# Film grain, or Walmart?



## battletone (Oct 27, 2009)

4 photos2 on Kodak Gold 200, taken on Maxxum 5000
2 on Fuji 800, taken on Maxxum 4

Cloud/Sun with 80-200mm Minolta 4.5-5.6 (i think)
Other 3 with Minolta 50mm 1.7

​*Click on the image for the 100% image that Walmart provided.*


I have started shooting much more since going digital now that I can afford to shoot well over 5000k photos so far this year and figure out the whole exposure thing.

However, I bought a couple new lenses for my film camera and wanted to test them out.

I have a theory, please correct me if I am wrong.
Does Walmart/Walgreens/etc, scan in and then auto adjust the 8 bit jpg to create the 8bit jpg that I receive?  My guess is that in the case of the cloud exposure, they "corrected" the crap out of the small file, inducing 10x the noise/grain than there really is.  Now why the barn photo is so grainy, I don't have a theory on.  (but even the file they gave me has room to recover the clouds over the barn, however the barn and silo have so much noise/grain, I probably should have photographed a grain bin.  That would be more fitting.)

So is that just the grain structure of "cheap" film and I like Fugi 800 better than Kodak 200? Or is it Walmarts doing?
I posted because of another users thread where someone noted the photos looks like drugstore variety film and a photo CD.


iso200




iso200




iso800




iso800


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 27, 2009)

I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that.  Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.


----------



## battletone (Oct 27, 2009)

ErectedGryphon said:


> I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that.  Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.



So you are saying both of these lenses are problem?  Wouldn't the 800 speed exposure exaggerate the problem?


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 27, 2009)

battletone said:


> ErectedGryphon said:
> 
> 
> > I once had a "Ricoh" lens on a "Ricoh" camera, that made everything come out with grain that looked like that. Once I replaced the lens, the problem went away, though I got rid of the camera shortly afterward, I just didn't like it.
> ...


 
Not "Are" just "Could be", try a roll with these and other lenses, keep note of settings. It could have been the lab, or even been a bad batch of film.

There are a lot of variables, different lenses, rule out the lenses, if the whole roll comes out grainy. To rule out Lab, shoot several rolls of different film, and send them to the same lab. Or shoot multiple rolls (same batch) of the film, and send them to different labs. Either option will let you know if its film or lab.


----------



## battletone (Oct 27, 2009)

ErectedGryphon said:


> battletone said:
> 
> 
> > ErectedGryphon said:
> ...



Okay.  Because I also have a Quantaray 28-90mm that I got new with my camera and have had the same grain issues using Walgreens and CVS.

I am just wondering if mail ordering "quality" film is going to rid what I am seeing in the 200 speed film, because the 800 photos I posted do not have too much grain for me, but I wonder if the stores are "fixing" some exposures to an extreme causing it to show much more.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2009)

The entire shooting match looks like AUTO exposure and AUTO levels, on everything. Machine-think. Automatically rendering your carefully done work as quickly and as mathematically possible into 18%, averaged-out masterpieces. This is automated, economy film processing and image-handling at its "average", not at its finest. It works great on average scenes, but on many scenes, the image will be artificially lightened up or darkened, depending on what the magical software decides to do.


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 27, 2009)

I've looked at Quantaray lenses before and wasn't overly impressed. They make good filters in my opinion, at least the PRO-Digital Line.

Heres a review for the lens you specified above: Quantaray 28-90mm


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Oct 27, 2009)

Most of my shots are taken with the 'auto' setting.
I get quality exposures.
But, the prints I get from Walgreen's and Wal-Mart, the only local places I have to get photo services, are, in a word 'lousy'. Grainy, smudgy, detail lost, too light from WM, too dark from Walgreen. I don't/won't use anymore.
My prints come either from my own printer (sadly not with archival inks) or on-line ordering from Kodak. The exception would be very large prints which I get done at a local poster printers.
Do test this by sending some shots to Kodak. They usually have some introductory free offers. You can't lose and will learn where the problem really is.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 27, 2009)

I don't think the problem is Walmart. They don't do any adjusting, at least I don't think they do, the employees there don't know the color theory.

Since 800 film should be apparently more grainy than 200, my best guess is lighting. Shot #1: Aiming your lens at the almost direct sunlight and projecting that on Kodak Gold (I wouldn't use anything other than professional film) is a recipe for a lot of grain. Been there, done that.

As for your second shot, I really don't know. Like I said, I would suggest using professional film.


----------



## battletone (Oct 27, 2009)

ErectedGryphon said:


> I've looked at Quantaray lenses before and wasn't overly impressed. They make good filters in my opinion, at least the PRO-Digital Line.
> 
> Heres a review for the lens you specified above: Quantaray 28-90mm



I was just pointing out that 3 separate lenses have produced this.


----------



## Toronto111 (Oct 28, 2009)

Maybe digitally cleaning it up really IS the way the original director wanted it to be seen in the first place, but the technology to do that just didn't exist at the time. Besides, this is an issue of personal taste - some people like grain, others are bothered by it... so the studios will do whatever is necessary to make the most people happy. If most people don't like it (which I suspect is the case), then it will be removed and those few who do like it are out of luck.


----------



## Battou (Oct 28, 2009)

apertureman said:


> I don't think the problem is Walmart. They don't do any adjusting, at least I don't think they do, the employees there don't know the color theory.
> 
> Since 800 film should be apparently more grainy than 200, my best guess is lighting. Shot #1: Aiming your lens at the almost direct sunlight and projecting that on Kodak Gold (I wouldn't use anything other than professional film) is a recipe for a lot of grain. Been there, done that.
> 
> As for your second shot, I really don't know. Like I said, I would suggest using professional film.



