Don't know if this goes here....

[MorzillA]

This is a shot of Downtown Miami. I used a Nikon EM90 SLR with a wide angle lens, this is my second shot in this manner. I am not 100% happy with the development of the film, looks too grainy for my taste and this is from CVS which has done a much better job than Wallgreens in the past. all comments are welcomed!

 

[adrianblaine]

Yeah, as my dad always said, if you want film developed right, you have to do it yourself. Although it looks like it may be more of an ISO problem than the developer... It looks to be at least 400-800?? Shooting in such bright light would like an ISO of 100 or less IMO.

Have you thought about switching to digital?

 

[jlcharles]

Have you thought about switching to digital?

Why is it that whenever someone posts film, they get responses like this?

I don't know the camera, but it also looks like 3 different exposures. If you want to stitch a panorama, the photos all have to have the same exposure.

 

[adrianblaine]

I don't know the camera, but it also looks like 3 different exposures. If you want to stitch a panorama, the photos all have to have the same exposure.

I only mentioned that after I talked about some other issues. What's wrong with asking? I have nothing against film and I hope it never goes completely away. But for the average photographer, digital offers a lot of advantages over film for those who are unable to develop it themselves.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I think your main problem is the processing you are doing it at. Try Ritz Camera (if one is available) since many of the people that work there can actually work with you. I used to work there and hated it with a passion, but the processing can't be beat, and the lab techs are usually the most knowledgeable people in the store.

 

[mkrishnan]

Also, what's going on with the horizontal brightness gradient in each sub-photograph? You really either should eliminate that to begin with or correct for it when you stitch your photographs...

With respect to the issue of ISO... yeah... it looks like a relatively bright day. I'd think you could use a much lower ISO in this kind of environment.....

 

[glennp]

A couple things come to mind to help explain/address the results you see.

First, when photographing a wide panoramic landscape, it is not often that the exposure will be the same for the entire scene. If you used one of the cameras auto settings, it is quite possible that the camera metered the far left and far right frames differently, which could explain some of the varying exposures you see. Use the camera to meter the scene, but switch to manual mode and dial in a suitable exposure setting so all frames will be the same.

Second (and this is probably more of the reason for the lackluster results), most general public film developing places use machines with an auto-correct capability to help determine the "best" exposure for the picture. The auto-correct might have boosted the dark buildings leading to the grainy look there and altered the sky to maintain some details. Individually, the corrections might be okay but when trying to stitch together, the variances become very noticeable. When developing the pictures, see if you can ask to have any auto-correction turned off.

 

[MorzillA]

The camera I used came out in the mid 50's and it takes AMAZING pictures!!!

No, there is NOTHING with Digital, A co-worker of mine bought one.....10.2 I think, took it to his Honey moon and snaped a lil over of 500 pics, with different lenses......WOW! those pictures came out looking professional and the kid is still in college! yeah I have thought about it, but for the costs of those cameras i would have to quit college and get a second job and either start slinging or fencing!!

Yes the film was 400 and used it on automatic, which the shutter speed is 90 hence EM90

jlcharles that question has become the norm when it comes to film. I'm already used to that.

The sun was coming from the west, north west area of Miami so that is the reason for the left side to look a bit darker. As the stitching came about ,I noticed that I can work on elimating the darkness but I would be 80 by the time I'm done! stamping and or using the eye drop the water will kill the picture and takes up sooooo much time!

And yes the problem with these pictures is the development, I'd like nothing more than to be able to have a place for my darkroom but sadly A) I don't have one and B) I have not had the pleasure to do Color developing, only B/W.

I have many issues with the developers, it's not even worth mentioning it. I don't use Wallgreens cuz most don't use matte paper and ALL their pictures come out looking like an image of a GAME BOY screen hand held......(notice I said GB and not anything recent i.e. GBA/SD)


hmmmmmm......I'm familiar with ritz camera but didn't they merge/get bought by Wolf camera? there is such a place......about one to two hours by public transportation and the only time I can go is the weekend if at that! It seems that in the end I may have to crap out the xtra $$ cuz i can't use this image for my portfolio will have to go back to my first one......bullocks!

Thanks to all for the comments, oh and adrianblaine your comment about getting digital is also welcomed

 

[adrianblaine]

Thanks to all for the comments, oh and adrianblaine your comment about getting digital is also welcomed

It was really only a question. I was curious if you had considered it since you had gotten them printed and then (I'm assuming) scanned them to make them digital. To me it seems worth skipping the step of having to pay the middle man to end up with a digital photo.

Like I said earlier, I love film and I hope it never goes away. But fiddling with a photo in Photoshop after scanning it in seems redundant. But that's just because I've been using digital for so long now...

Seriously though, I have nothing against you using film