File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
How the hell did I manage to get so much grain with Ilford 400? Monolta SRT 100x w/ Rokkor 50mm/f1.7 lens.

I forget the aperture and shutter speed I used.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
See, this is wrong with people that shoot on film and scan. They don't know shit about what they're doing. Obviously your neg was terribly over or under exposed, and this was set straight through the auto exposure program in your scanner, thus bringing out the grain with it as well. Next time I suggest you expose properly.
>> Anonymous
grain adds to this picture
>> Anonymous
>>247507

I agree, it makes it look very Silent Hill-ish, thus interesting and creepy instead of just a picture of a chair.
>> Anonymous
>>247506

I scanned a print, buddy. I don't have the dough for a film scanner; I scanned this with a $100 Canon 3 in one printer. The grain is on the negative. The negative does have better contrast, though.
>> Anonymous
>>247543
Also, this was properly exposed, according to the light meter in the camera. If anything, it was a stop higher than it should've been.
>> Anonymous
what developer was used?
>> Anonymous
>>247613
I don't know. I developed it at a camera store. None of the other shots from the roll turned out like this.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
You underexposed the picture. When they printed it, they brought it up to an 18% gray when printing it, which made it look grainy because they were basically pushing it in post.

>>247543
>I scanned a print, buddy.
His point still stands. Just with the extra step in there of the photo lab printing it for you. When printing negative film, labs tend to try to fix the exposure on the print to compensate for bad photographers.

>>247546
>Also, this was properly exposed, according to the light meter in the camera
Your ca. 1977 light meter, while one of the smartest of its era, is not smart enough to deal with a bright-ass window in the corner of a really dark room. It tried to average it, but the window was so overpoweringly bright that it still underexposed the room.

>>247709
>None of the other shots from the roll turned out like this.
Yet another point of evidence. If it was an issue with the film rather than the exposure/printing, it would be this grainy on all of the prints, not just the one where the exposure was weird.

Lrn2negatives.
>> Anonymous
>>247875
Why, thank you. That was a helpful and informative post with minimal bitching.
>> Anonymous
There was a hole here.

It's gone now.