I GOT MY PHOTOS BACK!!! For anyone who doesn't understand my over excitement, I recently commandeered my dad's film SLR camera and finally took pictures with it, sent the film away to be developed and got my results! What I didn't think about when I asked for his camera in lieu of dropping $600ish on a digital SLR is that there's no white-balance (adjusts colors so that they look right because outside light makes things look different on film than indoor light), and no preview. I wish I could white-balance but not have the preview does add some mystique to my venture into photography.
So I got a list of ideas of stuff to take pictures out and went crazy! I tried different settings for each subject, and wrote down what they were so I could know how I accomplished each photo. I also used my digi so that if I really failed I could show you all what I tried to take a picture of. I will include them just for comparison's sake even for the ones that were pretty good on film. I also determined that I should get some more lenses.
Oh and I want to credit everyone who gave me these suggestions but I'm at work and already spent enough time doing this so that will have to wait!
Enjoy!
 |
| Moon: digital. | |
 |
| The moon: Film. |
 |
| Penn State's admin building: Digital |
 |
| PSU Admin bldg: Film |
 |
| Sundial: Digital |
 |
| Sundial: Actually came out better on film! |
 |
| Obelisk thing: Digital. |
 |
| Obelisk: Film. |
 |
| Cherry tree: Digital. |
 |
| Cherry tree: Film. Played w/ focus some. |
 |
| Planter: Digital. |
 |
| Planter: Film. Lacking a focal point... |
 |
| Fish tank: Digital. Way better than the film one. |
|
 |
| Fish tank: Film. See. Not very good. |
The digital one of this was so bad I'm not going to bother:
These don't have digital counterparts. They were actually taken first before I thought to use my digi to cheat with what f-stop to use.
I love the sundial one! Good call on the cheating with the digital camera first - I mean, if you're going to sacrifice a kidney's worth of cash to get the film developed, you want to know that they'll be at least vaguely reasonable!
ReplyDeleteI'd get back a roll of film full of focus fail shots, I imagine ;)
Oh, and photos of the moon are pretty much impossible without a telephoto lens and a decent tripod!
Hey, glad you had fun with this project. A couple notes I have. First off, shooting the night sky is a had task. You would do a lot better in general if you compensate towards what the light meter will think is under-exposed. You can stop down pretty far if you want to get any detail in the moon.
ReplyDeleteOn to the next images of PSU. The digital image is good, though a hair under-exposed. Both film images are over-exposed.
The sundial images are very interesting, I like the composition. Again, it seems to be on the over-exposed side.
The obelisk images look different probably due to changing your angle relative to where the sun is in the sky.
The flower images seem a hair on the over-exposed side, but they clearly illustrate how much processing can affect your image. If you look at the digital image you have much better contrast, saturation and vibrancy. In film this is a function of film choice and processing.
As for the indoor stuff, you need to either use filters, a flash or shoot Tungsten film. The filter you would need is an 80A full blue. Tungsten film has become increasingly hard to find and usually only comes in slide format, of course with Tungsten film you would need a CTO filter if you went to shoot outside.
All told, it looks like you had fun and got some good images. I would be interested to know what film you were shooting. I find that shooting color reversal (slide) film, while more expensive often yields better results with better contrast and vibrancy.
Keep shooting!