First Film Photo in 20 Years!!

[robert_segal3]

<p>Help! I bought a T-90 and shot my first roll of film. I had it developed at Walgreens. I think it's in focus but it is very grainy. The resolution says 2.2 MP, I believe. Can someone critique the photo? Is the image quality poor due to low resolution of the scanning by Walgreens? Is it typical that the photo would be processed to such a small pixel size? Your assistance is most appreciated as I am quite discouraged by my first attempt. I'm just not sure if it is the camera, the lens, the photographer, or Walgreens low image processing quality? <img src="http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f211/rsegal/Untitled_zpsc7fbdbb4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks.<br /> Robert</p>

<p> </p>

[johnw63]

<p>What film did you use ? What does the negative or slide look like ? What settings did you use on the camera ?</p>

[robert_segal3]

<p>It was 400 speed Tri-X. I was using the program mode. It was late this afternoon. My recollection is the shutter speed was around 1/90th and the aperture probably 5.6 or so. Not sure as I was shooting with a 28mm 2.8 FD and a 70-210 FD zoom.<br>

I have the negative but I have not reviewed it as I don't have the equipment to do so from home. <br>

The file size was 1.11MB and the pixel size 1800 × 1215 (2.2 MP). This is very small. What do you think? </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I'm pretty sure Tri-X is a black and white film ...</p>

<p>The usual scan that is provided by most processing shops for film is suitable for a 4x6 print so that is why you get the low resolution. Some shops will provide a higher resolution scan if you ask for it.</p>

<p>Picture looks OK, but you would have to do a high resolution scan to see the details.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Tri-X is a black and white film. Whatever you used to shoot that picture, it wasn't Tri-X.</p>

<p>Drug store scans are generally about 2 MP, not suitable for much more than viewing on a computer screen. Some labs offer higher-resolution scanning (for a higher price, of course); the color lab I use gives me 6 MP scans.</p>

<p>If the picture you posted is the whole 35mm image, then you must have been using the 70-210mm zoom, since the image does not look anything like what I'd expect from a 28mm wide-angle lens. It also looks to me like the focus plane is a bit in front of the dog; the leaves on the ground in front of the dog look sharper than the dog itself.</p>

<p>You really need to examine the negative to assess the real quality of the film image. Drug store scans are never very good.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Color Tri-X. Cool. If only Kodak had thought of this, but then, if only Kodak had thought of a lot of things....</p>

<p>It would be informative to know which lens you used, as the body is immaterial to IQ. For myself, and this is highly dependent on the store in your area, I've found Walgreens does a pretty good job of developing and scanning to a CD, but I definitely have to make adjustments afterwards in PS.</p>

[robert_segal3]

<p>Thanks for the responses. Questions about film. Assuming there's plenty of light and I don't plan on printing photos but only want them scanned onto a disk for editing and viewing on a computer, what film do you all recommend for a less "grainy" look and best image quality?<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Robert</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>[W]hat film do you all recommend for a less "grainy" look and best image quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For colour print film, Kodak Ektar 100 is far and away the best. For slide film, Fuji Velvia has a very good reputation.</p>

[rick_janes]

Robert, consider shooting color slide film, like Fujichrome Provia or Velvia, as a means of getting more direct feedback

on your shooting technique. Eliminate the printmaking middleman (or middlemachine) and "what you see is what you

did". Slides are also scannable and can be printed from, in fact I think they're easier to scan because you have a

color-correct original image as reference!

 

Slide films are often a little less forgiving of exposure errors of course, and processing may not be as quick or easy as

print films. But judging from just how poorly my own 1-hour prints from the 90s have fared maybe shooting slides is

worth the extra cost and effort?

[steven_endo]

<p>Before you try to judge the quality of your photos, I suggest you take the film to a proper camera shop and have them print at medium resolution. I used to take my film to the local store (CV S, Walmart,etc.) and was ALWAYS disappointed with the prints to the point I hated the pictures. I would then look at the digital file and notice that they were much sharper but still a little "flat". My last roll of film was pretty important so I took them to my local Samy's Camera and had them print at medium resolution. It cost about 3 times as much as the discount stores but I finally saw the sharpness, brilliance, colors, and contrast that these FD lenses are famous for.</p>

[robert_segal3]

<p>Thanks for the comments. So if I am only interested in scanning the photos to a disc, and not printing on photo paper or getting back slides, what is the drill? Still shoot on slide film, print film, or what? Thanks again for your patience with these newbie questions!</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Head over to eBay and pick up some Fuji Superia 100. This film rocks!</p><div></div>

[robert_segal3]

Checked eBay for Superia 100. Several deals were from an outfit in Culver City selling rolls with no expiration date. They

were very inexpensive compared to an authorized Fuji dealer which charged $15 for one roll of 36 exposures. Which

source do you recommend for best deal on Superia 100?

