What did I do wrong?

[indierthanthou]

Ok so I finally got what I had expected to be a few good rolls of film developed. Looks like I didn't do such a great job, I am really disappointed with all the photos I took. What did I do wrong, so I know how to fix it for the next time?
800 speed film

What is the horizontal streak and the blur in the center from?

This is the only one I like, except for the dust and crap that digital ICE didn't get rid of during the scanning process and that I didn't photoshop out yet

This one has the same streak. It is also blurry, but I believe that might be because I had a low shutter speed because it was dark and was just holding the camera in my hand

 

[ChrisA]

You are going to have to describe the defect in more detail. I can't see it in these web-resolution scans. Well, maybe I'm seeing some lens flair in the center of the first photo. But you say "blur" not "flair".

It would also be good to know what kind of camera, lens and film was used. Would be good to know the exposure times too.

We would also need to know how these images differ from what you intended. I look at them I I don;t know if yo wanted the sky to be white or if it just happend to turn out that way.

 

[arogge]

The first image looks like it got some flare from the water, reflecting across the centre of the frame. Did you have any filters on the lens for that shot? Are you using a lens hood?

Some of your other shots lack the expected colour balance. The shot with the car is correct, but the others have unexpected colour tones that can be corrected with filters. You appear to be using expired film, or maybe it was not developed properly. Make sure that you are using a proper film for the conditions, that the film is not expired and that it has not been overheated, and use a proper film developer.

 

[seenew]

why are you shooting 800 speed film in broad daylight?

 

[indierthanthou]

why are you shooting 800 speed film in broad daylight?

Didn't know any better. When I bought it I couldn't get ahold of my photographer friends and so i figured the higher the number the better the film. I know not to now.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

More than likely the problem is a film that's too fast. With all the daylight, ASA/ISO 25-60 is plenty, although that sort of film is becoming rare these days. I loved some of the old ASA 25 film for such shots.

 

[arogge]

When I bought it I couldn't get ahold of my photographer friends and so i figured the higher the number the better the film.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorNegativeIndex.jhtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

Didn't the shop have somebody who could explain film speeds to you?

 

[M@lew]

What is it that you think is wrong with the photos in the first place though. Is it the texture or just the photo itself? i.e. Would you have wanted to improve on it still if it had been shot with a DSLR?

You can still shoot 800 ISO and get good results, as I often do to get a nicer shutter speed in the shade.

 

[kieko]

it looks as if the negative itself hasn't dried evenly or that it hasn't been washed quite well enough... best thing to do is to use a lens cloth and gently wipe the effected negs, then scan them in again and see. there are cleaning products out there for slides which work a treat but cannot remember for the life of me what they are called but, most photography shops should know what they are (like little alcohol tissues).

thats my guess as i've seen similar effects but i've only done b&w developing

 

[Digital Skunk]

Seriously speaking, if you got either a Fuji, Kodak, or that other brand of film whose name I can't remember, then nothing is wrong with them at all.

That is the way film acts. The processing could be better to yeild better results, but that's what happens when you put emulsion throught a machine that doesn't care.

Your images are what we used to get when we shot film everyday, now digital and it's slight perfection across the board has spoiled us rotten.

Just to reiterate.... I am sure they ran the emulsion through a machine, so developing it yourself would have yeilded different results.

 

[snberk103]

Bad processing

The problem is bad processing, in all examples except the last. There is dust on the negs or prints. The first print shows a mark that usually means a poorly dried print or neg - I can't tell without looking at the negs and prints.

Is this a lab you have had good results from in the past? Do you have a good relationship with them? If you do, take the film and prints and show them. If they are professional they will try and clean things up, and perhaps refund some processing costs. Mistakes can happen. The sign of a truly professional lab is what they do when shown a mistake (assuming that mistakes are rare). They won't refund any actual shooting time or costs, but they should refund some or all processing costs, plus the costs of a new film. If you have never used the lab before, drop them - they are sloppy.

Last shot is blurry due, most likely, to camera shake. Use a tripod or a fast shutter speed.

Most people will tell you to use slow speed film (slow ASA or ISO) on bright days. Slow film can cause problems too though, because bright days can be contrasty and slow film is a contrasty film. You will almost always blow out the highlights or block up the shadows, or perhaps both. Shoot on slightly overcast days to help with this. The only issue the 800 film might have caused is that you will have "grainy" pictures. If you like grain, learn to "push" your film.... a good lab will help here.

Good Luck

 

[snberk103]

Seriously speaking, if you got either a Fuji, Kodak, or that other brand of film whose name I can't remember, then nothing is wrong with them at all.

That is the way film acts. The processing could be better to yeild better results, but that's what happens when you put emulsion throught a machine that doesn't care.

Your images are what we used to get when we shot film everyday, now digital and it's slight perfection across the board has spoiled us rotten.

Just to reiterate.... I am sure they ran the emulsion through a machine, so developing it yourself would have yeilded different results.

That's not quite true. A pro lab offers results that are dust free and without processing artifacts. A badly processed photo - digital or chemical - is badly processed. A digital workflow can be bunged up just as badly....

Colour processing is very difficult to do your self - temperature tolerances are 1/2 degree or less. Black and White is entirely different... everyone should do their own BW film..... in a perfect world.

 

[snberk103]

Didn't know any better. When I bought it I couldn't get ahold of my photographer friends and so i figured the higher the number the better the film. I know not to now.

Do some reading on film speeds, and then experiment. Shoot identical subjects with the slowest speed (50 or 100) you can find and then the fastest (400 or 800). Use a tripod for all exposures. Find subjects that are both stationary and moving. Have some fun too, eh!

 

[Digital Skunk]

That's not quite true. A pro lab offers results that are dust free and without processing artifacts. A badly processed photo - digital or chemical - is badly processed. A digital workflow can be bunged up just as badly....

Colour processing is very difficult to do your self - temperature tolerances are 1/2 degree or less. Black and White is entirely different... everyone should do their own BW film..... in a perfect world.

I knew someone would say this.

Did the OP get it processed professionally?

Not that I am angry, but I know that on these threads people are quick to disagree even when someone is making a guess or general statement.

The reason why his images look like that is because (1) he shot with ISO 800 outside, which really isn't an issue; (2)the lab did a bad job processing the negs/they just ran them through a machine which is the most likely cause, (3) photographer error, and (4)a combination of the two with the added issue of film brand/age and some other random situation.

Digital has provided us with a list of new issues with photography, but it has taken away the completely random issues of film handling, film features, and film processing.

Not that I am 100% correct given the lack of other info from the OP, but those things I say do factor in.

 

[snberk103]

I knew someone would say this.

Did the OP get it processed professionally?

Not that I am angry, but I know that on these threads people are quick to disagree even when someone is making a guess or general statement.

The reason why his images look like that is because (1) he shot with ISO 800 outside, which really isn't an issue; (2)the lab did a bad job processing the negs/they just ran them through a machine which is the most likely cause, (3) photographer error, and (4)a combination of the two with the added issue of film brand/age and some other random situation.

Digital has provided us with a list of new issues with photography, but it has taken away the completely random issues of film handling, film features, and film processing.

Not that I am 100% correct given the lack of other info from the OP, but those things I say do factor in.

My apologies. I had interpreted your comment as applying to all film labs, pro and "not so pro".

You have also brought up another possible issue the OP may have - the age and condition of the film. I agree that digital photography has, without doubt, eliminated the need to hold back half your film from processing in case the lab screws up. To worry about x-ray machines at the airport - to worry about whether the film loaded properly, or worry about opening a camera back prematurely.

However - Now we have to worry about corrupted memory cards; memory cards that won't format when they should, or do format when they shouldn't; crashed hard-drives; inadequate backups; file formats that may not be readable in 5 years; media that may not be readable in 3 years (anyone here still have their images on Syquest drives?); Print drivers that change the colour when the driver is updated; etc etc.... I wonder why we do it at all? For the thrill I guess.....

I actually think that, for moderately sized colour photography, digital is the best thing to have happened to it for a long time.

 

[indierthanthou]

I used rite aid. Mistake on my part, I was in a hurry. I will use the pro lab where I will be getting my 120 processed for all film now, depending on the quality they do. I used kodak film, iso 800. So for the most part it was me being cheap/lazy and new to photography. So to fix it I should do the following:

1. Use a good lab
2. Use slower ISO film for bright days
3. Shoot on overcast days
4. Practice
5. Use a tripod with lower shutter speeds
6. Use a good lab

Am I missing anything?

 

[M@lew]

1) Definitely
2) Not necessarily, but usually good depending on the light.
3) Nope, shoot any time.
4) Again of course.
5) Yes, but depends how slow.
6) You know it.

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

I'd also experiment with filters. I think a UV filter might have helped with the first railroad track shot. A polarizing filter might have been a good match with high speed film, and might have done some nice things with the sky and water.

I the expensive hoby of photography, filters are the cheapest add on.

Don't beat yourself too much. I've most likely taken tens of thousands of shots, only to be happy with a few dozen..................