smileyguy
Established
I shot a few pics over the holidays with my Konica Auto S3. Indoors, lowlight conditions, shutter speeds around 1/15 or 1/30 second. I ended up with most on the roll looking really good (see xmas at mom's) but some came out looking grainy and not as rich as the others (see xmas at mom's 2). Can anyone help me with this? I am quite certain the answer is obvious but I don't know enough to figure it out... 
This has happened before on my SLR with Ilford 3200 and would love to know how to fix it to avoid it or actually encourage it in the future.
This has happened before on my SLR with Ilford 3200 and would love to know how to fix it to avoid it or actually encourage it in the future.
Attachments
dmr
Registered Abuser
In my experience, Fuji 800 can't take a joke as far as underexposure is concerned and if underexposed it will be grainy, as the right photo above is.
No, I would not suggest intentionally overexposing, just be sure not to underexpose. I shoot this film a lot and have had consistently good results with it.
No, I would not suggest intentionally overexposing, just be sure not to underexpose. I shoot this film a lot and have had consistently good results with it.
ferider
Veteran
Like DMR said: great film and easy to scan, but never underexpose.
Roland.
Roland.
willie_901
Veteran
I was wondering how the images in your post were scanned. Did you adjust the levels (brightness) on the right-side image? What was the scan rate (PPI)?
The left-side image looks typical for well-exposed S-800, The grainy, flat right-side image resembles results I get when I under expose an image. But this image does not appear to be under exposed, and the grain is not just shadow grain.
The poor image appears to be cropped. I'm guessing this is a top-center crop? What was the light like in the rest of the frame?
In my experience, S-800 can give results like you this in flat, low contrast light, In these conditions over-exposure can lead to grain.
I have messed up more NPZ-800 and S-800 exposures than I care to admit. Most of these were with a Canonet G-III QL17 which meters with technology similar to your Konica. Practically all my mistakes were due to under exposure. But I think your photo may be over exposed. I think this type of light meter is best used as a guide rather than as a true auto-exposure system. I'm assuming your SLR has a more sophisticated metering system than the Konica. If so, I found I could not use the Konica-style meter like I use my SLR's or my Zeiss Ikon M's meter.
Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm really opened my eyes. It actually works.
My advice for indoor low-light conditions would be to use your brain (see above) as an exposure meter rather than the Konica meter. I would take a few close-up readings with the Konica and decide what EV range was appropriate. In this case, I'm guessing your had EV 5-7. I'd expose manually using the shutter aperture combination for the EV dictated by the light level. I successfully shot an indoor charity party in a poorly lit venue without auto exposure. I used a Nikon F3 SLR (Fuji S-1600) and the Canonet (Ilford Delta 3200). I used this method with NPZ-800 during a visit to a home I'd never been in before and avoided flat grainy exposures there as well.
I have had great experiences with Ilford 32000 and I have had horrible experiences. I quit using this film. I will either push TriX or try Neopan 1600 the next time I need that kind of speed. I'm not sure your SLR experience and the Konica results are related at all.
I have a ton of S-800 in the 'fridge. When it's gone, I plan to try the new Kodak 800 film before I buy the next batch of ISO 800 color film.
willie
The left-side image looks typical for well-exposed S-800, The grainy, flat right-side image resembles results I get when I under expose an image. But this image does not appear to be under exposed, and the grain is not just shadow grain.
The poor image appears to be cropped. I'm guessing this is a top-center crop? What was the light like in the rest of the frame?
In my experience, S-800 can give results like you this in flat, low contrast light, In these conditions over-exposure can lead to grain.
I have messed up more NPZ-800 and S-800 exposures than I care to admit. Most of these were with a Canonet G-III QL17 which meters with technology similar to your Konica. Practically all my mistakes were due to under exposure. But I think your photo may be over exposed. I think this type of light meter is best used as a guide rather than as a true auto-exposure system. I'm assuming your SLR has a more sophisticated metering system than the Konica. If so, I found I could not use the Konica-style meter like I use my SLR's or my Zeiss Ikon M's meter.
Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm really opened my eyes. It actually works.
My advice for indoor low-light conditions would be to use your brain (see above) as an exposure meter rather than the Konica meter. I would take a few close-up readings with the Konica and decide what EV range was appropriate. In this case, I'm guessing your had EV 5-7. I'd expose manually using the shutter aperture combination for the EV dictated by the light level. I successfully shot an indoor charity party in a poorly lit venue without auto exposure. I used a Nikon F3 SLR (Fuji S-1600) and the Canonet (Ilford Delta 3200). I used this method with NPZ-800 during a visit to a home I'd never been in before and avoided flat grainy exposures there as well.
I have had great experiences with Ilford 32000 and I have had horrible experiences. I quit using this film. I will either push TriX or try Neopan 1600 the next time I need that kind of speed. I'm not sure your SLR experience and the Konica results are related at all.
I have a ton of S-800 in the 'fridge. When it's gone, I plan to try the new Kodak 800 film before I buy the next batch of ISO 800 color film.
willie
smileyguy
Established
So, not to be pedantic or anything, but this example on the right is underexposed? I thought it would have been a little muddier and darker if that were the case.
smileyguy
Established
Wow! Willie, thanks for such a great explanation.
These were both scanned at 1200dpi, untouched, i.e., no sharpening, tone adjust etc. The crops are the same: 640x480 @ 72dpi. You're right about the relative position of the crop: centre for the image on the left, top left for the image on the right. I cropped out my niece as she would likely not be pleased to know that she was on the web somewhere without her permission.
Hope that helps.
These were both scanned at 1200dpi, untouched, i.e., no sharpening, tone adjust etc. The crops are the same: 640x480 @ 72dpi. You're right about the relative position of the crop: centre for the image on the left, top left for the image on the right. I cropped out my niece as she would likely not be pleased to know that she was on the web somewhere without her permission.
Hope that helps.