ok new question why is the image quality

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by cyberspider, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    from my film camera both x-700 and pentax p30t
    not as good as my now busted 3 mp other format
    this is a scan from a print i just run off of a photo taken with x-700
    i would of thought that a 35mm would be very nice
    but i could be letting my camera down lol
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That indeed looks terrible.
    Hard to say why, but it's probably indeed something you do. :wink:
    Seriously, this is not what you should be getting. So unless something is wrong with the camera, lens or film (or all three), it is you, or whoever else processes the stuff such that this is the final result.
     
  3. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    sadly i think its me as the film from the pentax is no better
    here
     

    Attached Files:

  4. jeffreyg

    jeffreyg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,377
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    florida
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Have you used or tried fresh film? Was the film old or exposed to high heat? Have you tried a different processor?
     
  5. MartinCrabtree

    MartinCrabtree Member

    Messages:
    1,314
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Location:
    .
    Shooter:
    35mm
    More details.Filter?Film Type?Clean Glass?The colors appear flat and washed out.And it looks like you may have gotten your finger in the way on the Pentax pic.What altitude were these taken?
     
  6. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There are too many variables to just pop up a photo and ask, 'what's wrong with this picture.' You need to work systematically to eliminate variables. Most likely, there isn't one cause but an accumulation of causes. Try this:

    - Is there a camera store in your area? If not, guess at which store sells the most film. In either case, ask the clerk what print film they sell the most of and buy a couple of rolls. This way you're sure it's fresh film, not something that's been sitting on a hot, humid shelf for five years.
    - Take the camera outdoors on a calm day and put it on a tripod. Focus carefully on something about six feet away and carefully release the shutter. Do the same thing with a subject far away. Write down the frame number and details of the shot for every shot on this roll of film.
    - Shoot the roll, part on a cloudy, calm day, part on a sunny, calm day. Use a shutter release cable if you have one, use a tripod for at least most of the photos. You can take the last 1/4 roll hand-held if you want, just to see the difference. Try to take the same pictures as you did with a tripod, so you can see the difference. Can't see a difference between a hand-held photo and one made on a tripod? Enlarge it! You ought to be able to see the difference at 8x10.
    - Do you have different lenses? If so, try a couple of photos with each lens, in each case close-up and distant. There will be differences between lenses, most likely, but they'll probably be subtle differences.
    - Take the film back for processing to the same place you got it, if possible. If they sell a lot of it and process it themselves, you have at least some chance of the technician having some idea how to do it.
    - Take a look at your prints. Do you see any differences? Can you ascribe differences to the film, the tripod, the cable release, the processing? You have a lot of pictures taken under different conditions. Try to puzzle out which technique produced which result, until you think you 'get' it.

    You have another roll of film. Take it out and, using the technique you think works for you based on that first roll, shoot the roll and have it processed. Are the results consistent and as you expected, based on the results from your first roll? If yes then congratulations, you now know one thing that works. Finding others is up to you! There will be many; finding the first is basically a confidence builder, plus proof that your equipment works.

    At first, you'll likely want your pictures to look like the pictures you see every day. That's fine, that's normal. If you keep at it and let yourself experiment you'll find that there are lots of ways to make a picture 'look'. The more you experiment and allow your pictures to look different, the more often you'll stumble over things that you like but didn't consciously think of before. Remember that most experiments are failures and try to learn from them. Don't be too swayed by comments from friends and family: some of them will like what you like and some won't. It's that way for everyone.

    There are lots of ways of accomplishing this same thing; some take more film and time, some take less. This one works for me and the folks I try to teach because it's flexible and you get to take 'real' pictures (i.e., things you want to take pictures of,) as part of it. It beats the heck out of photographing newspapers taped to a brick wall between the hours of 12:00 noon to 12:30 noon inclusive, etc. I hope it works for you!

    Mike
     
  7. Jon Shiu

    Jon Shiu Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,814
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Location:
    Elk, Califor
    Shooter:
    Plastic Cameras
    Well one thing is that the photos were not printed dark enough.

    Jon
     
  8. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    yes im thinking as was said in one of my other topics that i need to try another place as jessops only really want to talk to you if your digital

    ask about film and you would think i just run over his puppy or asked him a question on quantum physics as this look of terror comes over his face

    and then this is followed by puffs of smoke from his ears

    he said "cameras dont take film they take flash cards" and im not joking

    i saved a link someone gave me to another place ill send the next roll off
    to them and see whats what
     
  9. Mats_A

    Mats_A Member

    Messages:
    571
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The first picture looks like there is noise in it. Is it the scanner or does the print also have these?

    r
     
  10. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    print has grain but scanner has not helped it im looking for a new scanner now
    but im trying to start my own biz so cash is at a altime low

    not that its at a high in the uk im hoping at some point to emigrate to usa to be with my girlfriend
     
  11. wblynch

    wblynch Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Location:
    Mission Viejo
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    First pic looks like camera has light leaks. May require attention. Probably needs new door seals (usually foam rubber in those days)
     
  12. Chan Tran

    Chan Tran Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Location:
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter:
    35mm
    How big is your print? If it is 4x6 then there are no more than 2MP in the picture. The print also loses a lot of information that is in the negative. It seems also that the first shot was out of focus and was underexposed (although it looks light). Scan from a 4x6 print is never be as good as picture from a 3MP camera.
     
  13. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    they are 6x4 but still i would expect better images
    the film was new and fresh im trying kodak color plus asa 200 right now

    ok here are some pics i shot just now with webcam

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. wblynch

    wblynch Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Location:
    Mission Viejo
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    It appears that there are foam bits stuck to the edges of your film door. That looks like deteriorated light seals. It's very common for any camera over 20 years old.

    Try to tape up the edges with some black masking tape for the remainder of this roll and see if it helps.

    You can get resealing foam kits on ebay for about 10 or 15 dollars.
     
  16. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    great i shot two rolls in that camera still to be developed
     
  17. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Looks like you are using crappy Jessops diamond film......that doesn't help to get the best pictures.
     
  18. tiberiustibz

    tiberiustibz Member

    Messages:
    1,749
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    Tufts Univer
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Get the negatives optically printed and you'll be surprised the difference it makes. You can also try a film like Ektar 100.

    Edit: the camera itself does not influence the quality of the final picture (with the exception of light leaks and scratches.) Only the lens has an effect.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  19. maderik

    maderik Member

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Location:
    Cape Canaver
    Shooter:
    35mm
    A number possibilities:

    1. A lot of mini-labs make lousy prints. Between old chemistry and operators who don't care, the results can be awful. Bring your negatives to another lab and bring one of your bad prints. Ask if they can do better. You may have to shop around to find a lab (and even an individual who works at the lab) who gives a darn. You may have to pay more for quality & experience.

    2. A lot of mini-labs make lousy negatives. While it less common to mess up the developing machinery, it's not unheard of. But if you shop around, again you might find a lab who cares. (Scratches and dust are more common problems.)

    3. Light leaks as mentioned. This may not affect all exposures equally. The ones that spent the least time in the leak area (e.g. end of the roll where you rewound shortly afterwards) might still be OK.

    4. Take more control by developing, printing (or - gasp - scanning) your negatives yourself. If you can't find a lab you can trust, then learn to do it yourself. Details of scanning are off-topic (see hybridphoto.com) but every step you do yourself means you know exactly how well (or poorly) it will be done.
     
  20. jbbooks

    jbbooks Member

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Concentrate on the Pentax, for now. Get a tripod and a cable release. Find out where you can get some fresh Ektachrome 100 or Fuji Provia 100F and get it processed (just developed, not cut and mounted). Quit trying to take landscapes. Take something reasonably close without any sky in it, preferably with lots of detail like a street scene.

    I think you have light leaks in the Minolta and, probably, exposure issues. These are aggravated by trying to take pictures that appear to involve a lot of atmospheric haze and exceeding the film's exposure latitude by trying to combine sky and terrain using an averaged meter reading and no compensation.

    Your Minolta has a fresnel focusing screen in the center for fine focusing and it should be clear when you are focusing on your subject. It also has a split image which should be aligned to indicate proper focusing. I am not familiar with the Pentax, but, hopefully, it is similar. Use a tripod and a cable release to allow you to focus precisely and not disturb the camera when you release the shutter. Bracket the shots to give the same aperture and three different shutter speeds for each, one at the metered speed, one one stop slower and another one stop faster.

    If you cannot use slide film, use black and white. Use C-41 process B&W film if that is all you can get processed, but leave the color negative film alone for now. What you want to do is eliminate as many processing problems as possible and make any such problems as obvious as possible. Slide film is better for this because the exposure latitude is narrower, the color and contrast are not subject to problems in printing and metering errors show up faster. However, trying to take the kinds of photographs you are now with slide film and no compensation will just aggravate your problems.

    If you can, get a light meter that reads incident light. If there is a large difference between it and what your camera is reading, use the incident reading to set the aperture and shutter speed manually for the exposure. Last, keep the light behind you--no shooting into the sun.
     
  21. jamesgignac

    jamesgignac Member

    Messages:
    281
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Beijing, Chi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    cyberspider - I'm interested in seeing the results from your new rolls - make sure to keep us posted. I just started out with this myself not that long ago and yes there is a lot to learn and there can be a few essential purchases to make at the beginning (I purchased my Epson v500 negative scanner for MF film before I purchased my first MF camera.) Just remember: Photography is a BIG world and it's your mission to find what you enjoy most about it and what it can do for you as a business. Don't be unrealistic but please keep your hopes up - your results will come around in time as long as you have the interest and determination to stick with it.

    Thanks again for the update!
     
  22. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,972
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    the lcd display o n the back of the camera looks
    like you have the camera set to auto and "square image"
    try tweeking it to 135, and "full sat noholga", instead of what it is on now
    cool image of a film box btw.
     
  23. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    there is no lcd on the back of the camera

    and i have no idea what anything else you said means lol

    sorry you will have to explain im a beginner
    thank you
     
  24. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,943
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    He's teasing you. The film box end in the slot on the camera back sort of looks like an LCD display, as it's rather light, looking like it's illuminated.

    The rest is funny, too. If you can't figure it out, maybe he'll explain it. It's just a little joking around.
    :smile::smile::smile:
     
  25. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    it was given to me the one i just used is kodak color plus 36exp 200 asa
    but i wont put any more film in the minolta till i fix the light seals

    also ill be sending this film to
    http://www.photo-express.co.uk/index.html

    and not haven prints done they do
    so ill try this and print my self with my epson r800
     
  26. Excalibur2

    Excalibur2 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Shame you haven't a large Tesco near you as they do it while you shop and if they are not busy could be in 30mins.....ok you might get a few dust spots to clear up in photoshop but for testing cameras and lenses it's worth £2 total for dev and a CD.

    Developed by Tesco BUT printed in a lab canon FD 28mm f2.8, superia 200asa:-
    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/179612c9.jpg

    This is the sort of thing you can get when the girls get a bit sloppy at Tesco, I just rescan with my scanner..Helios 44m.
    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo16_15-1.jpg

    I had a shock when this was developed only, at Asda for £1... Tak 35mm f3.5 MTL3
    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/pentax35mm009.jpg

    I re-washed the neg and cleared up remaining spots in Photoshop:-
    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/afterwashing024.jpg