Hmm... now I've got an SLR...

[bhtooefr]

And almost every pic was overexposed, especially if flash was used, but even on some taken with no flash.

I went through and did my best with iPhoto's exposure correction... here's a few...


This turned out almost exactly as I expected it, except overexposed (now mostly fixed,) and damnit, I tried to get that one house hidden behind the plants (the one you can see poking out of the right.)


This actually turned out better than I expected it - I was trying some depth of field tricks, and they worked perfectly, and the flash (and corresponding faster speeds) meant that the shop in the background was underexposed - improving the effect that I was going for. The clutch itself was overexposed, but nothing a little software exposure correction can't fix.


This one needed no exposure correction - the car body is overexposed, but then again, the car body wasn't the subject, the stuff (which shall be referred to as "intestines" - really, pipe insulation...) shoved up in there was the subject.


Decent shot (IMO) of the garage where this was taking place. License plate was WAY overexposed with the flash, unfortunately, not too much I could do about that - license plates are highly reflective, and Ohio's vanity plates are totally flat, so they can't stop the reflection very well.


Amazingly, less glare than I thought I'd get... but the colors came out... bland. Even messing with saturation and stuff won't fix it.

Oh, and here's the first picture I took on this camera - I had to crop it because of the scanning job that the lab did, to get rid of a black border on the left. I might be calling and complaining about that (on that image and another) tomorrow, because I'm that kind of person, and I have time to do so.


There was only one pic that turned out BADLY - and that was one where I REALLY should've used a tripod, but didn't.

[Hoser]

It's more than likely the flash on the camera is the reason why you have so much over exposure. Those flashes are like the ones on most P&S cameras, it's full flash or nothing. If you could get a decent flash with a built in light meter you would see a better outcome of your pics.

I have this Vivitar Flash. Actually I have the older brother to this one. The only real difference being the sync voltage.

[scare]

Which metering modes did you use when taking those shots? Learning which to use in any given situation will go a long ways to netting you the correct exposure. Despite the power of Photoshop, you can only do so much to bungled shots. I'll hand it to you for sticking with film, it's a tough road to start off on but one with great rewards. The shot of your garage exposes how weak your flash is. The one built on the camera can really only (marginally) be used as a sort of fill flash. The shot of the engine was harsh because the light source straight on and not diffused. I think a diffuser could have helped there.

[FireGryphon]

The first roll of film that I took with my Nikon EM had maybe one or two pictures that came out, so you're ahead of me so far in film Excellent first shoot with the Rebel G.

I never really thought of this before, but maybe it'd be worth it to just develop negatives without making prints, then scan the negatives at home. A decent negative scanner might be a bit up front, but it'd be worth it if film's your thing.

[bhtooefr]

I was using evaluative metering, which is default for program AE... although using the AE lock button gives partial metering.

(Center-weighted metering is default (and only available) in manual mode (and evaluative isn't available in manual.))

Oh, and if you can't see the images, it's because my power is extremely flaky right now, and I don't have a UPS, so my server's going up and down more than Paris Hilton's underwear.

Also, that wasn't my garage.

And, I didn't get prints - that would've cost even more. Of course, I think I got overcharged for the service they gave me - they charged me $9.98 for developing and a standard resolution (about 2.2 megapixel) photo CD, whereas their site says that that should be $4.99+$2.99, or $7.98...

[Concordia]

...going up and down more than Paris Hilton's underwear...

Wow, she wears underwear..?

Who knew!

[bhtooefr]

Good point.

But the more accurate description wouldn't be family friendly, now, would it?

[Geatian]

So, I guess, here goes one roll of Fuji 400...

I have to admit I am out of the film market these days, but is there a need to shoot daytime pictures with 400 rolls? They don't have 100/200's anymore?

I've never used film before, so I'm curious: is ISO 400 film inherently lower quality than ISO 100/200?
I understand that the faster the film, the more grain it has; just like with digital, the higher the ISO the more noise. But on my camera ISO 400 has such a tiny amount of noise that I've learned to just leave it there all of the time, except for special cases where I might want a slow speed. It gets me two extra stops for free, and I'll gladly take the faster shutter speed, thanks. Even in bright daylight. There is no motion blur when your shutter speed is 1/8000s.
I know film will vary depending on what you get, but I assumed you could buy some high-quality 400 that would look every bit as good as 100, for a bit more $$. Is that wrong? If you went and got a whole bunch of all-purpose ISO 400 film rolls, would you be shooting yourself in the foot, quality wise?

[Heiwashin]

Good point.

But the more accurate description wouldn't be family friendly, now, would it?

The forums aren't family friendly only anymore
Anyway, in hindsight to the past few months of learning photography with a digital camera i can say it's been easy to learn what i've learned so far but yea... i do feel like i'm still lacking a lot of things when it comes to taking a good photo. In general when there's something i want to take a photo of i take a good 15 shots(or more) with a "one of them has to be good" thought in my mind.

[FireGryphon]

So, I guess, here goes one roll of Fuji 400...

I have to admit I am out of the film market these days, but is there a need to shoot daytime pictures with 400 rolls? They don't have 100/200's anymore?

I've never used film before, so I'm curious: is ISO 400 film inherently lower quality than ISO 100/200?
I understand that the faster the film, the more grain it has; just like with digital, the higher the ISO the more noise. But on my camera ISO 400 has such a tiny amount of noise that I've learned to just leave it there all of the time, except for special cases where I might want a slow speed. It gets me two extra stops for free, and I'll gladly take the faster shutter speed, thanks. Even in bright daylight. There is no motion blur when your shutter speed is 1/8000s.
I know film will vary depending on what you get, but I assumed you could buy some high-quality 400 that would look every bit as good as 100, for a bit more $$. Is that wrong? If you went and got a whole bunch of all-purpose ISO 400 film rolls, would you be shooting yourself in the foot, quality wise?

AFAIK, no matter how expensive the film, ASA 400 will always be grainier than ASA 100 or ASA 200. The film grain isn't as bad as the noise on a low end digital sensor, but it's there. High end digital sensors, on the other hand, can go to really high ISOs with little or no grain.

[JustAnEngineer]

For an 80mm f/5.6 lens, ISO 400 is not too fast. With ISO 100 film and that lens, you would need a tripod for all but bright daylight shooting.

10 or 15 years ago, I shot hundreds of rolls of Fuji 400 film with an EF 35-105mm f/4.5-5.6 lens on an EOS 10s with excellent results. Faster ISO 800 film available at that time looked washed out and grainy, besides being much more expensive. With Kodacolor Gold 100, you could get warmer colors, but it was only useful for shooting in full daylight with that lens. With a Konica AR 50mm f/1.4 lens, the ISO 400 film was too fast for the Konica Autoreflex T3's maximum shutter speed under the same lighting conditions at its minimum aperture. With ISO 400 film, I could push the Pentax SuperProgram with an SMC Pentax A 50mm f/1.4 lens to extremely high shutter speeds.

If you could get your hands on a cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, you would be better able to use ISO 100 film.

[bhtooefr]

If you could get your hands on a cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, you would be better able to use ISO 100 film.

And that's a lens that I definitely want to have even after I go digital, so I certainly plan on trying to get one cheap soon.

[SPOOFE]

You're using the Canon system; their 50mm f1.8 can generally be found for around $80-$90, brand-spankin'-new, and will work on your Rebel G as well as any Canon DSLR. Don't wait! Sell a few pints of blood if you hafta.

[mattsteg]

In general when there's something i want to take a photo of i take a good 15 shots(or more) with a "one of them has to be good" thought in my mind.

Honestly, that doesn't work. Unless you're shooting multiple shots to counter a specific defect (I'll do so if I'm shooting at a shutter speed that I know is marginal in anticipation of getting one shot that's a bit sharper, for example) or to catch something in action that you can't quit anticipate it's just a recipe for getting more bad to mediocre shots (like animals "posing" perhaps).

I'm not sure how you define "good", but most aspects of a photo aren't going to improve from just shooting more shots. Cameras aren't random in what they do - if they're getting something quite wrong it's unlikely that just taking more shots is going to correct anything. As far as content is concerned...unless there's a specific need for multiple shots it's probably best to put a bit more thought into each shot.

[Usacomp2k3]

Keep in mind, the place where I'm probably going to go to get my film developed offers a cheaper option to just get the film developed and get a CD. (Although, your argument is still completely intact.)

From what I've found, pictures on CD from film are pretty bad. Certainly worse than the printer versions of the same.

[mattsteg]

Keep in mind, the place where I'm probably going to go to get my film developed offers a cheaper option to just get the film developed and get a CD. (Although, your argument is still completely intact.)

From what I've found, pictures on CD from film are pretty bad. Certainly worse than the printer versions of the same.

Well, there's no reason they have to be. Don't most labs scan and print electronically these days anyway? it just depends on how good of a file they'll give you.

