also help "pop" the color.

 

Jim

[robert_potts1]

Beautiful Photos are mostly about beautiful light, but it is more complex than that. You have to work with the medium until you find a combination of light, film, equipment, and processing that works for you. I'm sorry that I can't be more help, but different things work for different people.

[25asa]

Try this on for size.

[rustys pics]

Get some kodachome 64 in your camera. Forget the scanner and buy a good used slide

projector. You can get them for practically nothing nowadays. And keep shooting. A lot of

times you'll be disappointed, but don't toss anything. One day you'll come back to the

photograph and realize what you were trying to do.

 

But then again, maybe I'm just one of those "anonymous internet braggarts". ;)

Most of all, keep it fun and fluid.