Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,391   Online: 855
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Who did the scan? At which resolution? With which configuration? Who processed the scans?

    My absolutely unfounded intuitions, or prejudices (not many elements to propose well-founded reasoning):

    - Scans done by automated machine or machine operated by couldn't-care-less operator;
    - Too high contrast, burned highlights, blocked shadows, could be the result of wrong exposure, wrong scanning, wrong post-processing;
    - If you don't have a proper film scanner and rely on laboratory's film scanner, maybe another laboratory would give better results;
    - If you have a proper film scanner, you should post on DPUG what your settings are and what your workflow is.
    - The final result is not good to my eyes, but maybe the scene wouldn't allow anything better; you should post exposure values registered in the highlights and in the lowlights with your spot meter. Films are not there to perform miracles, not even B&W negatives. If the contrast is too high for your film, is too high.
    - Your negatives might be very printable regardless of the poor scanning - postprocessing procedures. Only printing will tell.
    - Your scanner might give you better results with "multiexposure" on. That means two passes on the same picture, then merged in one picture. Look for "scanning" and "multiexposure" on some search engine.

    When both the highlights are burned and the lowlights are blocked, something went deeply wrong. You can certainly obtain much better than that UNLESS the scene really had a contrast beyond cure.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    thanks you very Mach

    i show the photo in a seravel screen (ELD Screen , CRT) and No improvement

    gays , i think the problem in the scan only , not from me or Process or film , see photo number 3 , i make a 100% crop to show you the spots in the sky

    and see this photo (100% crop)



    and the problem its in my city we have only one lap make Process and scan

    I am thinking to buy a film Scan (like a plustek 7600) but iam Afraid to spend my money on the scan and the relay problem in the Process

    are you recommended with me ?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oakdale, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    261
    One thing that is also the problem is the contrast level of your scenes. You are asking too much from your film. Without hand printing it will be impossible to get shadow AND highlight detail. For the first shots if you can go back and shoot very early in the a.m. or late in the p.m. try that. For building interior, try shooting those scenes on overcast days.

    Mike

  4. #14
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    put a digital photo of your negatives backlit, such as taped to a window or something. No telling if it's the negatives or the scans at this point. Get a little closer than I did.

    Sort of like this:

  5. #15
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,418
    Images
    2
    I would nearly guarantee it's the scans. They look awful; like someone went crazy with post-processing. Sharpening, contrast, etc. are all taste-lessly done.

    Check the negatives and show us or tell us what they look like, and then I would suggest that you ask the lab do change what they're doing.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    put a digital photo of your negatives backlit, such as taped to a window or something. No telling if it's the negatives or the scans at this point. Get a little closer than I did.

    Sort of like this:



    I did not understand clearly

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    ok

    now i am understand




  8. #18
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    Thanks. It looks like a combination of bad scans and inconsistent negatives.

    20,21,24 look great. The other ones seriously lack shadow detail. Sort of a combination of contrasty and weak. 21 would print nicely at grade 3 or 4.

    25 looks underexposed and overdeveloped. I really don't know if it's the film that can't handle that much range in the image, or how it was developed as I don't use that film. I'd shoot that with TMY2 and develop in PMK to compress the range and it'd be something easy to scan and almost as easy to print. Basically you choose exposure based on the shadows rather than averages or highlights, and trust the film's range to handle the highlights well. You can't do that so easily with digital.

    22,23 looks plain underexposed.

    As far as me also faulting the scanning, many automatic scanning software clip the highlights and shadow detail right out and produce more contrast than you want. How to scan well is apparently off topic for APUG, but it involves using the professional mode on an epson and moving things around on a scale and graph to not clip the extremes of the image, then after scanning it, applying a curve to make a natural looking contrast. Your scans looked very contrasty at all times even when the images is not, meaning the automatic scanning is on crack.

    An F5 is the best metering camera there is. Period. Some of those weirdly lit scenes like your interior and high contrast ones, it might help to bracket a shot and see which you like better later. If you were shooting manual without metering, I might lay some blame on sloppy metering. It's probably partly bad developing and partly difficult exposure choices.

    For normal stuff, you can't go wrong with an F5 on matrix metering. Shoot a roll of everyday stuff with the F5 and see how the lab handles things. That will tell you how consistent the lab is.

    If you continue to get bad stuff from the lab, for less than $100 you can get everything you need to properly develop your negatives. Scanner is extra of course.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Thanks. It looks like a combination of bad scans and inconsistent negatives.

    20,21,24 look great. The other ones seriously lack shadow detail. Sort of a combination of contrasty and weak. 21 would print nicely at grade 3 or 4.

    25 looks underexposed and overdeveloped. I really don't know if it's the film that can't handle that much range in the image, or how it was developed as I don't use that film. I'd shoot that with TMY2 and develop in PMK to compress the range and it'd be something easy to scan and almost as easy to print. Basically you choose exposure based on the shadows rather than averages or highlights, and trust the film's range to handle the highlights well. You can't do that so easily with digital.

    22,23 looks plain underexposed.

    As far as me also faulting the scanning, many automatic scanning software clip the highlights and shadow detail right out and produce more contrast than you want. How to scan well is apparently off topic for APUG, but it involves using the professional mode on an epson and moving things around on a scale and graph to not clip the extremes of the image, then after scanning it, applying a curve to make a natural looking contrast. Your scans looked very contrasty at all times even when the images is not, meaning the automatic scanning is on crack.

    An F5 is the best metering camera there is. Period. Some of those weirdly lit scenes like your interior and high contrast ones, it might help to bracket a shot and see which you like better later. If you were shooting manual without metering, I might lay some blame on sloppy metering. It's probably partly bad developing and partly difficult exposure choices.

    For normal stuff, you can't go wrong with an F5 on matrix metering. Shoot a roll of everyday stuff with the F5 and see how the lab handles things. That will tell you how consistent the lab is.

    If you continue to get bad stuff from the lab, for less than $100 you can get everything you need to properly develop your negatives. Scanner is extra of course.
    thank you my friend

    so , about metering and exposure

    i shot before this film , tow color film from kodak to test my camera , and the result so good , but tihs is first time i use b&w film

    and before i bay the f5 , i shot with digitel from 3 yers a go , and i now how make a good exposure

    But with this experiment
    I have my hopes dashed

    so , You can say the main reason is the scan ,,,?
    Last edited by Man from moon; 02-16-2011 at 02:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    The scanning is about 75% of the problem. The remainder is room for improvement with exposure and/or developing. Not bad for a casual first try as you've got some technically challenging scenes not well suited to a first roll B&W experience.

    If you want something to test exposure / metering of the f5, run a roll of slide film. What you see is what was run through the camera. (Unless the lab develops it with worn out chemicals or wrong temperature)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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