 

Thanks.

 

Robert

[Member69643]

<p>The guy I've always dealt with goes by the handle <a title="aqua2209" href="http://myworld.ebay.com/aqua2209?_trksid=p2047675.l2559">aqua2209</a> but he apparently only has 12 exposure rolls, no 36. That's what I use. </p>

[michael_josefsson]

<p>To me the picture looks a bit "bland". Is the film bought recently? I get this look when using old film that hasn't been stored in the fridge. Just a thought. </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>The Walgreens around the corner from where I live has always done a good job on the print orders I've had them do, but then they've always been print orders -- digital images from which I wanted prints made.</p>

<p>These days I have Costco do all my film developing work, and they do an excellent job. Their prices are very low and the print quality is very high. Shame they don't develop slides, or else they'd get a LOT more of my business.</p>

<p>Speaking of slides, Rick recommended them and I'm one who prefers shooting with slides myself, but there are a few things you should be aware of if you go that route:</p>

<p>First of all, slide film is more expensive to buy, and it's more expensive to process. I live in Houston, a greater metropolitan area of some 4 million people, yet we have only ONE lab left in the city that does slide developing. ONE! And they are predictably expensive. The good news about them is they do a great job and can typically have your slides ready same day. The bad news is a single roll of 36 exposures can run right at $20 after developing and tax are figured in.</p>

<p>Second, slide film has not just a slightly narrower latitude but a much narrower one than print film. You can't really be more than +/- 1/2 stop either way without suffering serious degradations in image quality. Some slide films are narrower in latitude than others. I find Fuji Velvia to be a simply awesome emulsion to shoot with, but lemme tell ya, you had better have nailed the exposure because it can be very unforgiving.</p>

<p>Third is the issue of availability. Not too long ago I walked into a chain-type camera store -- I think it was a Wolf's -- and asked what slide film emulsions they had in stock. They barely had any film(!) and had a single solitary 36-exposure roll of Fujichrome. Sadly, this situation is rather typical and things probaby won't be improving. Whereas one should still be able to find a decent selection of print film for some years to come.</p>

<p>As to which print film to buy, yes I agree that Ektar is the best stuff around these days. If you plan to scan it, though, you might have some problems. I've found that Ektar doesn't scan neutrally the way just about every other negative film I've scanned does. Grays and browns have purplish hues. An easy enough fix in Photoshop, but a fix nonetheless. As a general rule, keep in mind that, the slower the film speed, the finer the grain. So besides Ektar, I've had excellent results with Fuji's Superia 200. The Superia 100 stuff you see for sale is apparently existing stock, because Fuji's website doesn't show the ISO 100 flavor anymore. Just 200. So, it pretty much looks like if you want to shoot an ISO 100 color negative film these days, it's Ektar.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Your issue is the scan - most high street processors get a low resolution scan from their machine and they are useless.

They are often not in focus and quite often the machine has actually put light scratches on the emulsion ( look at your

negatives to see). I have stopped using high street processing for film and I just send colour away (I do B&W myself). I

do all my own scans. A 400 ISO print film that has been well scanned will be pretty good - hard to compare but probably

6 - 10 MP equivalent. I personally use velvia for my colour work and it scans very well. 35 mm velvia 50 or 100 is quite

good - probably 10 - 12 MP ( it is hard to compare resolutions as film and digital look quite different). I find 645 is about

the same as my 5DII and 6x8 MF (Fuji) is noticible better. Film has quite a different feel from digital and each format has

its own qualities. Obviously my MP equivalents are not an exact science and it clearly varies with sensor size. My

suggestion is that if you want to use colour film buy good films and mail them. Film is expensive - perhaps $0.50 per shot

or more (excluding scanning). I tend to use it for subjects where it works well and where you can use low ISO. I find that

in situations where you need higher ISO digital is a better option. These days even though I own a pair of Nikon scanners

I find film is a luxury / indulgence.

[jstevens]

<p>I've had good luck with NCPS in San Diego..with both print film and slides. Cost is about $20 / roll for processing and 3300x5000 18MB 3-channel JPG files. Here is a picture scanned from a Kodak Porta 160 I shot on my Canon T-90 with FD 85mm 1.8 probably at F2 or F2.8.</p>

<p>This is my first post and I'm not sure the picture will show up, but it is in my gallery if it doesn't.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16503932</p>