sara
Well-known
Soooo.....
I recently tested out a Lomo f2/400 film (I never, never use this. It was just this one time and I got it back from the shops and a little confused at what's going on.
I noticed that there was a lot of grain in very bright daytime shots and I"m not sure what's going because I was using the Leica M6, there was a lightmeter etc.
I did ask the lab guy and his response was "you're out of touch with your cameras. Back then, this would be have the right exposure but these days, our photos are a little brighter. It happens to everyone so I understand."
But the problem was, I've always been using my Leica and was a little offended by what he said, as a month before using this film, I used Fuji Pro400H and my images were nothing fine? I'm not a total beginner (which he seems to think so, but I'm not an idiot either. :bang
So to tell me that I basically don't know how to use my camera is BS.
I'm thinking either the film didn't get handled very well when I bought it (maybe it went through x-rays) and quite worried now about the film I have in stock (iso 400) that if I were to bring it on my upcoming trip, I would get grain like this (as it has gone one round of the usual safe scanners at the airport but wasn't used).
The only thing different was that, for the Fuji Pro400 image I used a newer lens. But for the ones above it was the first lens I used and have got amazing images from it.
I recently tested out a Lomo f2/400 film (I never, never use this. It was just this one time and I got it back from the shops and a little confused at what's going on.
I noticed that there was a lot of grain in very bright daytime shots and I"m not sure what's going because I was using the Leica M6, there was a lightmeter etc.
I did ask the lab guy and his response was "you're out of touch with your cameras. Back then, this would be have the right exposure but these days, our photos are a little brighter. It happens to everyone so I understand."
But the problem was, I've always been using my Leica and was a little offended by what he said, as a month before using this film, I used Fuji Pro400H and my images were nothing fine? I'm not a total beginner (which he seems to think so, but I'm not an idiot either. :bang
So to tell me that I basically don't know how to use my camera is BS.
I'm thinking either the film didn't get handled very well when I bought it (maybe it went through x-rays) and quite worried now about the film I have in stock (iso 400) that if I were to bring it on my upcoming trip, I would get grain like this (as it has gone one round of the usual safe scanners at the airport but wasn't used).
The only thing different was that, for the Fuji Pro400 image I used a newer lens. But for the ones above it was the first lens I used and have got amazing images from it.
akptc
Shoot first, think later
It looks like the 1st two were heavily underexposed and the lab corrected it, with this result.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
akptc is right. They're underexposed. Just because you used the light meter doesn't mean the exposure is going to be right. The meter in a camera assumes what what you are photographing is a middle tone, so if you photograph a scene with a lot of light tones, like a bright sky or the light colored concrete in the first pic, the meter will give an exposure that renders that light-colored subject as a middle tone....which is underexposure.
Here's a metering tutorial that I wrote that explains this in more detail:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163658
Here's a metering tutorial that I wrote that explains this in more detail:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163658
gnuyork
Well-known
Isn't Lomo film supposed to be grainy? I don't really know, but when I think Lomo, I think grainy for some reason, sort of like Color Implosion.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi Sara,
this Lomography film is very old, long expired Ferrania film.
This film was even quite grainy when it was fresh. And now, being long expired the grain is worse, and the sensivity is of course also significantly lower. Both lead to the results you've got.
You've bought crappy film, and therefore you've got crappy results.
It's not you, it's the film.
You should not expect excellent results like you've got from your Fujifilm Pro 400H.
If you want quality, buy quality films. And avoid long expired films. Buy fresh film.
Cheers, Jan
this Lomography film is very old, long expired Ferrania film.
This film was even quite grainy when it was fresh. And now, being long expired the grain is worse, and the sensivity is of course also significantly lower. Both lead to the results you've got.
You've bought crappy film, and therefore you've got crappy results.
It's not you, it's the film.
You should not expect excellent results like you've got from your Fujifilm Pro 400H.
If you want quality, buy quality films. And avoid long expired films. Buy fresh film.
Cheers, Jan
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Her film was underexposed; even if the film was supposed to be a grainy film, the empty shadows are a dead giveaway that she didn't expose correctly.
gnuyork
Well-known
I don't see it that way, but OK. Just looks like grainy old film to me. The exposure looks Ok.
HHPhoto
Well-known
She certainly exposed it correctly as an ISO 400/27° film. Because it is labelled as that.
But as I've explained above, this film is very old original Ferrania film (Lomo even said it at the introduction). So this film is about ten years old. And probably not completely cold stored over the time.
So this film does not have its original speed anymore.
It needs 1-2 stops more exposure.
