[StiffLegged]

Since the OP is using a film camera, Lightroom isn't necessarily an option. A polariser is worth trying, as is shooting early in the day before the haze really builds up. The light is more interesting then too! Shooting directly after rainfall can also give clearer conditions, as long as it's not too humid.

[Racer X 69]

Hi all,

Complete newbie to the world of photography. Recently bought my first camera (Spotmatic F) and started shooting. I noticed that on quite a few of my photos (see below for examples), that there is a haze on distant landscapes. I've shot these shots on a SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 lens, with lens hood and skylight filter attached.

I was under the impression the skylight filter would reduce this effect. Is there something else I can do to reduce it further, or do I just need to replace the filter with a different one? Alternatively, is there something I'm doing or not doing with my photos themselves that has them coming out like this?


Thanks!

As others have mentioned, using a polarizer should help some.

I'm surprised no one has commented that the images look a bit over exposed. Try underexposing a stop or so.

Also, it looks like the shots were taken at midday. Try shooting either early morning, or late afternoon, early evening. The light is better then, and not so harsh.

[TonyW]

If you are adamant that you wish to shoot film and follow a fully analogue workflow through to final print then for this type of condition a polariser may well help. Probably should limit use to non wide angle lenses here due to uneven affect that can occur

Help from a lab that is able and willing to apply some control to the printing workflow e.g. local contrast enhancement by D&B would also help - suspect few and far between these days.

However your posted images suggest that you have access to a scanner and some editing software. While getting it right in camera is good you have to accept that post work is pretty much essential to get the image to a state as visualised. Depending on your software capabilities it is often possible to mimic quite closely the 'look' that a filter would bring to an analogue capture - there are exceptions of course!

A quick and dirty example bringing the image into Camera Raw in Adobe and adjusting clarity and dehaze, wait a couple of seconds for the image to cycle between as captured and edited. Likely overdone but just offered as proof of concept

[tuco]

You really can't analyze the picture as 100% how film is. It was converted to a digital image. Something had to decide the white balance and adjust the contrast curve. You're not going to get a human to sit down and analyze the color/contrast if they want a competitive development cost. A machine does it and the more neutral colors you have in the picture, the more information it has to balance the picture. But unlike digital, you can never really have a true neutral grey in film even if all the other color are correct.

And TonyW shows some film to digital conversions take a human touch.

[ChrisPlatt]

L37 UV filter and polarizer should be part of the landscape photography kit of every film photographer.
A linear polarizer is more effective than a circular polarizer and will work fine with your camera.

Chris

[sqrrl]

That looks pretty normal to me, possibly a fraz over exposed, and the scanning looks indifferent at best, have the shots scanned by someone else and check the difference.

A polariser will help with haze and saturation, I've never bothered with UV filters, a skylight does the same task basically, and the colour cast should be able to be removed by any competent scanner.

[Ranchu]

Superia 400 has a red cast, switch to Kodak Ultramax 400 imo. They seem a bit overexposed to me.

[arnold]

[IMG]

I love the blue of distant mountains. I grew up in Africa and used to stare into the distance and marvel at the blue-purple mountains and wonder how far away they were.
This picture in 1981 in the Drakensberg Pentax MX and Kodachrome