For the 35mm savy...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

This is a discussion on For the 35mm savy... within the Member Show-Off & Photography forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; I just got some film back and I opted for the Kodak cd with it. The actual 4x6 prints look ...

  1. #1
    Registered User taprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    521

    For the 35mm savy...

    I just got some film back and I opted for the Kodak cd with it. The actual 4x6 prints look good to my amature eye but the images on the disc are really noisy. I'm not sure if it was their scanning process or my pictures. I was using 400 speed film and 1000+ shutter speed. Any thoughts on what caused the noise? Bad film or bad scan I hope.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 005_3.jpg  
    tim price
    Blobeye Syndicate #100

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User dsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    3,769
    that looks like some really bright sunshine. I would have opted for 100 or 200 tops.
    Dead is Hard. Life is Much Easier. Be Adequite.
    -Lindsay Lohan

  4. #3
    Registered User taprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    521
    As an amature I stick with the middle of the road when I buy film. I've never had this problem before but I don't know enough to diagnose my own problem. I was also set at F4.5, should I have used a smaller aperature?
    tim price
    Blobeye Syndicate #100

  5. #4
    Moderating YOU
    before you had your Subaru!
    Verdugo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Sea-Town, WA
    Posts
    13,307
    I Support ClubWRX
    I'm no film expert by any means, but I know aperture really wouldn't have anything to do with noise...since from my understanding, film speed is similar to ISO on digital, 400 is pretty fast, thus you have extra noise. As dsel said, a slower film speed like 100 or 200 will probably produce better pictures in bright sunlight.

    As far as aperture goes, there's always the Sunny 16 rule...f/16 in bright sunlight FTW...that's been around long before digital
    Armin - ClubWRX Admin/Moderator since 2002
    Senior Editor and Photographer, NWMotiv.com
    Photography Portfolios: ArminAusejo.com | ArminWeddings.com
    President, Project One Car Club
    02 WRX "EVA-00" | 2010 A4, still to be named | 02 M3 "M-Thrizzle" (traded in) | 08 STI "Blaze" (sold)
    djrez4 is a genius | ScoobyDMC #010

  6. #5
    Registered User taprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    521
    With no formal education in photography that's a new one to me. I was thinking that a larger aperature, F4.5, would flood the light in and not capture as clean an image as if I would have opted for a higher F-stop. That is just the ramblings of a aspiring photographer. I will keep your two new pieces of advice in mind next time I got out though. Thanks guys.
    tim price
    Blobeye Syndicate #100

  7. #6
    "sitting in the corner in Rick Roll timeout" chanwahyaoh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    4,125
    What brand film was it? i don't recall ever seeing ISO 400 film being that grainy.
    If you say a 4x6 print looks fine, I would think that the scan was noisy. Out of curiosity, what are the dimensions of the scanned image on the CD?
    Turtles are nature's suction cups.
    .____
    ||J || R.I.P.
    ||__||
    |/__\|

  8. #7
    Registered User dsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by chanwahyaoh
    What brand film was it? i don't recall ever seeing ISO 400 film being that grainy.
    If you say a 4x6 print looks fine, I would think that the scan was noisy. Out of curiosity, what are the dimensions of the scanned image on the CD?
    looks like CVS brand
    Dead is Hard. Life is Much Easier. Be Adequite.
    -Lindsay Lohan

  9. #8
    Registered User taprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    521
    It is Kodak film and the image is 1536x1024. I am going to look at the prints more closely when I get home and bring the photos to work and use our marketing scanner to see how they turn out. I don't expect the best quality from the Kodak photo cd but it's never been that noisy before.
    tim price
    Blobeye Syndicate #100

  10. #9
    Registered User TurbeauxREX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Des Allemands, La.
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Verdugo
    I'm no film expert by any means, but I know aperture really wouldn't have anything to do with noise...since from my understanding, film speed is similar to ISO on digital, 400 is pretty fast, thus you have extra noise. As dsel said, a slower film speed like 100 or 200 will probably produce better pictures in bright sunlight.

    As far as aperture goes, there's always the Sunny 16 rule...f/16 in bright sunlight FTW...that's been around long before digital
    Armin:The aperature setting relative to the ISO & shutter speed in attaining a balanced image will definitely have an effect on the graininess of the image as it can cause either an over or underexposed result. Additionally, 400 speed film these days is very fine if properly exposed, as with any medium. Junk in = junk out, no matter what you're shooting; film or pixels. In the case of the example presented here, the foreground is OK, while the background is underexposed, thus the grainieness.

    Timmy: As for the image presented, you're shooting in mixed light, which is working against you from the get-go. The noise (that I see) is in the darker areas of the image, which are underexposed relative to the nose of the car, which is bright. Scans of negatives when they make the CDs is not optimum, for certain. IMHO, the exposure of the image is the biggest factor in the grainieness of that image. How do the others look? Are they all similarly lighted and affected? If so, try moving your subject into one light or the other, shade or full-light.

    Peace,

    Curtis

  11. #10
    Registered User taprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    521
    Thanks for the explanation Curtis. There are other images where the dark background and under exposed areas were where the same graininess occurred. I will keep these things in mind next time I'm out shooting.
    tim price
    Blobeye Syndicate #100

  12. #11
    Moderating YOU
    before you had your Subaru!
    Verdugo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Sea-Town, WA
    Posts
    13,307
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by TurbeauxREX
    Armin:The aperature setting relative to the ISO & shutter speed in attaining a balanced image will definitely have an effect on the graininess of the image as it can cause either an over or underexposed result. Additionally, 400 speed film these days is very fine if properly exposed, as with any medium. Junk in = junk out, no matter what you're shooting; film or pixels. In the case of the example presented here, the foreground is OK, while the background is underexposed, thus the grainieness.
    Aha, I see! Thanks for explaining
    Armin - ClubWRX Admin/Moderator since 2002
    Senior Editor and Photographer, NWMotiv.com
    Photography Portfolios: ArminAusejo.com | ArminWeddings.com
    President, Project One Car Club
    02 WRX "EVA-00" | 2010 A4, still to be named | 02 M3 "M-Thrizzle" (traded in) | 08 STI "Blaze" (sold)
    djrez4 is a genius | ScoobyDMC #010

  13. #12

    Admin - Scooby Hooligan

    Weasel 555's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK,NY,AK,FL
    Posts
    23,139
    I Support ClubWRX
    curtis,
    kewl simple explanation
    ScoobyDMC #000,HawkEyeAlliance#000,Blobeye Syndicate #000, SQC-NY #009, "Dragon Slayer"
    "All We'll Drive"

    I <3 boobies: rallyarmor/keepabreast/mud flaps limited edition

  14. #13
    Registered User c00lbeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,222
    looks like they scaned the prints. i wouldnt go back there for photo processing. if you paid for the scaning i would demand money back
    Last edited by c00lbeans; 05-25-2006 at 08:36 PM.

  15. #14
    Registered User taprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    521
    To make myself feel better after the last pics I took I borrowed a nice DSLR camera from work, washed Blue up real nice and took her out for some pictures. Here is one of the favorites...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSC_0007.jpg  
    tim price
    Blobeye Syndicate #100

  16. #15
    Registered User TurbeauxREX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Des Allemands, La.
    Posts
    1,097
    You now know what you must do, right? Buy a DSLR and all your problems will be solved.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •