Surprise at my last 35mm photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Patrick, May 20, 2004.

  1. Patrick

    Patrick Guest

    I developped the 4½ years old film in my SLR... Don't use it much anymore.
    My Canon S45 do a good job and more user friendly to take kids them my all
    mechanical SLR.
    I was always the first one to complain about the noise at 400 ISO... Well It
    isn't much better with your standard 400 ISO Kodak film ! Printed at 10x15cm
    it is very visibly grainy.

    Patrick.
     
    Patrick, May 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kodak Max 400 is not a good example of a great film. Some good 400 speed
    color films:

    Kodak High Definition 400
    Kodak Royal Gold 400
    Kodak Royal Supra 400
    Kodak Portra 400UC (arguably the best)
    Fuji Superia Xtra 400
    Fuji NPH 400
    Konica Centuria 400
     
    Richard Cockburn, May 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Patrick

    Lionel Guest

    True, but the S45 isn't a good example of a 'great' digital camera,
    either. ;)
    They're both consumer products, so it seems like a fair comparison to
    me.
     
    Lionel, May 20, 2004
    #3
  4. If I read the OP correctly, it sounds like he said that the exposed film
    was left in the camera for 4 years. If this is correct, then no wonder he
    had such poor results. Exposed film needs to processed ASAP, or cloud fog
    will set it. This will happen with any film, cheap or expensive, and most
    especially fast ISO films (400+). His prints at 10x15cm should have been
    better, even with Kodak Max.
     
    Richard Cockburn, May 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Patrick

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Yes, 400 speed film tends to be grainy. On the other hand, film sitting
    for 4 1/2 years tends to deteriorate a bit as well.
     
    Ron Hunter, May 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Patrick

    ww Guest

    Hi Patrick
    did you scan it yourself? if so did you use a dedicated film scanner or
    flatbed ? My slide scans hold up ok against my fuji s2 pro

    cheers
     
    ww, May 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Patrick

    Patrick Guest

    Hi all,

    No I did not scan them. I am waiting for the Epson 4870 paid by my insurance
    after storm damage :))) But I am well aware of the limitations of flatbed
    scanners. I just have to many old photos to save to have bought a dedicated
    film scanner.

    Amazingly, the 4½ years doesn't seem to have affected the film apart from 2
    or 3 photos (probably the ones on the first few layers on the winder) that
    have a very strange yellow-orange cast to them. But most are very good
    clarity just with very visible grain. Camera is a Canon EA1 Program that has
    had a hard life.

    You are correct Richard the film is the bottom quality 400 ISO. I have
    currently in the camera a Fuji CZ Superia 800 ISO. I am not a sucker for
    punishment I really needed a fast film an will not expect the moon this
    time.

    The advise the specialist did give me is: "Do not underexpose..."

    Patrick.
     
    Patrick, May 21, 2004
    #7
  8. If you insist on using fast film, you'd be much better off with a Canon 300D
    or Nikon D70.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Patrick

    Patrick Guest

    That's what I keep telling my wife :)

    Patrick.
     
    Patrick, May 24, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.