|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Does the camera have a horizontal-traverse shutter? It's either the shutter being a piece, or a light leak. I had a Minolta with an uneven vertical shutter and would get a similar sort of haze along the bottom of the my frames. This is a vertical shutter on my Bessa R3a, which I bought specifically to replace all my shoddy vintage gear. I know how you feel. This was also on the same roll, only one out of the 36 that came out like this:  So now I'm leaning towards this is a scanning issue, unless someone has seen the above before? Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 29, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Karl Barks posted:This is a vertical shutter on my Bessa R3a, which I bought specifically to replace all my shoddy vintage gear. I know how you feel. Wild EEPROM had a problem like this with his scans. I don't know what the issue was tho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
You guys will probably know better than the iOS apps thread. Just bought an Apple Watch since I'm a trendy consumer bla bla. Is there a watch app for keeping track of your camera settings for each frame shot so you can reference them after developing? If not I think I have to write one. There's a bunch of iPhone apps but if I can spare pulling out my phone then so much the better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Is your scan software automatically setting your blacks as blues to compensate for yellow indoor lighting? Are the negs hosed up or just the scans?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
I want to say we were able to fix this problem by manually setting the blacks for each channel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
How are you scanning? What software are you using? What are your settings? I'm assuming you are using an epson flatbed like 100% of people here, so either use epson scan or silverfast, and scan it as a positive, with all corrections and dust removal off. You can do that step later. Make sure you are using 48 bit color (16 bit per channel). What you will get is something that looks exactly like a negative. Try working from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
That scan is from the lab. I asked them if they'd be willing to scan positive images of the negatives for me, and they refused  I have a v600 which I don't use for 35mm because the scans come out really soft. I'll have access to the actual negative this weekend, so I'll run them through the v600 and see what kind of results I get. At this point I should probably be looking for a proper 35mm scanner, I think. Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:That scan is from the lab. I asked them if they'd be willing to scan positive images of the negatives for me, and they refused I also have a v600 and 35mm scans fine. Usually any softness or blur is because of the camera, IME. Examples:  Bye Summer by spike mccue, on Flickr  Portland Ferry 2 by spike mccue, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
There seems to be some variation between copies, mine will never ever do something as sharp as yours, other posters have reported the same issues. All on V600s
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
35mm negatives need to be flat as poo poo to scan decent. The Epson holders don't have cross bars that keep the film flat either which makes it worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:35mm negatives need to be flat as poo poo to scan decent. The Epson holders don't have cross bars that keep the film flat either which makes it worse. Is that a problem that can be mostly fixed with the better holders or is it more a limitation of the scanner itself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Is that a problem that can be mostly fixed with the better holders or is it more a limitation of the scanner itself? often times you can just get better film holders (eg http://www.betterscanning.com/ )
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Not trying to be lovely but that sounds more like a technique issue, I had no issues with sharpness scanning 35mm on my v550 which is very nearly the same scanner. Are you scanning other film formats and having no issues? I'd still scan as a negative if you're shooting color neg film.
VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:There seems to be some variation between copies, mine will never ever do something as sharp as yours, other posters have reported the same issues. All on V600s BANME.sh posted:35mm negatives need to be flat as poo poo to scan decent. The Epson holders don't have cross bars that keep the film flat either which makes it worse. FWIW, I usually try to flatten my rolls by laying them flat underneath a pile of books for a few days after I get them developed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:FWIW, I usually try to flatten my rolls by laying them flat underneath a pile of books for a few days after I get them developed. Yeah, I also found that re-rolling them backwards onto a developing reel for a day helps fix the curl in both directions. Seems to work quicker than heavy books in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to try the heavy book trick the next time I get some 35mm developed, because my V600 also gives me really soft scans. Pretty sure it's not a camera/technique issue because the grain on the scans is pretty soft as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Not trying to be lovely but that sounds more like a technique issue, I had no issues with sharpness scanning 35mm on my v550 which is very nearly the same scanner. Are you scanning other film formats and having no issues? I'd still scan as a negative if you're shooting color neg film. Yeah, medium format come out pretty sharp. I'm going to guess it's the curl in the 35mm, I'll try a few tricks to see if I can get it sharper. As for scanning positive of a negative - I know a few people on here swear by it, and I've gotten great results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I'm gonna have to try the heavy book trick the next time I get some 35mm developed, because my V600 also gives me really soft scans. Pretty sure it's not a camera/technique issue because the grain on the scans is pretty soft as well. Maybe try the film reel method, if you can. I've left negs under a stack of books for days and it didnt seems to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
I know this goes against forums dogma and probably makes me (more of) a bad photographer, but I've given up scanning as positive. It adds a ton of time to your workflow, even just to see if an image is decent, and then tweaking the color until it's right is (for me) a long and frustrating process. There's tricks to help it along (finding white/black/grey points, that stupid video with the guy with the annoying voice that gets passed around) but honestly I'm not good enough to get it right consistently. I let the v600 do it's thing, and then if it looks funky I try to edit it in the same way as I would if it were positive (levels, black/white/grey points, curves, desperate lever smashing in lightroom).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
How to go from a scanned positive to a negative: 1) in photoshop, press cmd i 2)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:How to go from a scanned positive to a negative: Indeed, I love evaluating color through a uniform shade of blue/teal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
It's all about practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:It's all about practice. k thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
I would encourage you to keep trying. Learning how to properly use the curves has been really helpful for a lot of other image retouching (video work also). On a related note, understanding the histogram too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I know this goes against forums dogma and probably makes me (more of) a bad photographer, but I've given up scanning as positive. There's a simple solution: shoot slides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:This is a vertical shutter on my Bessa R3a, which I bought specifically to replace all my shoddy vintage gear. I know how you feel. Yeah I'd scan again first thing. There's a good chance it's just some kind of issue with the lab scan. That, or a light leak (not likely with a newer camera), or maybe there's a gap on one side between your shutter curtains as they wind up, or one of the shutter blades is bent on one side. Both those things can cause light leak haze to appear on one side even with vertical shutters. Metal shutter curtains are prone to the latter fault because they're so malleable. All it takes is one poorly placed finger, or even a stiff film leader dragging over the shutter, to break the very thin light seal formed by a properly aligned stack of metal shutter blades. The Nikon FM2/FE2/FA's titanium shutters were notoriously delicate and prone to bending, but even newer aluminum models are susceptible. ... but it's probably just the scanner. Internal reflections, or maybe dust/smears on the scanner glass, which can do really weird things to your scan sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Speaking of cameras being all messed up, I had two Minolta XD-7's. One had a nice clean top plate, but the shutter was malfunctioning. There was a persistent haze on the every frame; similar to what Karl Barks posted, but on a long edge instead of a short edge. Even though it wasn't always apparent, close inspection would reveal a band of haze/lower contrast along the bottom of every frame, and in underexposed or dimly lit interior shots it was very obvious. Here you can see it on the right:  Here on the left:  It's very subtle in both of these examples, but I have a roll of Natura 1600 somewhere that would really testify to the issue. Here's what the shutter looks like. There's nothing obviously wrong with it, but there's a delay in action between pressing the shutter button and making an exposure. Somehow, the electronic shutter timings are off. I think this causes the second curtain to start just a little too late each time, causing overexposure at the top of the film frame ("bottom" of the latent image)... or something.  