Yeah they do




Derrel said:


> The entire shooting match looks like AUTO exposure and AUTO levels, on everything. Machine-think. Automatically rendering your carefully done work as quickly and as mathematically possible into 18%, averaged-out masterpieces. This is automated, economy film processing and image-handling at its "average", not at its finest. It works great on average scenes, but on many scenes, the image will be artificially lightened up or darkened, depending on what the magical software decides to do.



Like Derrel said, it's all automated, the employees there don't need to know the color theory, the machines do it all for them.


@the OP, This is not the film, at least not genarically. individually you might have gotten a bad roll but over all this is not the kind of results you should be expecting.


Some sampling of my Kodak 200 processed through Rite Aid sendout service and scanned at home.











And Sampling os Fuji 800 processed through Rite Aid sendout service and scanned at home.










Now, if you are using the inhouse processing the results are going to be different, sadly I don't have any samples of riteaid in house processing because I was unsatisfied with the splochy apperance in the negitives from it, not to mention my local branches machinery is constantly down.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 28, 2009)

Battou said:


> Yeah they do



Well, I didn't think they did, but I guess if you know they do, you got it. However, I process my film at a dedicated photo center and they scan way better than Walmart. They do adjusting as well (by professional designers), but whenever I process film with them, I indicate on the order form to not adjust any pictures and to develop all frames.


----------



## Battou (Oct 28, 2009)

apertureman said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah they do
> ...




I have the eveidence if you would like me to post it, just say the word.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 29, 2009)

Battou said:


> I have the eveidence if you would like me to post it, just say the word.



That's alright, I believe you


----------



## battletone (Oct 29, 2009)

Battou said:


> apertureman said:
> 
> 
> > Battou said:
> ...






apertureman said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > I have the eveidence if you would like me to post it, just say the word.
> ...



I would like to know what it is they are doing, or not doing...but is still happening via automation.


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 30, 2009)

It's Walmart! I took some film to Walmart years ago and I got the same results: Grain and rough paper! Go to a pharmacy like CVS or Walgreens. You'll see the difference.


----------



## CCarsonPhoto (Oct 30, 2009)

I work in a lab, and I can vouch for the corrections. Everything is set to run on auto-correct, and then we manually adjust color as need be. We eyeball it, getting it as close as we can to what we think it should be. Our members can ask us to turn off the auto correct and do no manual corrections, and some times you can really see a difference.


----------



## battletone (Oct 30, 2009)

beni_hung said:


> It's Walmart! I took some film to Walmart years ago and I got the same results: Grain and rough paper! Go to a pharmacy like CVS or Walgreens. You'll see the difference.



Walgreens?  I have a whole box of photo CDs from Walgreens that are almost as garbage as what I posted.

There was a great shot every now and then...but now I realize that is only because the exposure happened to "match" what the machine must have wanted, not allowing the opportunity to screw it up.

And that doesn't even touch on how much dust is on all those images.


----------



## Battou (Nov 1, 2009)

battletone said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > apertureman said:
> ...



Below is a properly exposed photo as processed by one such lab.






Well, obviously the black truck is the subject here, so it's safe to assume that the I was exposing for this truck, and yes it is correct. However uppon further review and my own personal scanning of the negitive at the scanners default settings shortly after I got it. I found my unprocessed image looks just a bit different.







It's getting to a point where I might have to dig up another print and scan it and the neg...I've used this one so many times already.


----------



## battletone (Nov 1, 2009)

Battou said:


> battletone said:
> 
> 
> > Battou said:
> ...



Oh, ya I seen that.  I thought you knew what they were actually doing with their computer that botches the images.


----------



## Battou (Nov 2, 2009)

battletone said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > battletone said:
> ...



Well those are mainly to prove that the lab does do some corrections, granted CCarsonPhoto already confirmed it but those show it.


Well form my own experience it's the corrections in and of them selves that will do it.

these photos here required some heavy exposure correction after I scanned them at home, they where sorely underexposed. I corrected these images my self so it's not exactly an accurate depiction, but it the same concept.

The American Kestrel by Battou - Photo Lucidity
Got Snow by Battou - Photo Lucidity

Sadly I don't have an original copies to show you as the computer they where on fried it's mother board a couple days ago and the original scans are on the computer at home.


----------



## apertureman (Nov 2, 2009)

Battou said:


> Sadly I don't have an original copies to show you as the computer they where on fried it's mother board a couple days ago and the original scans are on the computer at home.



Fried motherboard doesn't mean you lost your data, it should still be on your hard drive. It's the processor that suffered. I suggest you go into a place like Best Buy or some computer shop and have them retrieve the data from your master drive and put it on a DVD-ROM, portable hard drive (if you have one), or some other external storage medium.


----------



## Battou (Nov 2, 2009)

apertureman said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly I don't have an original copies to show you as the computer they where on fried it's mother board a couple days ago and the original scans are on the computer at home.
> ...



Yeah, I know that. It is just unaccessible at the current time.


----------



## helyly710 (Nov 3, 2009)

They are really very cool, very wonderful


----------



## RancerDS (Nov 8, 2009)

Rifleman1776 said:


> <snip>
> But, the prints I get from Walgreen's and Wal-Mart, the only local places I have to get photo services, are, in a word 'lousy'. Grainy, smudgy, detail lost, too light from WM, too dark from Walgreen.
> <snip>



I've only used Walgreens here locally since getting back into 35mm SLR's.  Each of the three rolls (Fuji 200), asked that they print "as-is" from the negative.  Reason was that each of the three cameras I have now are new to me.  Had gotten better photo scanner from a garage sale, so you can see the results in my personal photo gallery here.

All-in-all, been very pleased with the results.  One shot I had them print an 8x10 enlargement from my negative and found it quite sharp.  The defects in the few bad prints (10%) were most certainly operator error.


----------

