Helios 44M 58/2 - Canon EOS300 - Fuji Superia 200 - C&C

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

Dears,

First roll since a long time, not very satisfied with the results especially on color. Some are blurred, some are heavily underexposed so I guess I'm to blame, but color? I'm wondering if the scanner is to blame (on some, I've green snow Shocked

).

That one is not too bad:

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Developing process, film rather a factor in your problem than scanner. This sample is pretty nice.

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

Thank you for your nice comment on the pic Smile

but I must say that if you're right, I'd be very disappointed: I tried a special labor, claiming big love in films and vintage cameras. A supermarket booth would have given better results...

Anyway, I should receive my scanner soon (yes, I followed your advice Wink

) and I'll try again

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

I tried a special labor, claiming big love in films and vintage cameras. A supermarket booth would have given better results... Beside color (I was hoping incorrect white balance), could an imporper developing process explain some of the other issues: very dark pictures overall - okay, I may have exposure problems but my camera should deal properly with them - and lots of noise (yes, more noise than grain)?
An example (this time with Kodak Gold ISO200, brand new in case you're wondering)

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

In my experience , first need to measure real shutter speed when it is done and you know real value with a good light meter you can measure light accurate. So over and under exposition is excluded already.

In developing if C-41 developer close to it's capacity quality will be change. I can imagine 'your special lab' has less order than supermarket and they not care they reputation match. This can be different if you are sure light meter was correct.

To get best quality do C-41 process by your self, cheap, fast and quality is depend from you not from somebody else, with little care simple like B&W don't require any special equipments.

Labs use forced drying with hot air, even if they cut film to strips it will be a bit curl. You can iron them with books hrs before scan that is a big help, but not get same flatness when you dry them over night on room temperature.

I get lot more success with own development, iron with books, scan to tiff and sharpening in post processing than ever before with any 'pro' labs.

Time factor also pretty acceptable, developing a joy and not takes more than 25 minutes. Much faster than drop film to lab and pickup from there.
Scan just same case a flatbed scanner with digital ice slow , but works alone and work on 12 frames at same time.I can do something else while them scanned.

I am glad you din't give up and use film , this is great Thank you!

marty · Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 767 Location: Italy

The first picture looks good to me. Color balance and general contrast look ok. The second one looks indeed underexposed. Might be the sky (and the very bright snow reflections) fooled your meter, it's a common issue in that kind of composition. The solution is to meter at an object on ground and then recompose. Then, did you check everything? I mean, adapted lenses might fool the meter either. Try metering the same scene with your adapted lens and with a proper EF lens, or check against an external meter if available. The strong cast might come from processing errors, in this case should be present all along the roll. Sometimes the color casts are present as we take the picture but we don't notice. The grain in the second picture I'm afraid it's related to this particular emulsion. I've noticed it in Kodak consumer emulsions scans. Usually it isn't so bad in the prints but it's quite ugly in the scans. Pro emulsions seem to be immune of this problem.

Cheers, M.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

The first one looks quite nice but the second is odd although the quality looks VG i.e sharpness, you could try a supermarket and see if you get better results,......for me I use a supermarket and correct anything minor in Photoshop, 3-4mp is good enough for small size pictures on a computer screen with no crops.

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

Well, on exposure, I'll compare with my 50D, at least to see if both give (more or less) the same calculations. I'm generally satisfied with the exposure on the 50D... Well, on this roll, I've different color shifts: orange, blue, green...

I'll do the scans by myself and let you know the results.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

My film camera is a Canon EOS300, so with TTL light meter, all exposure calculation and so on - I use it in Av mode, so it should work alone, w/o separate light meter. The 50D is just to confirm if exposure calculation of the 300 was correct, or at least identical - and actually, it is. Slight differences, but regarding test conditions, I tend to think it is linked to different speed scales (when one says /1/90s the other hesitates between 1/80s and 1/100s) and for wider lenses, the format being different (APS-C sensor vs. full-frame film).

OK, I'll see with the next rolls and try with supermarket...

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Where did you buy this film ? Sometimes people in shop keep them on sunlight in hot environment and even looks fresh that is not fresh at all.
I expect EOS 300 shutter is accurate and we can exclude it from bug hunting.

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

The Superia is old, I admit, that roll with the flowers was in the camera for ... hum... a couple of years? Colors are OK, a bit washed what is logical for old films but OK.
The Gold I took the mountain shot with was bought two weeks ago in the consumer electronics supermarket near my home. No idea on the turnover though. I've one other roll waiting for development (same lot), don't know where to go now, I guess I'll try the supermarket.
Just as an example, the one right after, same roll, same strip:

The roll currently in the camera is the Tudor we spoke about, I wanted to have it finished to group development Smile

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

In my experience similar infinity shoot distance is hard for most print films, this is territory of slides Wink

print film resolution is not enough to get good result. Somehow this is not always true I have mixed experience, but most of the time I can't make good capture at infinity distance on consumer print films. At the beginning shoot with digital too as a note, especially if you did check your film camera and your digital camera measure light on same way.

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

OK, good to know, but in that case, I'll first work out exposure as slides will be much more sensitive on this topic.
I played a bit in Aperture, especially with luminosity" cursor (different from exposure). The result is this:

Better no? Maybe it needs some refinement to not overexpose, but it looks definitely closer to what I took...

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Yes , surely better in my opinion too, try a B&W conversion also

Schnauzer · Expire: 2012-03-08

I have got nice pictures from Superia 200, X-TRA 400,Kodak gold and ultra max 400 when I was close but terrible colors when the distance was great. Kind of muddy colors. Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160NC ,400NC, Fuji 160s and Reala 100 worked great at all distances.

I had several rolls of film ruined by a local lab in the last few years. Until I realized it was them I thought it was something I did. I don't go there any more. I would try some place else for the next roll.

I ran your picture through PS5 to find the white, black and neutral points and this is what I got. Is this closer?

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

Thanks, a lot. Yes, that's much better. I didn't think of film as requiring lots of post-process Very Happy

And I'll follow your advice regarding labs

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

ylyad · Expire: 2013-12-05

Got my scanner yesterday (Epson v330 photo, I will give more detailed feedback later but I'm very positively satisfied), passed the same roll in it, here are the results on the same shots as above:

These are straight out of the scanner, and clearly better than the one scanned at the lab!

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I guess this is exactly what you did see with your eyes, looks nice!