walter_karroll Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>I just don't get. I have this great ae-1P, and all my photos seem grainy and very lifeless and dull. I am using fujifilm 200asa and a tonika 28mm-80mm lens. I took the photos using program mode. Do you think the exposure metering system sucks, or most likely just me? When I take photos wih my Kodak dx digital (small point and shoot), my photos are vibrant and full of life. I was hoping that this Canon would take great pics. I just dont understand. below see an example using a 50mm 1.2 and tube:<br> <img src="http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp352/walterkarroll/flower.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>How are you digitizing the film images?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Can you post an example of the same flower taken with your digital point and shoot at the same time? A comparison is probably in order.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_karroll Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>here is an eample of a digital<br> <img src="http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp352/walterkarroll/100_1348.jpg" alt="" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_karroll Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>also just so you know the flower in real life is a vibrant red...fire truck red. not washed out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>What do lab-printed shots from those same negatives look like?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_karroll Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Dull, and grainy. A little sharper. Not much. I guess my main concern is the color is washed out. I was expecting better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Shots like the one above (the flower) have the disadvantage of being shot in very strong, contrasty light. That always presents problems. Have you tried catching sweeter light, earlier in the day (or later), or using some light modifiers to better manage the dynamic range of the shot? When those highlights are blown like that, the lab that's handling the image can only do so much. Obviously, you can take your digitized film scans and boost the saturation, change the color temp... a lot of the things that a point-and-shoot digicam is already doing when it creates a JPG on the fly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Walter,</p> <p>(1) Try a different film for a different look. For flowers, try a fine-grained film with saturated colors.<br> (2) Try shooting flowers on cloudy days or in the shade. Flowers don't photograph well in bright sunlight.<br> (3) Be careful with exposure. This flower photo is a little bit overexposed. Buy a "gray card" and learn how to use it. They're excellent for pictures of flowers.<br> (4) A polarizing filter might help a bit with some subjects and in some types of light.<br> (5) Keep shooting and trying different things. You'l have to sort through what DOESN'T work in order to learn what does.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_demott Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Try using less contrasty lighting (e.g. overcast conditions) and using a polarizing filter. Depending on what you plan to do with the shots, you might want to try Velvia 50 slide film for very saturated colors and very fine grain (but you will need to be even more careful with contrasty lighting). If you're going to be using negative film, make sure you use a pro lab and discuss with them what you're looking for--consumer film labs can make great negatives look very ordinary when printed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The camera sees what is in front of it; your brain does not. I'm sure the flower in the sunlight had those bright reflections on it. You knew it was a totally red flower and your brain interpreted it as that. If you placed your body between the flower and the sun or sky to have it in shadow, then the flower would have been much redder, less glare. Using a polarizer filter would have also cut down on the glare. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_momary Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Less harsh light and a polarizer with a more 'vibrant' film. Add reflectors or fill flash. As all these talented folks say get the best shot on the negative. Practice, practice. Here's yours played with in Elements.<br> Jim</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_momary Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Now, strive for something along these lines ... not claiming greatness, merely a methodical approach.<br> Jim</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Photo-Documentaries Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Walter<br> It would be possible that using the program mode the light meter got cheated because the high contrast between the high lights and the red petals? I algo think that lighting direction is neither helping to saturate the colors...</p> <p>JC</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>In any case, you can't compare a picture of a flood or something taken one time, with an entirely different subject taken at a different time.<br> Shoot the same subject at the same time, and then you can compare them.<br> Learn how to meter. Flowers in the noontime sun are, as already noted, not all that easy to encompass on film or on digital media. Read up on exposure in a beginning photography book from pre-digital days.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelyoung Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>I've never owned an AE-1 or AE-1p but your dilemma caught my attention so I went Googling--always a dangerous endeavour--and discovered both the AE-1 and the AE-1P employ center weighted metering.<br> If this turns out to be actually true, it would make a serious difference in a photo with the lighting extremes of your flower photo. However, as others have mentioned, capturing a flower accurately under harsh, direct, sunlight can be a difficult task by any measure.<br> In this case, center weighting appears to have properly done its job by shifting the entire photograph's exposure to the right based its reading of a relatively dark center weighted area. In the process the vibrancy of the color through the center has been lost and portions of the perimeter, already brighter, are blown out all together.<br> It's not that there's anything "wrong" with anything. It's just the way it works and with a little use and experimentation you should be able to compensate by taking care to note whether the periphery of your viewfinder reveals a scene that is much brighter (as is the case here) or much darker than the central area of the viewfinder.<br> Finally, center weighting usually implies that the central 60% of what is seen through the viewfinder is being metered so guage accordingly.<br> I hope this helps and that I'm not completely off the mark.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_karroll Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>Thanks for all the great advice. Going to and use it now. Now that I think of it the digital camera saturates the color as the canon isn't caple of this. I guess I got so used to diital tha I forgot what film is like. However, I always thought that film offer hier resolution, but when I compare it to general photos on the digital it seems like the digital offers higher resolution.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 <p>The resolution of the digitized film scans is only as good as the process that produces them (including the hardware, software, and time that are put into them). If you're having the film souped and scanned at a typical mini-lab, then you're getting low-ish-res scans that aren't making the most of the film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_drutz Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 <p>You got a lot of very good advice. I just want to emphasize a few things already said. 1. The camera sees differently than your eye so the picture of the flower may not match what you saw. 2. With film, the quality of the lab is a major factor. I find that being able to Photoshop and print my own pictures has improved them tremendously. 3. The light you shoot in affects the picture more than you may think because as said, your eye sees differently than the film. Shoot in diffused light like on a cloudy bright day or in the shade. Too overcast can be dull. Take notes on the light when you shoot. 4. If you shoot negative film, it's better to overexpose than underexpose, so when in doubt give a little extra exposure. 5. Try different films. My favorite print film was Kodak's Ultra Color 400. 6. Try shooting some backlit flowers. Give some extra exposure to make the petals look translucent.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_karroll Posted July 24, 2009 Author Share Posted July 24, 2009 <p>Thanks. I have to find a lab that will put the photos on cd while maintaining resolution. Walmart and rite aid don't cut. I wonder if I scan them if I will have better luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john v. Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 <p>I think as the others have stated, lighting is key. Pictures taken in direct sunlight can often appear harsh. For the picture below, I waited until about sunset. This lilly was on the east side of the house, completely in shade. The black background is simply a piece of black moleskin draped behind the flower. Very little post processing except to darken the shadows using levels (makes the moleskin completely black), crop and sharpen.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throughmyshutter Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 <p>Walter, having shot film until last year, I found that Costco actually had a really decent lab. I used their one hour service until they knew me by name. I rarely had them print anything, I had everything put on CD. The CD images were excellent and so were the few prints I had them do. </p> <p>I wouldn't touch Wal-Mart with my worst enemy's film. Or Rite-Aid either. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_karroll Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 <p>Thanks for that. I am not sure if there is a costco around me. I know there is a bj's which is about the same. Not sure if they have a photo lab. Plan to find out though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now