Condensation on film?

[Deja Q]

I did some outdoor photography during my vacation. About 25 degrees F.

I took the film indoors (73 degrees F).

I hadn't thought of condensation until today.

Will condensation ruin the film?

It didn't seem to hurt the camera as I'd taken many more snaps since.

Of course, I need to develop the film (6 rolls, making me appreciate digital that much more...)

Do I have anything to worry about?

My eyeglasses didn't fog up when I came in from the cold, is that a good sign?

Thx!

[maggrwaggr]

1. No. You're fine.

Happens all the time with photography equipment and film, and there's no problem at all.

[Deja Q]

2. Yippie, thanks!!

I've got some GREAT scenic pics along with pics of the two goofy cats, some swans of all critters, and some finches and a large woodpecker... (though I kept the camera to "P" mode and used a flash and let it use f5.6 for low-light indoor shots, the flash may have been 5' out of range in some shots and in others I manually adjusted the settings, hoping I didn't underexpose anything... ugh, I do prefer digital... SLR Digital come end of 2004, I swear... hopefully I can digitally enhance the scanned images...)

[Don_G]

3. Check The Film Specs

If the temperature range goes beyond what's specified, then color correction may be warrented.

Otherwise, don't worry if you develop the film soon. Water is a part of the developing process and won't affect the film since a binary-chemical process is involved and water is only the solvent.

I'd be much more worried about a digital camera under those circumstances. You're worried about temperature changes/humidity around optics and a mechanical shutter rather than electronics in the same environment.

[Deja Q]

5. Interesting... I've read

that to protect a film camera from condensation, one should put it on an equal temperature plastic bag, seal it somehow, then bring it inside and wait an hour before releasing it.

Is that the trick and does it apply equally to digital cameras?

I need to get the swan pics to the developer's right away since Dad needs copies to send to the DNR (they've been battling crooked developers ever since moving up there, who often attack when the residents move south for the winter... needless to say, my parents are Dems for good now and they too ripped up their AARP cards along with my aunt! :D RV parks, a casino, another lake's residents trying to lower their water level by dumping water into my parents' lake, and several more nightmares and they're supposed to be retired! I am fortunate to be related to people of such good character...)

[Don_G]

8. Film Cameras Have Gone Through A Century Of Evolution

Digital Cameras have gone through maybe 5 years and based on your ability to pay for a better model more than anything....?

For relibality or published info, go with machined metal, mechanical shutters and sealed optics...otherwise, trust your treasured memories and obversations to cast plastics and electronics with a half-life of a year or two.

Strictly my opinion, but start out on the cheap. Scanners and software can always be upgraded, but not on the basic eqipment that may or may be not subject to in the field.

[MercutioATC]

10. You don't have to choose. Digital SLRs combine the best of the two.

Proven design with digital convenience. Great selection of lenses, too!

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

4. It shouldn't be a problem

Mainly because the film is supposed to be air/light tight when it's rolled into the film canister...

I took pictures during a snowstorm and when I went to develop the film it was fine. I'd recommend doing the water prewash of your film to be safe, and not skipping it. :)

[MercutioATC]

6. Film should be A-O.K.....GO DIGITAL,though...

...sorry, couldn't resist.

;)

[Deja Q]

7. No problem! :-)

I'm telling others about the wonderfulness of digital...

pity there's no cure for that contrasting purple fringing issue, but I'm sure they'll get that resolved too.

[MercutioATC]

9. I've honestly never had the problem.

I know it does exist, though...

Unfortunately, I haven't put my best stuff up yet (new domain), but I do shoot a friend's band with my D30. The pics are at slantzero.com under the "pictures" section. I shot all but two of the gigs (Tiffanies and LaPorte). The best of it is their only outdoor gig at ;

http://slantzero.com/images/lorain_8_9/Lorain_8_9.htm

These are completely unaltered pics reduced to 72 dpi.

I shot 600 pics in about 80 minutes. Digital is the ONLY way to go.

[Deja Q]

11. Great pics! ...

Definitely can't see the fringing effect, but it's easier to create in brighty lit situations like outdoors mid-day photography. The situation seems to be specific in order to be induced.

Digital is definitely the wave of the future. Defnitely better than film, especially when you get 5 megapixel or higher densities (6.3 being the highest you can get at Best Buy, though mail order companies et al now have 8 MP, though for $2000!). (well, 5MP if you want 11x14" prints, though I've been able to do 13x19" prints with no visible pixelization so I'm happy with what I've got until the SLRs become reasonable in price... :D )

I'd include an example in one of my outdoors pics, except at the resolution I've shrunk them down to for my website, the fringing cannot be seen.

Also, go to www.neatimage.com - look up Neat Image 2.5 on the web - AWESOME product, especially if you print blowups of your digital pics! It's worth every penny.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. That sounds like...

something specific to the camera you're using.

Every manufacturer has to come up with an algorithm to convert the image to a digital format, and some do better than others. Could be a defect in that CCD chip, too.

Biggest imaging problem (aside from sharpness) I've seen in run-of-the-mill digital cameras is the lack of exposure latitude. Contrasty scenes are difficult to deal with and highlights regularly block up or shadows disappear. This is obviously a problem with many films, too, but can be compensated with exposure and/or balanced flash.

Eventually, digital will catch up to film, but it's not there yet. I can scan my slides and negatives and easily get 30x40" and larger images out of them.

And I still can't find anything digital at a reasonable price to match my Nikons with lenses from 18-600mm.

[AngryAmish]

13. Well, if you are so stupid I'll tell you

Oh, I'm sorry. I though you wanted condescension.