Film at hermann park

[craigb456]

I took the film camera out to hermann park and got some Night shots let me know what you think :)

You can see all the photo's I have taken with the FM2 here

#1

Nikon FM2 with fujicolor 400 film and cpc 28-70mm lens @28mm f/5.6 ~6sec

#2

Nikon FM2 with fujicolor 400 film and cpc 28-70mm lens @28mm f/5.6 ~6sec

#3

Nikon FM2 with fujicolor 400 film and cpc 28-70mm lens @70mm f/5.6 ~6sec

[auddii]

Not bad except that last one is crooked. Although if you're going to do a lot of night shots with film, I'd look into getting film with higher ISO. These shots are pretty grainy. exposure levels look good though.

[craigb456]

Originally Posted by auddii

Not bad except that last one is crooked. Although if you're going to do a lot of night shots with film, I'd look into getting film with higher ISO. These shots are pretty grainy. exposure levels look good though.

Thanks I just got a pack of ISO 400 just to start with so that is all i have for now

[auddii]

Yeah, I've just noticed you like a lot of night shooting in general. If you decide to keep up with the film sounds like you need a stash of both low and high ISO lying around. :)

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by auddii

Although if you're going to do a lot of night shots with film, I'd look into getting film with higher ISO. These shots are pretty grainy.

If you get higher ISO film, it will have even more grain.

To reduce grain he would need lower ISO and a tripod.


On Edit:

After looking at them, I would say most are overexposed.

I think the FM2 has a center weighted meter.

Using it correctly would be quite a bit different than a modern DSLR with a multi-segment/matrix type meter.

[duronboy]

Who did the scanning for these? These fine images have two disadvantages: lackluster scanning and horribly high compression. Otherwise, they're great. I think I would disagree with the recommendation with going with a higher ISO. I'd go with a lower ISO/longer shutter speed. Just be sure to correct for Reciprocity Failure, and you'll be fine.

[craigb456]

The scanning is from CVS its alot better than the scans i had done at walgreens but thats not saying much. I am planing to get a good scanner but I have to save up some mony first, unless someone will let me use theirs :)

Originally Posted by duronboy

Who did the scanning for these? These fine images have two disadvantages: lackluster scanning and horribly high compression. Otherwise, they're great. I think I would disagree with the recommendation with going with a higher ISO. I'd go with a lower ISO/longer shutter speed. Just be sure to correct for Reciprocity Failure, and you'll be fine.

[craigb456]

I Used my Sony A55 DSLR to get the settings (ISO 400 f/5.6 and 6 sec exposure) then I set the FM2 up with the same settings

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

If you get higher ISO film, it will have even more grain.

To reduce grain he would need lower ISO and a tripod.


On Edit:

After looking at them, I would say most are overexposed.

I think the FM2 has a center weighted meter.

Using it correctly would be quite a bit different than a modern DSLR with a multi-segment/matrix type meter.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by craigb456

I Used my Sony A55 DSLR to get the settings (ISO 400 f/5.6 and 6 sec exposure) then I set the FM2 up with the same settings

Did you shoot any with the Sony?
Were they overexposed?

Did you do any exposure compensation from what the Sony said?


Night scenes can be tough on any camera.

As a general rule, overexposure will cause more grain.


If your Sony has a spot meter built in, you may be better off using it to determine a good exposure.

[craigb456]

Here are the same pictures taken with the Sony A55 with minor edits I did not change the exposure

#1

Sony A55 ISO 400 Sony 18-55 SAM lens @ 18mm f/5.6 6sec exposure

#2

Sony A55 ISO 400 Sony 18-55 SAM lens @ 18mm f/5.6 6sec exposure

#3

Sony A55 ISO 400 Sony 18-55 SAM lens @ 18mm f/5.6 6sec exposure

[duronboy]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

As a general rule, overexposure will cause more grain.

I've found that overexposure can cause a lack of detail. It's underexposure that causes grain to be more apparent when corrected for, either in the digital or chemical darkroom.

If you use the meter from a dSLR for any scene that requires more than a second of exposure, the film will likely be underexposed significantly when using the same settings. That's what reciprocity failure is. The longer the light takes to affect change on the film, the less effective it is. Imagine pouring a cup of water into another cup. With film water, if it took an entire second for the transfer to complete, only half the water would reach the second cup due to reciprocity failure. If pouring the water took just a 100th of a second, almost no water would be lost, therefore no correction would be required. If it took 10 seconds to transfer the water, only 1/3rd of the water would make it. ect..

The amount of correction depends entirely on the film used and the exposure length. There are charts online for quite a number of films that allow you to quickly calculate how much more light you'll need in order to get a correct exposure. There are even apps for smartphones that help with this.

So, it's most likely that the grain we're seeing here is due to grossly underexposed images that had to be corrected for. Bringing up the exposure of underexposed images is the #1 cause of grainy images.

[craigb456]

Thanks

Originally Posted by duronboy

I've found that overexposure can cause a lack of detail. It's underexposure that causes grain to be more apparent when corrected for, either in the digital or chemical darkroom.

If you use the meter from a dSLR for any scene that requires more than a second of exposure, the film will likely be underexposed significantly when using the same settings. That's what reciprocity failure is. The longer the light takes to affect change on the film, the less effective it is. Imagine pouring a cup of water into another cup. With film water, if it took an entire second for the transfer to complete, only half the water would reach the second cup due to reciprocity failure. If pouring the water took just a 100th of a second, almost no water would be lost, therefore no correction would be required. If it took 10 seconds to transfer the water, only 1/3rd of the water would make it. ect..

The amount of correction depends entirely on the film used and the exposure length. There are charts online for quite a number of films that allow you to quickly calculate how much more light you'll need in order to get a correct exposure. There are even apps for smartphones that help with this.

So, it's most likely that the grain we're seeing here is due to grossly underexposed images that had to be corrected for. Bringing up the exposure of underexposed images is the #1 cause of grainy images.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by duronboy

I've found that overexposure can cause a lack of detail. It's underexposure that causes grain to be more apparent when corrected for, either in the digital or chemical darkroom.

At the extreme ends

Over exposure starts blocking up the highlights causing a build up of grain.

Under exposure leaves the film clear, no grain.

That is why grain is mostly apparent in the lighter areas.


Either way, the digitals look much better.

I would guess most of the problems are a result of the quality of the scans.

[Khary L. Dixon]

Will Craigb456 ever let be borrow the FM2???