Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,812   Posts: 1,581,561   Online: 971
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    286

    What causes photos to look like this?

    So I shot some really old Kodak BW400CN in my Olympus 35RC on Monday. I don't know when the film expired but judging by the cassette label, it was pretty old (12 exposure, had the old label). I figured why not, might as well give it a try.

    I was pretty interested to see that some frames looked normal whereas others had a REALLY grainy and low contrast look to them.

    So what most likely caused some of my frames to turn out like this?




    While others turned out like this (more normal):



  2. #2
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,243
    Images
    1

    What causes photos to look like this?

    Exposure.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12
    My response is also "exposure". I've had this occur before when shooting in low-light situations, with fresh film. Would this have happened to you if you had been shooting outdoors in indirect bright natural light? Would it have happened to you if you would have been using a faster lens? I don't think it would have.

  4. #4
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,378
    You have underexposed the negatives. Try printing the first two with a higher grade paper.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,834
    Was this roll processed in B&W chemicals by any chance? (BW400CN is a C41 film)
    as well as any underexposure, that might account for some of the low contrast and large grain of this otherwise rather nice film.
    Last edited by pdeeh; 10-04-2012 at 04:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #6
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,791
    Images
    1
    a hard paper contrast, which still was not hard enough.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    45
    Images
    12
    My initial thought was exposure.

  8. #8
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Yep, first two are under exposed.

    I'm going to guess you we're you using the camera's meter to set/find exposure. Camera meters are notoriously easy to fool.

    In the first shot the white light behind the subject (you?) probably tricked the camera, the second shot maybe the lettering. Shots three and four the meter happened to find good areas to work with.

    All four though are probably the luck of the draw, all 4 could have easily gone the other way with a slight change in composition or your luck.

    With all reflective meters, handheld or camera based, you have to figure out what the meter is telling you first then decide if that's right for the shot of if it needs an offset to get past the luck of the draw. Even the fancy metering system in a Nikon F6 can get fooled.

    This doesn't mean you can't get usable readings with your Olympus, just that you have to take what it's telling you with a grain of salt.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    286
    Thanks for the replies, I appreciate it! As far as the meter used to shoot these, I didn't use the camera meter since I have not had a chance to rig up a Schottkey diode to get the correct 1.35V (I think it was 1.35V, I'll have to double check).

    I had an Olympus 35RC that met an untimely end so I bought this beat up one off the big auction site and plan on restoring it. So these are just test shots to make sure everything is in working order.

    Long story short, the meter I used was my brain. Apparently that is pretty easy to fool

    What is strange is that I have underexposed a couple frames I shot on the last roll I used in this camera (fresh roll of BW400CN) and the shots did not turn out like this. Here is an example of what an underexposed shot looked like off my last roll:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8037754038_9db5808a7a_z.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	93.2 KB 
ID:	58034

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ogden, Utah USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,319
    the films have various sized grains and it is the larger that are more sensitive -- when you underexpose they are more prominent ... as to your last frame -- you may have underexposed, but the print/scan is to get t he light parts correct -- if you were to try to scan just the dark areas you would see this as well.

    most color films do that, in my experience -- when the lab tries to print a shot where the flash doesn't go off on my snap shots the result also looks like this, grainy and yucky.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin