photography help.

[v4forlife]

right, i have been really getting into photography recently, but the problem is, is that i juat got 3 rolls back(35mm canon rebel200, 28-80mm lens) and all of them are grainy.

why did this happen, and what may i be doing wrong??
____________________
www.wilcollinsphoto.co.uk

[Suzuki]

What ISO was the film you were using?
____________________
<Simple> no I'm shaven Jon
<Simple> it is a big enough hole.. I'll leave it now
Ride: 1999 Suzuki GSXR600 (yellow/black) IRC: Stats - Relationship Map

[map]

[Silver]

As above, check you're using the correct speed film for the job and also have a look at lighting (i.e. your positioning in relation to the sun if you're outside).

[Davo]

Just out of interest, where are you getting the films developed?

I've put some films in at Tesco a while back, got them back and they all came back really grainy.

[Mjolnir]

I had a film come back REALLY grainy a while ago. Couldn't think why and I went through a load of stuff trying to work out what I was doing wrong.

It seems my major mistake was using ancient film. I totally forgot about it and jammed a chunk of 35mm in the back of the camera that Noah had previously been using to document the building of the ark with.

You could always take it back to the place and ask them to check it for you. It could be their fault and hopefully they will sort it out. Have you used this camera before?

[stinkwheel]

What's the exposure like? The light-reactive emulsion covering the film and paper is made up of lots of little crystals.

Bigger crystals react more quickly to the light, smaller ones more slowly. Every film will have a mixture of sizes of crystal on it.

Slower films have more of the small crystals, they respond more slowly to light but give a more detailed and less grainy picture.

Faster films have more of the larger crystals, they respond more quickly to the light but give a grainier picture.

The same happens with the paper.

So, you shouldn't be able to see the grains on a 200ASA film unless you magnify it a lot. BUT if you significantly underexpose it, only the bigger crystals will have time to respond to the light, you get a grainy picture.

I've done some pictures showing this, I have some film photos scanned in at very high resolution which shows the grains if you zoom in.

This picture shows a small part of exactly the same scene at full size. I picked it because I was fiddling with long exposures in the dark. Both have the same aperature setting (f5.6), both are on the same 200ASA film. The top one is fairly well exposed using a 10 second exposure, the bottom one is badly underexposed using a 4 second exposure. You should be able to see that the underexposed one is a lot grainier.
https://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f216/stinkwheel/overunder.jpg

This picture shows two well exposed pictures in good light conditions, using the same shutter speed and aperature (1/500s and f16). They are scanned using the same resolution. I have zoomed in on them 300% (so imagine the actual photo was the size of an A1 sheet of paper at this degree ofg detail). The top picture is a 400ASA film, the bottom one is a 200ASA film. The scanner reads the grains as a 'pixel' (no point in going for higher resolution than this). The difference in 'graininess' is obvious.
https://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f216/stinkwheel/filmspeed.jpg

[divuk83]

How old is the film? I had a roll sat in my old SLR for a few years before I got round to processing it before I sold the camera. They were pretty grainy when I got them back.

Dave

[Kickstart]

Hi

Another vote for checking the age of the film.

However it is quite possible to screw up developing the film and give some noticeable grain.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[v4forlife]

the film was 400isox2 and one 200, and i had one piece of film, well half a roll left over, from maybe a few months back, whenever hideout had their open day, and the others, i have no clue, from anywhere between 97, to 2001/2, lol. just found them and needed some film.

it is the dark parts of the picture that are like this, darker the part, ie shadow etc, then the higher the grain.

and yes, id rather get it right with film first then move over to digital.
ill post some of the pics when i get a chance.
____________________
www.wilcollinsphoto.co.uk

[Kickstart]

[LustyLew]

Oh gawd, it was years ago I studies the theory of films and paper developing. That sounds on the right track though.

Not used my SLR in a while, must get it back out. Something satisfying about a 35mm photography, I think it's the phsyical result at the end.
____________________
Like a Yorkie - I'm not for the girls

[stinkwheel]

I suppose the only way to decide is to inspect the prints under high magnification. You should be able to differentiate the projected image of the grains on the film from the actual grains on the paper.

That's assuming the developers had their enlarger properly focused though, which in my experience is not a foregone conclusion.

[Clanger]

Best bet is to keep films in the fridge too.
____________________
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter won't mind - Dr. Seuss

[v4forlife]

here are some pics then.
these 2 are from the good film, maybe 3-4 months old.
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y253/v4forlife/CNV00026.jpg
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y253/v4forlife/CNV00002_2.jpg
the rest of these are from the old old film, between 4-8 years, not sure, found it in my room and needed some, so save me some money.
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y253/v4forlife/CNV00002.jpg
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y253/v4forlife/CNV00013-1.jpg
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y253/v4forlife/CNV00004.jpg
____________________
www.wilcollinsphoto.co.uk

[ali-b]

It kinda *looks* like chroma noise (from the in car pic) with a high luminance content. If you can get your film scanned rather than on to paper you'd rule out the paper as the cause.

I thought chroma noise was a digital thing, but could be wrong...

Only ever used B&W film and certainly would expect a bit of grain at ISO400 - especially with my old dev gear

I like the final rail slide (wide angle) picture though

A.

[v4forlife]

yea, its a mates fisheye lens. he only remembered it at the last min, so i played with it for a bit.
____________________
www.wilcollinsphoto.co.uk