Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
bhtooefr wrote:...going up and down more than Paris Hilton's underwear...
Flying Fox wrote:bhtooefr wrote: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?
bhtooefr wrote:Good point.
But the more accurate description wouldn't be family friendly, now, would it?
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Geatian wrote:Flying Fox wrote:bhtooefr wrote: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?
JustAnEngineer wrote: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.
Heiwashin wrote: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.
bhtooefr wrote: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.)
Usacomp2k3 wrote:bhtooefr wrote: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 wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:bhtooefr wrote: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 wrote:mattsteg wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote: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 wrote:Costco apparently gives you good electronic copies.
mattsteg wrote:SpotTheCat wrote: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 wrote:mattsteg wrote:SpotTheCat wrote: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.
bhtooefr wrote: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 wrote:bhtooefr wrote: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 wrote:There are all kinds of parameters in play heremattsteg wrote:bhtooefr wrote: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?
bhtooefr wrote:I bought the film Friday, the process before date is 2010-09.
And, if it's the lens, OK.