Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,219   Posts: 1,532,229   Online: 802
      
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884

    Efke 25 not satisfied

    Here are some pics from my first Efke 25 roll (35mm - shot @25) souped in fresh home-brew Kodak D-76 for 6,5 minutes, 19°C, 4 inversions every minute.
    They are taken during late afternoon (about 6:00pm) with a yellow filter.

    Here they are:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477845778/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477038463/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477038957/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477039527/

    They were processed in Gimp, with some sharpening (about 80) and an auto-adjust. Scanned in a flatbed Epson.

    Now the question: is my fault or the scans are muddy? The negatives look quite thin, I've followed the recommended Fotokemika times for D-76 (undiluited).

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    I don't see anything wrong with them on my computer. If you want snappier images, either print on contrastier paper or bump up the contrast in your scanning program.

  3. #3
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Of course, the final proof of your negatives is printing them.

    And why did you use a yellow filter with afternoon sun? A yellow filter would lower your contrast with morning or afternoon sun, which has a lower color temperature than middle daylight.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Anscojohn View Post
    Of course, the final proof of your negatives is printing them.

    And why did you use a yellow filter with afternoon sun? A yellow filter would lower your contrast with morning or afternoon sun, which has a lower color temperature than middle daylight.
    Unfortunately I don't have an enlarger. I've used the yellow filter just to render the sky a little bit more...

  5. #5
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao View Post
    Here are some pics from my first Efke 25 roll (35mm - shot @25) souped in fresh home-brew Kodak D-76 for 6,5 minutes, 19°C, 4 inversions every minute.
    They are taken during late afternoon (about 6:00pm) with a yellow filter.

    Here they are:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477845778/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477038463/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477038957/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/37785580@N03/3477039527/

    They were processed in Gimp, with some sharpening (about 80) and an auto-adjust. Scanned in a flatbed Epson.

    Now the question: is my fault or the scans are muddy? The negatives look quite thin, I've followed the recommended Fotokemika times for D-76 (undiluited).
    Flatbed scanners sometimes have focus issues, the negative holder may need to be raised or lowered slightly to get better focus. Raised is easier in that you can stick paper to the bottom of the holder to hold it slightly higher. Two scanners of the same model may need different adjustments for focus. With paper documents this usually isn't critical, with film images that are blown up it can be very critical.

    Best is to print one of the images using a darkroom and see what it looks like.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    Flatbed scanners sometimes have focus issues, the negative holder may need to be raised or lowered slightly to get better focus. Raised is easier in that you can stick paper to the bottom of the holder to hold it slightly higher. Two scanners of the same model may need different adjustments for focus. With paper documents this usually isn't critical, with film images that are blown up it can be very critical.

    Best is to print one of the images using a darkroom and see what it looks like.
    I think the red sensitivity of Efke 25 is somewhat lower than the other emulsions. I've shot these pics late in the evening so I've de facto underexposed them but I've used the regular 6,5 minutes (adjusted for 19°C) as if the roll was exposed right.

    In fact the negatives are thin.
    Next I try to soup then more (say 8-9 minutes) and see what happens.

    Lesson leaned: overexpose 1 stop when you take pictures late in the afternoon or early in the morning if you use Efke 25...

  7. #7
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,706
    Images
    23
    They look okay to me...Try some of the Adox films.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  8. #8
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    659
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    Flatbed scanners sometimes have focus issues, the negative holder may need to be raised or lowered slightly to get better focus. Raised is easier in that you can stick paper to the bottom of the holder to hold it slightly higher. Two scanners of the same model may need different adjustments for focus. With paper documents this usually isn't critical, with film images that are blown up it can be very critical.

    Best is to print one of the images using a darkroom and see what it looks like.
    I second that. I bought an epson 4490 to do my 120, as I have a dedicated one for 35 (plustek 7200i). I could not figure out why my 120 negs scanned so bad, compared to my 35 mm stuff. When I received my ANG kit from http://www.betterscanning.com/, which has adjustable mounts, I realized the lack of sharpness was actually lack of focus. I was surprised that epson had no adjustment for this.

    Sadly I gave away my V350 because it was never sharp. Had I realized what it was, it would have been fine for 120 work.

    It seems it's the little things that can make equipment useless.

  9. #9
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by mrred View Post
    I second that. I bought an epson 4490 to do my 120, as I have a dedicated one for 35 (plustek 7200i). I could not figure out why my 120 negs scanned so bad, compared to my 35 mm stuff. When I received my ANG kit from http://www.betterscanning.com/, which has adjustable mounts, I realized the lack of sharpness was actually lack of focus. I was surprised that epson had no adjustment for this.

    Sadly I gave away my V350 because it was never sharp. Had I realized what it was, it would have been fine for 120 work.

    It seems it's the little things that can make equipment useless.
    Would seem to make sense to add a focus control to the scanner just a little thumbwheel on one side that can focus the lens. A 5 cent sheet of paper can do wonders though.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  10. #10
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao View Post
    Unfortunately I don't have an enlarger. I've used the yellow filter just to render the sky a little bit more...
    *****
    There is very little sky in your images.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin