>> |
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.
|