Hi, it sounds to me as though you're making life difficult to start with because most of the variables can be a factor in the problems you're having. You need to eliminate as many as possible, get your technique right at the simple level first, then add variables one at a time, getting your technique right with each one before you move on to the next.
Here are some recommendations which might help. First, use slide film. Use prints later when you've eliminated other problems. This gets rid of most of the problems you might be having with the lab, and means you can easily see the first generation image - you will need to have access to a good projector or a good light box and lupe. Do some comparisons of the same subject shot at the same time on slide and print film. This will give you an idea of whether it's the lab or something else that's a problem. Next, shoot with a prime lens. This is likely to be of higher optical quality than the zoom + TC. If you shoot with slides and a prime and still have problems it's likely to be your camera or something else in your technique. Use a tripod to shoot some static subjects in reasonably bright light so you can stop down and use a fairly fast shutter speed. Stopping down helps to eliminate any problems with focus; the tripod and fast shutter are to get rid of vibration problems. If you still have problems sometihng may be wrong with the camera or lens. Try again with others in combination. If you still have problems, it's you. When you're happy that your technique there is right you can try the zoom without a TC, again in bright conditions with a static subject. This should give you an idea of degradation caused by the zoom. Then add the TC to see what difference that makes. Remember to shoot at a faster shutter speed to compensate for the extra focal length. Also, use a cable release when the camera is on the tripod - maybe you shake it a bit when you press the shutter, if you don't already use one. When / if you're happy with the zoom and TC technique, try some moving subjects in bright light, then eventually go back into low light. When you eventually go back to print film buy the highest quality you can afford and try and find a good lab. Bad labs can really mess up your photos, but a good one can make them sing. The other thing, whatever stage you're at, is to try always to be aware of the frame. Look around it, and try to fill it with your subject, then you won't have to rescue it with crops and enlargements, and always check the background. While you're practising your technique write a checklist of stuff to do, and try to make sure you're doing it. Becoming aware of the importance of the frame is one of the most important steps towards making good photographs, in my opinion. Hope this is some help. Bob Sunday, July 6, 2003, 9:21:10 PM, you wrote: > I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I > take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a > crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove > background I didn't really want. They always look so much bigger in the > viewfinder than they do in the prints. I'm not sure I've done anything > that's worthy of real enlargement. But even if it looks okay in the > 4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy. So I'm wondering > how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that > I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how > much is just me. > I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, > teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with. > I'd been planning a new lens for a while until the real world slapped me > silly, and now that's going to have to wait. I'm often sure if my > focus was off or if the camera was shaking. I often take photos in bad > lighting but I have some recent ones in good sun, I think the exposure > was good. Is grain caused by anything besides the film and poor > exposure? It seems most obvious in out of focus areas. > I try to use a tripod when I can, it's a cheap one but I usually keep it > as short as it gets, it seems pretty stable that way. With a remote > release when I can, but sometimes mobile subjects make that impractical. > Or I use it as a monopod. I tend to use faster film, 400 or 800, because > of lighting and telephoto work. The last was Kodak High Definition, I > don't know how high definition it really is. How large should I expect > the prints to get before grain becomes obvious from a few inches away? -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
