Hmmm... 1st roll ever but don't know what's wrong...

I think your main problem with the first 2 shots are underexposure. If you look at the negs the images may be very thin. These shots also have very bright areas in the background/periphery which may have affected your meter reading, especially #2 with the difference in brightness outside. When scanning or printing an underexposed negative, you're trying to get the midtones and highlights to look reasonable, but the shadows or dark areas will often be flat and washed-out and the image will look muddy. Labs will usually try to give you the best possible print from your underexposed negative, which looks a lot like your first two images. The 3rd exposure looks good - nice contrast, good shadow and highlight detail and color balance - you could easily print this one a bit darker to give it a nice dark "pool-room" mood, but the negative has all the information you need to print it to suit your style. Sometimes underexposure with color film will also exaggerate the color cast you have in the first 2 shots.

Using daylight-balanced film under incandescent lighting will give you a much warmer look, but a blue filter will help bring the colors back to neutral. The 2nd shot is the opposite - indirect light from outside, especially on a clear day with blue skies this can give the image a cold cast. Reflected light from buildings, colored walls, etc. can also change the color balance of your image. Our eyes/brains adjust to these lighting conditions, but film will show the true color of the light hitting your subject. For the second shot I'd try an 81A or 81B warming filter.

I've never used an iPhone as a meter, but some traditional meters will also give less-accurate readings indoors or in dim light. I find I have better success by overexposing a bit in these situations. The built-in meters in some newer electronic cameras are designed to compensate in these situations, but with handheld or older meters you have to think about your lighting situations to get the best exposures possible. This is what makes film and older cameras a fun challenge - you learn from your mistakes and develop your skills to master the medium.

It's hard to tell if lens flare is an issue in your first 2 shots, but keep in mind that any bright light source in your frame or just outside has the potential to cause flare with any lens. This is where modern multicoated lenses tend to do better, but lens hoods are always a good idea.

Dude, this is only your first roll of film, so don't get discouraged! Negative film is generally forgiving so you have some room for exposure error. If I only had a nickel for every exposure I'd screwed-up in the past 35 years...
 
Sorry, I assume these shots were all on color print film. If these are color slides, then some of what I previously said would be... the opposite. :rolleyes:
 
jim_jm said:
Sorry, I assume these shots were all on color print film. If these are color slides, then some of what I previously said would be... the opposite. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Many kind responses and helpful thoughts. Jim Jim you really gave me an invaluable tip there to speed my learning process- look at the negative! If its thin its underexposed right? Great tip and thanks for the advice and encouragement.
Just to clarify I had these sent to a lab-obviously not a great lab looking at the number if scratches and they didn't scan them they just printed them out. The pictures above are scans of the actual prints not the negatives. Anyway looks like ill have to invest in some filters. Thanks again guys and no I don't take offense to anything said online^^
 
Hi,

There's a program available called "FilterSim" that imitates a correction filter on digital images. You can get it here:

http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/filtersim.htm

Play around with it and you'll be able to correct things fairly well after the event.

I tried a No 3 Kodak Wratten on the second picture (it was the one it opened at) and was pleased with the result but she is an attractive young lady ;-)

By the way, you ought to be able to pick up a decent enlarger for a very nice price and then do B&W films the old fashioned way. Scanners can be too complicated, especially when they go wrong.

Hope this helps.

Regards, David
 
Also - ppl keep saying underexposed - quick question - doesn't underexposed film come out dark - blackish - at least that what always happened with my DSLR. Maybe two different behaviors?
 
That's why they're called negatives - an underexposed negative, color or B/W, will appear "thin" meaning not much detail visible. Severe underexposure will begin to look like clear unexposed film. When you print the negative in a enlarger, the light passes easily through to the printing paper, making your print too dark very quickly. With slide film and digital images, you go straight to the positive image. An underexposed slide will look very dark, as will a digital image. Slide film also tends to be less forgiving of exposure errors than print film, but the colors can be spectacular. Fuji Velvia is a favorite for many photographers and it was a big deal when Kodak stopped making Kodachrome.

I shoot and print mostly B/W negative film, and many folks on this forum develop their own B/W film and then scan the negatives to produce their own prints or digital images. The cost and equipment needed to develop B/W film at home is minimal, and you can really fine-tune your materials and process to suit your style. That way you can get the unique look of film, without needing an enlarger or dedicated darkroom space.
 
That makes a lot of sense Jim. Thanks for the education! I am in trouble as I am starting to like this film thing too much...
 
You got a great camera & lens & it deserves a good film scanner. Get one! I have a Epson V500 & I am quite satisified with it. There are better ones out there, buy what you can afford. Don't beat yourself up or become discouraged. It's a learning process & isn't all that difficult to get good scans. I second the idea to shoot b&w & develop at home. You do this & I believe you will fall in love with your M3. Patience my friend, patience.;)
 
Until you get a better scanner, perhaps you should leave the scanning to the lab that does your processing. Most (all?) labs, pro or mini, will scan your negatives to a CD for you at a minimal cost. I usually have them just process and scan mine, and only print the ones I want after doing my own post-processing, as almost always some image manipulation is desired.
 
The problem is not so much a scanner but underexposure. The shots are under at least 3 stops. That's what causes banding, the negs are too thin for the scanner CCD.

It is pointless to prescribe any filters until base exposure is gotten correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top