First roll out of F80s: questions about color, minilabs, sharpness

[zelig]

I recently bought a Nikon F80s and just returned from picking the

first set of prints from the lab. I'm rather dissapointed in them.<P>

 

I've already diagnosed several of the problems, thanks to the

exposure imprinting on the negatives. I guess it's typical for a

person new to fast lenses to think that f1.8 is actually

functional!! But with depth of field concerns aside, I'm a bit

puzzled by the lack of sharpness, saturation, and excessive grain

that occurs in situatioins where depth of field and shutter speed

apparently had no effect.<P>

 

I used Portra 160NC shot at speed and got the prints processed

through a mini-lab, albeit at a pro facility (Q-lab; does this mean

anything?) Having had tons of experience developing my own black and

white negs and prints, the inverse is true for color: I've never had

a custom print done in my life. As a result, I'm unsure what to

blame for color and sharpness that hardly improves upon shots taken

with my cheap Canon lenses. Maybe it's me...<P>

 

Question 1: At what speed do most people shoot 160VC? Setting aside

any errors I might have made in spotmetering, my prints almost

suggest that I should have shot at 200ASA instead of 160.<P>

 

Question2: How much could graininess due ot underexposure be improved

upon by a custom print? Or is this just a fact of life in color

film? (I took a shot of a girl standing in front of dark foliage

with sunlight rimming her face. It was underexposed it to make a more

dramatic picture, although the grain from the dark trees is

unbearable..) Am I just going to have to grin and bare spending $8

per print?<P>

 

Question 3: Looking at some of my pictures made on a beach during a

very sunny, cloudless day--most having been taken directly away from

the sun--I'm beginning to wonder if polarizers and hoods aren't

absolutely essential, regardless of lens coating or build. Is this a

fair assumption?

 

Question 4: I look at Velvia shots like those from Tuan's porfolio

and am amazed at the beautiful, saturated color. Is it safe to

assume that Tuan--and all of you as well--get back 4 drab, imperfect

shots for every zinger that goes in your portfolios?

 

All very general questions, I know. Have at it.

 

rw

[david_h._hartman]

Try shooting Portra 160NC at EI 80.

[david_h._hartman]

I recommend an Nikon HN-3 hood, Nikon L37c or Hoya UV filter and a Tupperware #G cap.

[ilkka_nissila]

My experience with Portra colour films is that they're finicky on exposure and underexposure can result in a lot of grain. I avoid them, and stick to the Royal Supra films. Minilabs range from great to terrible, and the money spent on the prints is only loosely related to quality. The best ever machine C-prints I've gotten are from a Konica minilab at a department store. Hand-made prints are another matter of course.

 

I'm unsure about how you think you should have exposed at ei 200? Are your prints light? That has nothing to do with your exposures, but the minilab you're using. If your prints are grainy, that means you have underexposed the negatives. In commercial C-41 printing, you have no control over the lightness or darkness of your prints, except by choosing your lab according to your taste. This can take 10 years of searching! That's why many people shoot slide film instead, having been frustrating in trying to find a good C-41 lab. If you're looking at Tuan's portfolio, and want similar results, don't choose a film which is in the exact opposite end of the film spectrum available!

 

I suppose you're referring to f/1.8 as in a 50/1.8 lens. It's quite useable, but you will get better results at f/2.8. In the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 105/2, you can get quite good results at f/2 already.

[hal_bissinger]

I'm a bit puzzled also. I shoot loads of Portra and have found the 160 best for use in the studio or outdoors under bright conditions. 160 has extremely fine grain and I have no problem with 11x14 from a 35mm neg. Always shoot Portra at its rated ISO.<p>

That said, if your negs are underexposed you need to look at your camera or your technique since what you give as examples are not straight forward exposures. <p>

At least part of the problem could be your printing and possibly processing. Portra needs to be printed preferably on Portra paper by a lab that knows how to print Portra. My experience with anything else (IE mini labs) has been disappointing much like what you describe.

[david_blackburn1]

if you shoot slides, you dont HAVE to pay anything for prints :) sorry, i know that doesnt help. but i still think slides are the way to go.

 

my n80 makes wonderfully sharp pictures with a 50/1.8, but i have never used that film. i have gotten grainy pics from superia 800 and 400 (as i expected), but the velvia and provia 100 shots are not grainy.

 

as far as your last question, most of my pictures are bad. :( oh well. hopefully i will learn something one of these days.

 

as far as the polarizer is concerned, directly away from the sun (180 degrees) i believe the polarizer has no effect. if by directly away you mean 90 degrees, then a polarizer would have a large effect. i belive this is right, but i might be confused.

 

as far as velvia goes, i got a lot more "OK" shots with it just because the colors were so pretty.

[ed_alban]

Look for a lab who uses a Fuji Frontier printer. See if that makes a difference with your prints. I go to a lab that uses both analog and Frontier printers, and I can see the difference in my 4x6 proofs.

[greg_barnett]

Hi Robert, unfortunetly I know nothing about the film you use and have no experience with pro labs doing prints. But I used to shoot on some of the kodak consumer films and have them printed and any of the general one hour labs. I was almost always disappointed with the results, most often seeing a lack of saturation in my prints. I began bracketing thinking it was my settings and found when I did all 5 prints from a bracketing setting came back all the same. It wasn't until I learnt somewhere here on photo.net about how these labs and consumer films "compensate" for what they might consider exposure error.

 

I now shoot only slide film, generally Kodachrome, and am always happy with the results. I certainly get plenty of lousy photos back but with the slide film I can tell exactly where I metered or focused or composed wrong. And they are pretty much ALWAYS satuarted to my liking, even the lousy ones. With the print film I was never quite sure what had happened.

 

Like I say, I know nothing about the film you used and such and it sounds like you have a lot of experience with prints. But perhaps just try a roll of good slide film and see if you're happy.

 

Good luck and happy shooting.

[ilkka_nissila]

Unfortunately, slide film is only a solution for some applications. It's way too contrasty for most people photography, and extremily sensitive to changes in the colour of light hitting the scene. If you need to shoot in situations where these are a problem, then you just need to find a better C-41 lab. But it's true that slide film would help you see where the problems are, and give bright & saturated colours with fewer processing problems than C-41.

[angel_o.]

Since you have excessive grain, it sounds like your film is terribly underexposed. Nevertheless, I made the experience with Portra that minilabs and supermarket-labs have difficulties printing this film (it usually gets a green cast) and to avoid "surprises", a pro-lab is for me the solution.<br><br>

I rate Portra 160 as "160" without problems, you might check that your camera reads the DX code of the film correctly. In addition, to get familiar with the different metering capabilities of the F80 you should switch to slide film.

<br><br>

Regards

[dan_long]

Robert:

Just my opinion based on my own experience, but when I test equipment, I use transparency film exclusively. Yes, it is more finicky as far as exposure goes, but with the slides you can avoid all uncertainty related to printing. This eliminates any errors that could be made by the lab related to focus, print exposure and chemicals used in printing. They allow you to evaluate the equipment, its ability to meter and expose, and measure the sharpnes of the lens. Just remember to keep data on your exposures for each frame so you can match results with data, and use a tripod to the greatest extent possible to eliminate other variables affecting sharpness. I guess in this manner I know I am testing the equipment, rather than the lab.

 

Dan

[jim mucklin]

Robert

1. I shoot it @160, no problem with grain, I use a good lab

2. No problem with 11x16

You say first prints, tell us more, Is this a new or used camera? not doubting your ability, but when you "underexposed" was the camera on manual or could you reconstruct the settings?

Shoot a roll of slides and take it to another lab, then you'll probably find out it wasn't you or the film

jim