Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

Shooting with a new to me 35mm Canon EOS Rebel G....
If it turns out that this body is bad, I have another similar used GII.
Have not tried the GII with film yet.


1. First roll of film (Fujifilm 200 color 24 exp processed at CVS). Negatives look weak except for one near the end of the roll. I did not get physical prints since I can make my own and do extensive post processing (digital camera images). Got positives on CD. When viewed on my computer screen, they have a hazy look with little contrast. These images are retrievable but surely the end result could be better if the negatives were better. I have had much experience with B&W film processing and printing in days past while teaching photography to high school students. Have no exp with color film, only exp with digital cameras and images. I think the camera is OK. but the processing is at fault. Developer may have been depleted or another chemical. What confuses me is that one negative is good. Any suggestions?
2. Photos from the film camera (Rebel G) seem small on screen compared to my digital images. I have enlarged them by increasing the resolution. Up to a point they look good, but in the background areas which I have purposely blurred, a grainy texture has appeared very unlike the same treatment on digital images. It does not look too bad, but my efforts are toward perfection in image quality. Thought film would yield better results. Maybe better images would satisfy me more.

Lens used in this test was a Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8 II Prime.

Next test will be with the Canon Zoom EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 V USM Lens. Just got it used too.


Many thanks in advance to all that endeavour to help with this problem.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Try underexposing by 1.5 stops set the iso dial to say 400 instead of 200

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

That is a difference of 1 stop, not 1.5.

GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K

Check the camera's metering against a known good camera. Underexposure will result in low contrast images. Do a test in bright sunlight conditions and use a different processing lab. Most high-street labs now days give poor results due to lack of care and low volume of film thru-put. The resolution of the images on the CD depends on the scan settings used by the lab. What is the size of the image files?

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I did all my own darkroom work both color and black and white for over 40 years. Mixed all my own chemicals including color. Easy for me since I am a chemist. My question is why use film if the output is digital? If you are going to shoot film, then why not print in a darkroom? What are you gaining by scanning?

I did not need a lot of time to see that digital, for me, was far superior to film and have never looked back. Sure, I miss the darkroom and it was the best way to learn photography but that is all nostalgia now.

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

abc1234, first off, my film images now are satisfactory since I found a good processor. Secondly, I do not print all my images and want them on my computer. Only print the ones I especially like, but want all in a medium I can see at any time. You are not the first to question my judgment on use of film. My son does the same to me asking why would I want to go backwards? Not sure of all reasons at this time, but I am having fun doing it. Color and contrast are better than digital for me and I have several excellent digital cameras. Film does not require nearly as much post processing as the images straight from the camera are usually great, but with some exceptions. Sharpness is not quite as good with the film Camera which is probably more related to the used Canon 28-80mm lens I bought than the film itself. I have a 50mm prime that I have used on this camera before I found a satisfactory processor, so I do not judge image clarity just yet with that combination. Also, I do not have to be concerned with dust getting on my sensor between lens changes and sending the camera off for cleaning. With film I have a new sensor with every shot. I have no dead pixils to be unhappy over. I do not have to fool around with toxic chemicals and have to find a proper disposal place. When I processed B&W film and printing myself, I just poured the chemicals down the drain. Would not do that now. I don't need a darkroom either, just use my computer where I have everything right in front of me. I also enjoy post processing though I get to do it less with film. Oh, the old cameras are cheap. I bought two used old film cameras at about $36 and $45. Both Canons, EOS Rebel G and EOS Rebel GII. Well, that just about does it for reasons to use film, but the best reason is that I am attracted to it and am having fun shooting the world with my new to me toys. Thanks for your comments....Dan

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Hi

Sorry but if you want 'perfection' in film, 35mm is not the way to go. The very crappiest medium format camera (not including Holga) will blow 35mm away. I shoot both 35mm and 6x7 and the difference is astonishing.

However, if 35mm is what you have, let me make a suggestion. Neg film is no good for testing purposes, there are far too many steps that can go wrong and you have no reference to compare to. Grab a roll of color slide film and go shoot that, and then have a look at the slides. If they are underexposed they won't look hazy like color neg will, they will just look dark and horrid.

Also, I am concerned about how you are getting your images currently. You said they look small and are bad when you zoom in. What is the actual size of the image in pixels? Sounds to me like you are getting a low res scan, which won't help. I also have had trouble with minilab scanners (Frontier in particular) for introducing weird casts in the scans

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

FilmFanatic, I am getting good images from a better film processor now. I do my own scanning with a good scanner (Epson Perfection V500 Photo). My images are approximately 4500 pixils in the longest direction. I can control this now that I do my own scanning. 35mm is my thing and I do not want to get into any other medium as my images are satisfactory now. Will post one or two recent photos which I am shure will not compare favorably with your larger format. Best thing of all is, I am having fun some how doing film again...Thanks for your comments....Dan

Fugi ISO 200 negative film


Fugi ISO 200 negative film


Fugi ISO 200 negative film

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

On any film camera, you must periodically check the spring action of the film backing plate. The list of problems caused by a loose or overly tight backing plate is too long to post here.

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

I have some Fugi 100 Velvia slide film that I plan to shoot when I find a good processor for that. The images you see above were produced from negatives processed at a near by Walgreens. I do not want to process my own film as I got enough of that when teaching B&W photography to high school students. I much more enjoy shooting and post processing with CS5. Could you suggest a good slide processor? Don't really need them mounted. Thanks for your comments...Dan

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

4500 pixels is a decent size really, you can probably get a good 8x10 print. I have done 18x12 from 35mm Kodachrome that looked awesome

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

Are backing plate problems fixable?

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Replacement backs should be easy to get if you have any issues

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

I would like to find some ISO 100 negative film ?????

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Colour or b&w?