PDA

View Full Version : Bad Shots :(


sanjuan
07-18-2006, 06:00 PM
Ahoy again,
I just got my photos back and to my surprise they are.....well, bad.
I may not be the best photographer in the world but I doubt I am capable of making such a bad mess up, take a look at this pic and tell me what you think:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c67/sanjuan87/63810005.jpg
This is the raw negative scan.
I was using 400 ISO film (and my ASA setting was at 400), shutter speed at 1/250s, aperature was set to automatic for this shot.
Could it be human error?
Thanks

ZoraLink
07-18-2006, 07:03 PM
I don't know...the lighting isn't horrible (probabaly because the aperature is automatic ;P) So...my guess is-because it's blurry-that you didn't focus well. If it's the only blurry one it was probably just you not paying close attention to your focus. If it's the entire film, it may just be bad negatives or bad developing. Or (I mean no offense) you were just a little careless with the focusing. Because I don't think the aperature would affect the focus of the photo :\

Hopefully the rest are fine and the next roll will be great! Photography is great-keep at it.

sanjuan
07-18-2006, 08:01 PM
I don't know....the whole roll is like this. I doubt I could mess up the focus on ALL of them, and it still doesn't explain the uber grain and white-wash out of doom...

Another example:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c67/sanjuan87/63810006.jpg

It's actually really hard to see things with the poor quality resolution, but it was automatically resized....

Trelyon
07-18-2006, 08:24 PM
the entire roll... prolly just bad films... or ::shudders:: bad developer... i checked out your 2ya.com /deviantART site... so... no not your focus...

sanjuan
07-18-2006, 08:32 PM
the entire roll... prolly just bad films... or ::shudders:: bad developer... i checked out your 2ya.com /deviantART site... so... no not your focus...

Har har, I'll take that as a compliment. It may be the film...it was a cheap $2.99 roll of "Student film", though I've used the same brand a few times before with decent results.

Trelyon
07-18-2006, 08:56 PM
compliment of course ;)
it's 102 f... 39 c.. here... don't think it's that hot up in Toronto... but could be the heat messing with the film ::shrugs:: or just a lemon

sanjuan
07-18-2006, 09:16 PM
hmm, now that you mention it, it was around 35c when i took the pics (with humidex it felt like 40) so who knows.

Fighterspledge
07-19-2006, 12:02 AM
That's some tough luck. Sorry that happened. By chance, did you have it on manual focus the entire time since you said that it was a consistent blur thoughout the roll? Did you use any other rolls that day and did it come out the same way?

staereo
07-19-2006, 07:14 AM
looks overexposed, which means one of a few things.

1) bad film (heat or old or just bad) [my guess]
2) broken meter on camera
3) wrong film speed/mislabeled (iso1600 or something)[my other guess]

Thats my take anyways. If you know its not number 2, i wouldnt say its anything you have to worry about, and I would definately say its not a operator problem.

Bruce

photoworks.ws
07-19-2006, 11:12 PM
any chance the problem is with how you scanned the negs??

EJ Shin
07-20-2006, 03:54 AM
It looks like either bad film, flashed film, or pushed film.

Depending on your camera, your meter could be severely underexposing, leading the person that handles your film to push it to get picture resulting in the grain, but once under exposed, you don't have much data, which could account for the washed out look. This is just a theory.

I noticed on my camera, the metering can get really spotty in mixed lighting conditions, which is why I usually test with a light meter or use the spot meter in the camera. I usually still have to over expose by a stop or two depending on the situation for my camera to read right. With a omni bounce flash, I have to set my exposure compensation to 2 2/3 stop over exposed to get the correct exposure. I tested with my light meter to verify how much to compensate by.

jtnishi
07-20-2006, 08:36 AM
Something is bugging me, admittedly.

You said ISO 400 film, 1/250s, right? If those are bright daylight shots, that means they should've been at around f/16, give or take. It looks like even if those shots hadn't perhaps blurred a bit, that the depth of field should've been quite a bit deeper, since they're more like landscape shots. So I'm definitely questioning the metering a bit.

staereo
07-20-2006, 10:54 AM
Something is bugging me, admittedly.

You said ISO 400 film, 1/250s, right? If those are bright daylight shots, that means they should've been at around f/16, give or take. It looks like even if those shots hadn't perhaps blurred a bit, that the depth of field should've been quite a bit deeper, since they're more like landscape shots. So I'm definitely questioning the metering a bit.

Yep... Thats what I posted above, but if metering was working before and after that roll, I kinda wonder about the film.

Bruce

jtnishi
07-20-2006, 02:00 PM
Yep... Thats what I posted above, but if metering was working before and after that roll, I kinda wonder about the film.

Bruce
Admittedly, the problems in the shots look much worse than just a bad metering problem. Perhaps just an amalgam of problems that all piled together at the same time. Bad film could definitely be a cause.

I guess just fall back to the usual: as long as it's one time, shrug it off, sanjuan. Chalk it up to whatever strangeness. More often than once, then you should start looking more carefully at causes.

Falkenhayn
07-20-2006, 04:52 PM
Actually, the photo seems to me to be fairly sharply focused and the metering, if averaged across the bright and dark parts of the image, seems okay.

