Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,646   Online: 684
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31

    very bad result from my first film

    hello evry one

    i get my first film tody from lab, but the result very very very bad

    no sharpness, no dynamic range Evey thing in the photo its bad

    this is some photo , i need to now what the problem ,,? maybe process ? or scan ?





    and this is a 100% crop from another photo

    as you can see , the photo is very White and heave a black line , and this photo in original size from CD direct ,and i Sure about the exposure its very well in all picture, and my film is ilford xp2 400 35mm + nikon f5
    Last edited by Man from moon; 02-16-2011 at 10:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,941
    Images
    33
    Is this chromegenic(c-41) or traditional B&W film. Looks okay to me. Printing on traditional photo paper can have different results, depending on contrast grade chosen. Its just a tad contrasty.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  3. #3
    marco.taje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gallarate, Italy
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    118
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    34
    I've been photographing for a little while (yet much less than many others), and one little thing I learned is that there is no such thing as certainty of "good exposure". You may find out, especially working with b&w film, that the concept of exposure will vary greatly along your way.
    That said, the results don't look like they're so wrong. If the light was VERY hard when you shot, what you see is probably what you got :-) Maybe the high contrast is also made more severe by the scanning process?
    Either way, this means that you have to carry on and practice, and learn what to expect. Maybe try shooting a roll in similar conditions (if possible) and send it to another lab.

  4. #4
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    That black line at the left is just the frame boundary that the lab didn't crop. Dont worry about it.

    These dont look that bad but it's difficult to tell on a computer monitor.

    I'm sure the negative contains more information than this scan represents. C41 films usually handle highlights/overexposure fairly well.

  5. #5
    rphenning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    341
    no sharpness? that 100% crop looks sharp enough.

  6. #6
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,649
    Images
    40
    Are you planning on printing these using traditional (wet) photo process? Otherwise you are at the mercy of whatever scanning hardware and software was used to make the CD.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  7. #7
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    435
    Well, they do look a little weird to me, harsh and grainy. But they seem sharp enough. The first one, perhaps, is a victim of too great a dynamic range: if you've got harsh sun, it's hard to take a picture of white walls in the sun and also get detail in the shaded interior; you won't do it with regular exposure and development and 35mm film. The second one seems the worst, with excessive grain and harshness. Obviously the light wasn't ideal for any of these shots. But I'm wondering if the real issue is the scan? A low-resolution scan can look like that. How do the negatives and the prints look?

    -Laura

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    524
    Images
    1
    The scans look heavily sharpened. Chances are they also did some brute for exposure adjustment as well.

    If you're going to use a lab for development, you may want to try scanning/printing yourself so you are in control of those stages. Without that control, it can be difficult to tell much about your negative quality due to the amount of 'fix up' they'll try to do for you.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Jersey Channel Islands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    430
    Blog Entries
    2
    Looks ok to me, you will never get the greatest results from chromegenic film lab printed, they are printed on colour paper and I have seen terrible results, printed on BlW paper by hand you should get better results, just standard lab machine printing, Richard

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    69
    Images
    13
    The scans are bad, but I bet the negatives are fine.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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