But with Lomo you always have the risk to run into these problems. Because films are labelled incorrectly, flaws are covered by marketing bla-blah, or you get QC problems (e.g. with the 120 film converted for them in China).
If you want really excellent and reliable products, stay away from Lomography.
Cheers, Jan
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Agreed. The end result is underexposure though. As you said, its not her fault, its the crappy film.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Its not ok. Look at the shadowed area of the cliff and the woman's black clothes. They are empty areas of grain with almost no detail. Properly exposed images will have full detail in those dark tones, even on a naturally grainy film.
znapper
Well-known
If she metered with the M6 more or less where the average center is on that photo, the white marble should normally not cause underexposure, since it's center-weighted.
The lab guy should have said that you are using a "hip" old-ass grainy film and you need to give it 1-2 stops more exposure, or you will experience underexposed shots like these all the time, blame Lomo .
The lab guy should have said that you are using a "hip" old-ass grainy film and you need to give it 1-2 stops more exposure, or you will experience underexposed shots like these all the time, blame Lomo .
sara
Well-known
Ok thanks guys. I’m just going to go with the fact that it’s the film. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve shot photos the way I’ve shot for the past 10 years. I didn’t change anything.
Wasn’t expecting fab results from Lomo. Haven’t used this film before like I said and was just trying it out.
If the photos were heavily underexposed, then I would say something is wrong with my camera because like I said, I’ve been shooting the way I’ve shot my photos for a very long time. And my previous roll were all perfectly exposed.
I was in Bali, the sun was shining, it was more likely to be overexposed than underexposed. The whole roll was the same - all grainy, all like this
Ps - I bought the film from some dodgy shop. They prob didn’t handle it very well.
I have a roll of Fuji Superia currently in camera. If the shots are bad, I would know it is me
Wasn’t expecting fab results from Lomo. Haven’t used this film before like I said and was just trying it out.
If the photos were heavily underexposed, then I would say something is wrong with my camera because like I said, I’ve been shooting the way I’ve shot my photos for a very long time. And my previous roll were all perfectly exposed.
I was in Bali, the sun was shining, it was more likely to be overexposed than underexposed. The whole roll was the same - all grainy, all like this
Ps - I bought the film from some dodgy shop. They prob didn’t handle it very well.
I have a roll of Fuji Superia currently in camera. If the shots are bad, I would know it is me
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Can be easily fixed. 2 minutes in PS
michaelwj
----------------
I feel like there's some sort of lesson here..?
leicapixie
Well-known
It seems "everyone" believes the film speed on the box.
Old film loses speed plus adding fog, more so in fast film. (400).
Pro film often had additional data, meaning more accurate film speeds..
Using a poor quality film, long out dated in a dubious camera at best invites poor results.
I have seen wonderful work on Holga, Dianna and other 'toy' cameras.
I HATE gambling, so its tests with film..and fine cameras and lenses.
Color for me is now only digital.
Old film loses speed plus adding fog, more so in fast film. (400).
Pro film often had additional data, meaning more accurate film speeds..
Using a poor quality film, long out dated in a dubious camera at best invites poor results.
I have seen wonderful work on Holga, Dianna and other 'toy' cameras.
I HATE gambling, so its tests with film..and fine cameras and lenses.
Color for me is now only digital.
Ted Striker
Well-known
I was in Bali, the sun was shining, it was more likely to be overexposed than underexposed. The whole roll was the same - all grainy, all like this
This is incorrect. Bright sun is just as likely to cause under exposure due to the fact that the meter may catch part of that bright sun and meter for that, leaving less lit parts of the scene under exposed.
I find bright sun scenes cause the vast majority of my under exposure issues, by far.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I agree. Another problem with bright sun regarding underexposure is that, when using negative films, color or B&W, exposure should be set to ensure sufficient shadow detail. In bright sun, the shadows are a lot darker than they are in overcast/soft light. Using a reflected light meter will cause underexposure because the brightly lit areas of the scene, even if they're not light toned, will cause the meter to underexpose the dark shadows.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Chris describes it accurately. Exposure is an art, not a science; or rather, the science is quite complicated, and requires rather more understanding than most people can be bothered to muster. Many camera meters are designed to avoid OVER-exposure with slide films, and sometimes this means UNDER-exposure with negative films.
This is why I say, in Perfect Exposure (David & Charles 1999), that there is no such thing as a correct exposure but there is such a thing as a perfect exposure.
It's quite amusing to read the one-star reviews first, as some say "It's too complicated" and others say "It's not artistic enough." Then read the 5-star reviews and see why they liked it.
Cheers,
R.
This is why I say, in Perfect Exposure (David & Charles 1999), that there is no such thing as a correct exposure but there is such a thing as a perfect exposure.
It's quite amusing to read the one-star reviews first, as some say "It's too complicated" and others say "It's not artistic enough." Then read the 5-star reviews and see why they liked it.
Cheers,
R.
gnuyork
Well-known
We can agree to disagree. I happen to think shadow detail is overrated in most cases... it depends on the image though really. In the OP's case, if she were to increase exposure, the white concrete would be overblown, as well as the sky in the second image, no?
I'm primarily a slide film shooter for color, so maybe that's why I think that way.
Robert Lai
Well-known
There are a few learning points that I obtained from your experience Sara.
First, if you intend to photograph in an exotic location that you're not going to go to again for a long time, then don't experiment with your film. The same goes for any pictures of friends, family, loved ones. You would have been far better off with the Fuji film that you were familiar with. I learned this the hard way when I tried out some Cinestill 800 film on a trip back to Canada, to visit my family. My photographs of my father in law were taken on that film. This is movie film that has the black layer on the back of the film stripped off. Well, Cinestill didn't do a very good job, as the entire roll had streaks throughout from the incompletely removed remjet. He died last month, so I'm never going to be able to do a reshoot.
Your photographs in bright sunlight recreate the same high contrast dilemma that wedding photographers face regularly. Summer wedding, with bride in white, and the groom in a black tuxedo. Some of the things you can do to help with this situation:
1) shoot closer to dawn, or sunset, when the contrast range is less extreme, and the shadows come at a more flattering angle than straight down
2) use lower contrast film, such as Kodak Portra, or Fuji NPH, which are meant for these situations
3) fill flash to bring up shadow detail.
The M6 meter, if it's the same as my M7 meter, is center weighted, but it's not a spot meter. The surrounding white concrete in the first picture, as well as the broad expanse of sky in the second picture are going to fool the meter into thinking everything is so bright it needs to give less exposure. Thus, you get into underexposure. In situations such as this, you need to get in close to your subject (first picture), or meter off a suitable patch of grass near you that has similar lighting to what you want to be correctly exposed (second picture). If you can carry yet another gadget, then a spot meter or an incident light meter will also help in situations such as this.
As far as Leicas go, the CL and the M5 are the only film Leica rangefinders with true spot meters. The area of the spot reading is clearly marked out in the viewfinder of the M5.
Finally, it's because of situations like this, that I try to get my wife and kids to wear clothing equivalent to 18% gray when we travel. I have a gray shirt that I wear routinely. In a pinch, I meter off my shirt.
First, if you intend to photograph in an exotic location that you're not going to go to again for a long time, then don't experiment with your film. The same goes for any pictures of friends, family, loved ones. You would have been far better off with the Fuji film that you were familiar with. I learned this the hard way when I tried out some Cinestill 800 film on a trip back to Canada, to visit my family. My photographs of my father in law were taken on that film. This is movie film that has the black layer on the back of the film stripped off. Well, Cinestill didn't do a very good job, as the entire roll had streaks throughout from the incompletely removed remjet. He died last month, so I'm never going to be able to do a reshoot.
Your photographs in bright sunlight recreate the same high contrast dilemma that wedding photographers face regularly. Summer wedding, with bride in white, and the groom in a black tuxedo. Some of the things you can do to help with this situation:
1) shoot closer to dawn, or sunset, when the contrast range is less extreme, and the shadows come at a more flattering angle than straight down
2) use lower contrast film, such as Kodak Portra, or Fuji NPH, which are meant for these situations
3) fill flash to bring up shadow detail.
The M6 meter, if it's the same as my M7 meter, is center weighted, but it's not a spot meter. The surrounding white concrete in the first picture, as well as the broad expanse of sky in the second picture are going to fool the meter into thinking everything is so bright it needs to give less exposure. Thus, you get into underexposure. In situations such as this, you need to get in close to your subject (first picture), or meter off a suitable patch of grass near you that has similar lighting to what you want to be correctly exposed (second picture). If you can carry yet another gadget, then a spot meter or an incident light meter will also help in situations such as this.
As far as Leicas go, the CL and the M5 are the only film Leica rangefinders with true spot meters. The area of the spot reading is clearly marked out in the viewfinder of the M5.
Finally, it's because of situations like this, that I try to get my wife and kids to wear clothing equivalent to 18% gray when we travel. I have a gray shirt that I wear routinely. In a pinch, I meter off my shirt.