2
\$\begingroup\$

I've been using 24 exposure rolls of Fujifilm 400 speed film. I haven't really been satisfied with the quality after getting them developed at Walgreens. So, I was planning on upgrading to Fujifilm 1600, but I see it has 36 exposures per roll. Will this work well with my L35AF?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Please post the image quality issue separately (ideally, with examples). This site works best when there's one question per question, and that's an interesting one. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Apr 25, 2018 at 3:20

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

For a camera made in the 80s, it is very unlikely that you cannot use a roll of 36 exposure film.

36 exposure film merely gives you 36 pictures per roll (sometimes a few more depend on how you load it). The number of exposure itself should not affect the image quality.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

welcome to the site.

Your question and your main concern appear to be different.

Your Question: Can you use 36 exposure rolls in your L35AF? - Yes, you can. The physical dimensions on the 35mm canister are the exact same for both 24 and 36 exposure film.

Your Concern: I'm not satisfied with the quality - Switching the film may or may not help - this really depends on what exactly about the quality is not good for you.

If your images are not sharp enough - you need to look into your lens and shooting technique.

If you're shooting Black and White - you need to be developing the film at home or using a photography company lab - not the drugstore. You have much more control over contrast and grain when doing the development yourself or in entrusting a good lab.

So, what about your images is dissatisfying? Also, what exact film are you using?

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ I did a little digging, and Ken Rockwell's review suggests that his copy's meter is a little off. kenrockwell.com/nikon/l35af.htm If @david wayne was shooting superia 400, underexposure should have a green cast in the shadow. If metering is the issue, he could under-rate the ISO settings to compensate, perhaps? \$\endgroup\$
    – Calyth
    Apr 25, 2018 at 0:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ the issue with the quality i was referring to is whenever i use my camera in dimly lit locations (bars), and it is on Caucasian people, their skin becomes extremely pale or very bright red, i'm pretty sure this happens with both flash and no flash but can't remember 100% honestly. i have not tested in day time conditions. \$\endgroup\$
    – david wayne
    Apr 25, 2018 at 2:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @davidwayne That's because the lights in many bars these days are almost pure red and pure blue with hardly any green whatsoever in between. That makes everyone's skin look magenta.This will be near impossible to correct with film. You'll need something like a 45 mired green filter to correct it, and that will kill most of the light from reaching your film. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Apr 25, 2018 at 6:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Have a look at these questions for more about the limited spectrum light found in many clubs: Blown out blue/red light making photos look out of focus particularly this answer and How was this taken/edited? and How could I have counteracted purple lighting? and How to cancel purple stage lighting on subjects? \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Apr 25, 2018 at 6:59
0
\$\begingroup\$

Any 35mm camera should accept 36-exposure rolls. If there are exceptions, they will be from the dawn of the 35mm age. The cartridge is specifically designed to take a 36-exposure roll, and cameras' take-up spools can handle it as well. (Ilford even made a thin-base film for a few years that would let you shoot 72 frames on a single roll, but it's no longer in production.)

I'd suggest posting a separate thread on your quality issues. You don't specify your technique, how old and well-stored the film was, the lighting conditions, etc., and there are many reasons why your photographs may be disappointing. Some may be the fault of the camera, some of the film, and some of you.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ the issue with the quality i was referring to is whenever i use my camera in dimly lit locations (bars), and it is on Caucasian people, their skin becomes extremely pale or very bright red, i'm pretty sure this happens with both flash and no flash but can't remember 100% honestly. i have not tested in day time conditions. \$\endgroup\$
    – david wayne
    Apr 25, 2018 at 2:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @davidwayne Built in flash is harsh, and if your lab is compensating for the dark background, that will make the face too light. I'd definitely suggest trying some outdoor shots under pleasant light (e.g. cloudy skies, or underneath a tree for shade so that the light isn't harsh) and seeing how the results are. I've never been a fan of the built-in flash on compact cameras. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jim MacKenzie
    Apr 25, 2018 at 2:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.