[Usacomp2k3]

Keep in mind, the place where I'm probably going to go to get my film developed offers a cheaper option to just get the film developed and get a CD. (Although, your argument is still completely intact.)

From what I've found, pictures on CD from film are pretty bad. Certainly worse than the printer versions of the same.

Well, there's no reason they have to be. Don't most labs scan and print electronically these days anyway? it just depends on how good of a file they'll give you.

Exactly. I wouldn't expect high-quality digital copies from something like Wal-Mart, but if you're getting them developed at a real photo place, your chances are alot better.

That said, based on the pictures you showed in the other thread, it looks pretty good.

[SpotTheCat]

From what I've found, pictures on CD from film are pretty bad. Certainly worse than the printer versions of the same.

Well, there's no reason they have to be. Don't most labs scan and print electronically these days anyway? it just depends on how good of a file they'll give you.

Exactly. I wouldn't expect high-quality digital copies from something like Wal-Mart, but if you're getting them developed at a real photo place, your chances are alot better.

That said, based on the pictures you showed in the other thread, it looks pretty good.

Costco apparently gives you good electronic copies.

[mattsteg]

Costco apparently gives you good electronic copies.

I suspect that, like any chain, there's some variation in quality. Overall there are plenty of signs that point towards the normal quality level being decent, though.

[SpotTheCat]

Costco apparently gives you good electronic copies.

I suspect that, like any chain, there's some variation in quality. Overall there are plenty of signs that point towards the normal quality level being decent, though.

I would guess local variations at costco stores are minimal. They are completely organized from the top from what I can see.

[mattsteg]

Costco apparently gives you good electronic copies.

I suspect that, like any chain, there's some variation in quality. Overall there are plenty of signs that point towards the normal quality level being decent, though.

I would guess local variations at costco stores are minimal. They are completely organized from the top from what I can see.

Right. Some locations might have the odd exceptional (or exceptionally not-so-good) employee. Equipment is going to be quite uniform.

Given that, for their digital side, they go through the effort of having their equipment regularly profiled/calibrated and make those profiles available online, I'd expect that they pay a decent amount of attention to quality in general.

[bhtooefr]

FWIW, I got these developed at Cord Camera (a chain that's mostly in Ohio...)

The colors just don't seem as vivid as I've seen that this film can do - or as I could get shooting the same scene with my digicam.

Maybe it's just my shooting, maybe it's something else. But, my next roll, I'm gonna try taking to another place, and see what happens.

[mattsteg]

FWIW, I got these developed at Cord Camera (a chain that's mostly in Ohio...)

The colors just don't seem as vivid as I've seen that this film can do - or as I could get shooting the same scene with my digicam.

Maybe it's just my shooting, maybe it's something else. But, my next roll, I'm gonna try taking to another place, and see what happens.

They didn't look bad to me in that regard. What are you going for/expecting? Shooting cheap glass wide open can reduce contrast to a noteworthy degree, too.

[Usacomp2k3]

FWIW, I got these developed at Cord Camera (a chain that's mostly in Ohio...)

The colors just don't seem as vivid as I've seen that this film can do - or as I could get shooting the same scene with my digicam.

Maybe it's just my shooting, maybe it's something else. But, my next roll, I'm gonna try taking to another place, and see what happens.

They didn't look bad to me in that regard. What are you going for/expecting? Shooting cheap glass wide open can reduce contrast to a noteworthy degree, too.

How old is the film? Wouldn't it degrade with time, variable based on conditions?

[mattsteg]

FWIW, I got these developed at Cord Camera (a chain that's mostly in Ohio...)

The colors just don't seem as vivid as I've seen that this film can do - or as I could get shooting the same scene with my digicam.

Maybe it's just my shooting, maybe it's something else. But, my next roll, I'm gonna try taking to another place, and see what happens.

They didn't look bad to me in that regard. What are you going for/expecting? Shooting cheap glass wide open can reduce contrast to a noteworthy degree, too.

How old is the film? Wouldn't it degrade with time, variable based on conditions?

There are all kinds of parameters in play here

[bhtooefr]

I bought the film Friday, the process before date is 2010-09.

And, if it's the lens, OK.

[mattsteg]

I bought the film Friday, the process before date is 2010-09.

And, if it's the lens, OK.

Well, it certainly might be. Your lighting isn't real great either. Or it might just be scans that need to be properly touched up and you don't know how to do so efficiently. It could be a lot of things.

[SpotTheCat]

Before you criticize the film, try to shoot a good roll that isn't overexposed or underexposed.