Hi, I'm new to photography and after having had my film developed, I noticed most (80%) didn't turn out so well.
I had gone out at night to take pictures and this is clearly noticeable as there is a lack of contrast in my pics, and not enough light entering. Do I require a flash?
Also, I noticed that the pics are very grainy, is this due to the film (im using kodak gold 200) or could it be the iso that I set to 800? I thought you should set the iso to 800 around night?
I'd really appreciate some feedback so I'm going to upload some pics.
I got these developed at Costco so could this be a factor?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717589
this one has a lack of light, too high an iso and too low a shutter speed right?
i don't know much desu
Buy 400 ISO film and leave ASA meter on 400 when shooting. Let the light meter tell you what to shoot. I feel like this is just a scanning issue. Open it in Photoshop and reduce noise. And it's a shutter speed issue. What lens and aperture did you shoot at?
I shot this on Expired Kodacolor and developed it in Rodinal myself. It's kinda fuzzy.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 414
>>2717592
Snagged from IG probably a shitty small image. On mobile.
>>2717592
I used a Pentax-M SMC 50mm at f/1.7
>>2717586
these look like a cast you get when your film is under exposed. It's way better to overexpose negative film than to under expose it
if you shoot at 800, and and didn't push your film to 800 when you developed it, you just under exposed 200 speed film
i personally wouldn't have done this with kodak gold
>>2717586
next time use flash when using that low iso. if you still want natural light, push porta 400 to 800, and use fast glass. and tripod.
>>2717597
Ah, so this could be Costco's fault (aside from my shitty pics), is there any way to develop film more once it has been developed or is that forever?
>>2717602
>Ah, so this could be Costco's fault
no. you should tell them "push this to iso 800", they wont read your mind. photos are phuked. even developed at 800 they would have been very grainy and red cast, because gold 200.
Oh I didn't realise, so I should get porta 400, push to 800 if i want natural light then tell costco to push to 800 when developing.
So is gold 200 shit in general? Should I use it in high lighting conditions instead?
>>2717602
did you tell them to push it? They probably don't even know what that means.
you only got one shot at developing it
not good for the darkroom
i don't know how much you can fix in post on a computer
>>2717615
No I didn't
I didn't know you had to tell them this, very naive of me
>>2717610
>Oh I didn't realise, so I should get porta 400, push to 800 if i want natural light then tell costco to push to 800 when developing.
portra is excellent film. push it to 800 or 1600 and itll still deliver great quality. mind that if you push it to 1600 you wont be able to make daylight pictures, theyll come overexposed to fuck, no f16 will save that, got it?
>So is gold 200 shit in general? Should I use it in high lighting conditions instead?
gold 100 is preferable. 200 works, mostly daylight stuff, beach. great for direct flash stuff ie. terry. has warm pleasant colors.
>>2717618
Thanks, I really appreciate the advice
I would buy portra, I just can't really afford it lol, £24 for 5 rolls is a bit steep for me
I took some other photographs, in greater light, could you critique these for me if possible? (i realise im asking too much)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717622
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717598
Save up and buy the 400. Or start taking a tripod with you and shoot slower shutters.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717633
Ok, I will do, thanks
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717622
>i realise im asking too much
ask and you shall receive. keep quiet and youll perish alone, like a dog.
that picture is pretty cool, but has some nasty color cast. color corrected would look gorgeous. lrn to color cast and white balance like a pro if you are serious about film.
>>2717640
Ok thanks, I have photoshop so I will look into that, how do the other photos look?
I purposely made it out of focus with the homeless man picture, probably some silly commentary on how the homeless man and the bank machine man both fade into nothing in the end
>>2717643
thats the only one that id comment something about desu.
>>2717586
>is this due to the film (im using kodak gold 200) or could it be the iso that I set to 800? I thought you should set the iso to 800 around night?
hahahahahaahaha
hahaha
oh my.
Did you just assume changing the ISO on your camera was changing the ISO on your film? You can change the ISO on the go on digital yeah, but for film cameras, it's just to adjust the light meter so it helps in telling you how to properly expose... when you set it to the right ISO.
You just fucked your whole roll, congratulations.
>>2717650
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Here%27s+your+reply+meme
>>2717650
grow up.
>>2717586
you set the iso on your camera settings to whatever film you inserted, then the internal meter can tell you the proper exposure. you can only fiddle the iso and get the actual effect immediately on digital.
iso for film is fixed for the whole roll. iso for digital is the electronic gain of the sensor and can be changed at any time.
>>2717650
Don't be an asshole
It's okay OP. I once sold a scanner to a guy and he texted me after asking how he could take the film out of the roll to scan it. Good thing I responded quick or the guy would have completely ruined the roll
>>2717666
These people are allowed to vote
>>2717663
Thanks, this has helped me a lot
>>2717769
try again with a fresh roll and show us the results. and if you're shooting a roll of night shots use film with iso higher than 200. i'd say at least 800 but probably some of the film experts would have different advice. you still need high iso film even if you use flash to light your subject to ensure you can properly expose the rest of the scene that can't be lit with flash.
>>2717798
Thanks, i'll just take day shots like in the ones I posted and leave the night pics for later when I can afford higher iso film, although, I believe in some well lit areas I might be able to get something good,
pic related for example, i think its decent, what do you think?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717818
or maybe this?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2717622
5 a roll is too much for you?
bro...
>>2717818
This is decent. Has a story.
>>2717826
buy OP some rolls then
>>2717588
Can you post the RAW?