But take a closer look at the lady walking. She seems to be blurry, which seems to me more of a slow shutter speed issue than an out of focus issue. And the graffitti in the background look relatively sharp, except for a little camera shake/motion blur. My question would be what was the shutter speed setting and were you shooting hand held?

Falkenhayn (also known as impgard)

sanjuan
07-23-2006, 02:23 PM
Oooh, I wasn't expecting so much feedback, thanks guys!
To answer some questions:
for most, if not all the shots, they were done at around 1/125 to 1/250, I did some at 1/60 but I had a tripod at hand. The film was a cheap roll of student film I picked up for $1.99, and it is my first time using this type. The camera I am using is the Canon AE-1, it may be the film; I'll have to wait 'till I can afford developing to see the other rolls.

Demonsun
07-27-2006, 12:52 AM
It's Definitely looking like the film to me, looks like film that expired months ago. What Brand Was it by the way, I've used so much black and white film, i've probably seen it somewhere, or a similar kind.

I recognize the look because it looks exactly like some 400 TMAX that I had that I was playing around with, I was going for that effect though, so I went and looked for film that was a long way past its expiration date, the only ones that looked that bad were the ones that were about 6-8 months old, and were unrefrigerated(extends a films life for a few more months). Really cool effect, but i gather that's not what you wanted.

sanjuan
07-31-2006, 03:33 PM
Ahoy there Demonsun,
the film is Silver Tone DX135 400iso. I must admit the efffect is neat, but as you said, something I didn't want.

Trelyon
08-14-2006, 07:39 PM
hmm... just remember something... increased granularity over the entire roll of film... can be cause by just 20mSv of X-ray... airport scanner is about 300mSv...

~*~*~*~

it is "mostly harmless"... to send your memory cards through X-Ray machines tho

sanjuan
11-15-2006, 12:00 PM
Follow up:
Looks like it was most likely the film and not my camera! I just got my new shots back from the lab (This time I went out and spent more than $2 for a roll of film) and didn't get any of that over-exposed grainyness:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/42903038/

staereo
11-15-2006, 12:15 PM
Thats great that it was an easy fix. Bad film.

Just out of curiousity, how did you get the cool color temp in this picture? Was it tungsten balanced film outdoors?

Neat picture!!
Bruce

sanjuan
11-15-2006, 10:07 PM
Honestly, I do not know. I was using 100iso film that day, 55mm lens on my Canon AE-1, sheer fluke I got it the way I wanted it.

AkaneSaotome
11-16-2006, 10:43 AM
Actually, the photo seems to me to be fairly sharply focused and the metering, if averaged across the bright and dark parts of the image, seems okay.



That's what I thought too when I first looked at the picture. I thought it was motion blur, cause I do that with my camera sometimes.

JukeboxJude
11-16-2006, 04:54 PM
not bad at all sanjuan!

sanjuan
11-16-2006, 10:16 PM
Why thank you JukeboxJude

oneas
12-03-2006, 09:40 PM
LAWL kesington market.


And... it doesn't seem too bad to me >.>;; but... mnaybe I am simply awful?

Sonic Man
12-04-2006, 01:02 AM
I don't know....the whole roll is like this. I doubt I could mess up the focus on ALL of them, and it still doesn't explain the uber grain and white-wash out of doom...

Another example:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c67/sanjuan87/63810006.jpg

It's actually really hard to see things with the poor quality resolution, but it was automatically resized....


Wow, it's like I'm not wearing my glasses! :razz: Seriously, all jokes aside, sometimes bad photos are taken, don't beat yourself up because of a few bad shots. I read somewhere here in this thread that it might've been the film you used. Highly unlikely. I took a photography course in college years back and I can safely say that it's not the film. I'm guessing your camera's settings weren't properly adjusted.

staereo
12-04-2006, 03:50 AM
I took a photography course in college years back and I can safely say that it's not the film. I'm guessing your camera's settings weren't properly adjusted.

Follow up:
Looks like it was most likely the film and not my camera! I just got my new shots back from the lab (This time I went out and spent more than $2 for a roll of film) and didn't get any of that over-exposed grainyness:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/42903038/

:D :)

Sonic Man
12-04-2006, 11:39 PM
I stand corrected. :|

staereo
12-05-2006, 07:22 AM
I stand corrected. :|

I've stood corrected enough times in my life, that I prefer to sit when I'm corrected.

:bigtu:

TimTim
12-05-2006, 12:41 PM
It's not that bad. It takes many shots and maybe some luck to obtain a great picture

Ahoy again,
I just got my photos back and to my surprise they are.....well, bad.
I may not be the best photographer in the world but I doubt I am capable of making such a bad mess up, take a look at this pic and tell me what you think:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c67/sanjuan87/63810005.jpg
This is the raw negative scan.
I was using 400 ISO film (and my ASA setting was at 400), shutter speed at 1/250s, aperature was set to automatic for this shot.
Could it be human error?
Thanks

staereo
12-06-2006, 08:49 AM
It's not that bad. It takes many shots and maybe some luck to obtain a great picture

Follow up:
Looks like it was most likely the film and not my camera! I just got my new shots back from the lab (This time I went out and spent more than $2 for a roll of film) and didn't get any of that over-exposed grainyness:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/42903038/

:D :)