My first roll of b&w film in 40 years

Bit of a windy morning, but I am going to brave the winds. Have to go out anyway, appointment already booked. I will be using up the last of my film, then I can get it off to be processed / developed.
 
Bit of a windy morning, but I am going to brave the winds. Have to go out anyway, appointment already booked. I will be using up the last of my film, then I can get it off to be processed / developed.

..and now you can read the thread "101 ways to ruin a roll of film" ;) most of us have posted so you wont be alone if anything goes wrong. o_O:LOL:
 
IMG_3099.JPG

Film been developed and got prints. Very badly over exposed, I just relied on the camera to get it right, by using aperture priority. :(
 
I will see if I can find my scanner, as I don't think I have used it since we moved to our current address three years and a half years ago.
 
View attachment 269485

Film been developed and got prints. Very badly over exposed, I just relied on the camera to get it right, by using aperture priority. :(
Over exposed is better than under exposed with colour neg film, they will likely be salvageable. Look forward to seeing the shots. (y)
 
I will have to find the scanner, and try and scan them. Although not sure how to scan negatives, just read up on it, and it says illuminate the negative, and a few other steps.
 
film2.JPG





film3.JPG



Just a couple of the poop images, YES I know they are c**p. :confused:
 

Attachments

  • film1.JPG
    film1.JPG
    77.7 KB · Views: 14
I quite like the last one...
I'm not familiar with your camera...but, what lens did you use?.

Now had I kept notes of what lens I was using, I would have been able to tell you. But when I mentioned taking notes of my lens and settings, others on here said don't bother, just get out and take the photos. As they never bother noting things down, when using film.
 
View attachment 269517





View attachment 269518



Just a couple of the poop images, YES I know they are c**p. :confused:

Some investigation work needed as they don't look at least sharp.....just to add as you might have forgotten :- the more you use the telephoto end the more you have problems with camera shake. e.g, at 28mm you could probably get a sharp picture at 1/30 sec or less, but at 300mm you would need at least 1/250 sec preferably more hand held.
 
Some investigation work needed as they don't look at least sharp.....just to add as you might have forgotten :- the more you use the telephoto end the more you have problems with camera shake. e.g, at 28mm you could probably get a sharp picture at 1/30 sec or less, but at 300mm you would need at least 1/250 sec preferably more hand held.

I thought I had a fast enough shutter speed, but can't remember what it was now.
 
OK I am going to have to confess, :sorry:

The above photos are were NOT scanned in, I took a photo of a photo. The prints don't look as bad, I did try to scan the photos, but they come up as tiny images, and look bad.
 
OK I am going to have to confess, :sorry:

The above photos are were NOT scanned in, I took a photo of a photo. The prints don't look as bad, I did try to scan the photos, but they come up as tiny images, and look bad.

o_O:D just another point in case you have forgotten:- when there is a mass of white sky in the scene the camera can get fooled into exposing for the sky and not the subject that you want, but if blue sky in the scene it doesn't matter so much erm why? well if interested could explain o_O
 
Now had I kept notes of what lens I was using, I would have been able to tell you. But when I mentioned taking notes of my lens and settings, others on here said don't bother, just get out and take the photos. As they never bother noting things down, when using film.
I only asked what lens you used because they didn't look particularly sharp.....
It is hard to decide if it's lens/camera/poor technique to be honest.
** Although, I see these aren't scanned images just a 'photo of a photo' so it makes it difficult to know what the issue is.
 
o_O:D just another point in case you have forgotten:- when there is a mass of white sky in the scene the camera can get fooled into exposing for the sky and not the subject that you want, but if blue sky in the scene it doesn't matter so much erm why? well if interested could explain o_O

Even the indoor photos were exposed, lens was wide open.
 
I will see if I can get the scanner to scan a better resolution, at the moment it is only outputting small files.
 
At the moment the scanner says Resolution DPI 300. So not sure what to change it too? Or simply trial and error.
 
cat.jpeg


I may have had the lens wide open, and maybe with ISO 400 film, the camera may not have had a high enough shutter speed. :thinking:
 
I don't think they are too bad considering you haven't used film for some time... focus does seem a bit not quite there, as well as exposure, but that's something you could work on.
At least you know it all works...
 
What scanner is it? Most scanners designed for 135 film go to much more than 90 samples per inch! As Simon says, 2400 or thereabouts is a good choice, gets you about a 9 Mpixel file.
 
What scanner is it? Most scanners designed for 135 film go to much more than 90 samples per inch! As Simon says, 2400 or thereabouts is a good choice, gets you about a 9 Mpixel file.

It is an old Epson Stylus SX200, it was being thrown out by a neighbour, so I took it.
 
I know most of you said not to bother taking notes, writing settings down etc, when shooting film. But I did take notes, and I can see, most of the over exposed photos, where when I used the 50mm 1.8D lens wide open. I may try another roll at some point, probably some street shots at f/8 and see if that gives any better results.
 
I forgot to write the shutter speed down, but I remember it was pretty high though.
 
I have kept my notes with the developed film, for future reference. I might, only might, try a roll of colour film. I will of course have to buy some first.
 
Back
Top