I had another old XD-7 with a perfectly good shutter, but a rusty, corroded top plate, dials, etc:  So I took the good plate and dials from the body with the bad shutter. If you've ever wondered what the inside of an XD-7 (Euro XD-11) looks like, this is it:  Check out the circuit board glued to the top of the pentaprism housing. The XD-7 was technologically advanced in 1977. It had shutter- as well as aperture-priority modes, the former provided if you used Minolta's new MD-type lenses. The body style and electronic functions of this model were embellished upon by Leitz to create the Leica R4. I hope there's nothing too hosed up with this cobbled-together camera. I'm halfway through a roll of film. Soon, I'll develop it and see if there's anything wrong. Shutter and film advance are butter smooth compared to the other body, though.  It's a remarkably small and solid-feeling SLR. Too bad it doesn't have mirror lock-up. Instead, I use an SRT-101 if I want to take long exposures/use slow shutter speeds with my Rokkors. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
about a week ago I happened across 2 rolls of B&W film, some TMAX and Tri-X that, for some reason, I never sent in to develop. Dropped them in the mail to Darkroom and oh my god they're from 4 years ago when i had somehow less of an idea of how to do things than I do now.  34810006 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr 34820005 by Ben Wilcox, on FlickrI need to shoot more of this. Goddamn I have been missing out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Film is cool.. and good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Film is cool.. and good.  may as well put a few of these here too, this was some standard fuji and kodak 400, and one roll of fuji 800. I love my 180mm f/2.8 so much.  00000015 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr 00000001 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr 00000019 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr 00000008 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr
DJExile fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Film is great. I just dug out my ME Super for a camping trip and forgot how much I enjoyed it Now I'm looking to re-buy a Bronica SQ-Ai or ETRSi because I love medium format and 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
STORY TIME, MOTHER FUCKERS.  I'm a financial planner by day. A few days ago a prospect asked to meet me saturday. I don't like doing it, but hey what the hell. This meeting took 6 hours and completely destroyed my day. Nothing was accomplished. Pissed off for having wasted my time, I headed home. My elderly next door neighbor was having a garage sale. He asked what I was doing all dressed up on a weekend. What followed was about an hour of sitting on a 1970s lawn chair in his garage on a gorgeous Saturday with my tie loosened and sleeves rolled up, shooting the poo poo with the old man; talking love and life and solving the world's problems while a John Wayne movie on VHS played on an old 12" TV in the background. The whole thing was great. As I got up and glanced around all the stuff he was selling, I found 7 rolls of old Fuji and Kodak from 17 years ago, including a Meijer branded roll, which any of you from around Ohio/Michigan/Indiana will likely recognize. I know some drug stores sold rebranded Kodak and Fuji back in the day but Meijer having it was a new one on me. After getting a chuckle out of it, I noticed the Meijer roll had been presumably shot and clearly rewound. He couldn't remember shooting it at all, and if the other rolls were anything to go by, it was likely from 1999 or so. He's done plenty of favors for me in the past so I offered to take it to the local lab since I have a roll to take them anyway. He said if I did that then I could have the other ones. I'm praying there's no old wrinkly porn on this.      That's my dumb story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Dont forget to post the old wrinkly porn in the cool dad pics thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
That's a cool story. I came third in a photo contest at the local zoo. The category was People and Animals and my entry was called 'Downtime'. Shot on Portra 160 with my Kiev 88.  MedFormat-Kosice-4.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
that's a rad as hell shot
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
I found some cool Kodachrome slides in an antique shop a few weeks ago: http://imgur.com/a/41uwB  
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
drat those are neat
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Some questions: I've been shooting film for a few years relying on my camera's meter and my own experience. I'd like to pick up a dedicated lightmeter sometimes but I wonder if I should get Understanding Exposure too ? I don't have lots of bad surprises anymore, but I could probably improve my photography with a more academic knowledge of what I'm doing. I'm also aware that I've been shooting modern consumer negative film that is probably quite tolerant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
If you understand the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, there is no need to get understanding exposure. That's literally all it teaches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Yeah UE is a great book for beginners but once you've got a solid handle on things there's not a lot it can teach you. You're also right in that most standard Fuji and Kodak film these days is really forgiving, especially if you slightly overexpose (this took me a while to hammer into my own head). Beyond that you'll also want to keep in mind what DOF will look like at various lengths/apertures, and there are a ton of DOF calculators you can get for your phone these days. Once you're shooting anything longer than 60mm or so, it can be really easy to not realize your aperture is so wide open and you wind up getting a much thinner DOF than you expected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:05
|
|