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: 1,532,258   Online: 820
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    820
    The EXIF of the images you posted lists Syntek USB Camera and you say the scanner is an "image lab scanner that is a film scanner..definitely as consumer model" but I am only familiar with Noritsu, Fuji Frontier or Agfa minilab scanners. Clearly, the scan leaves much to be desired and can likely distort the colors, contrast and quite possibly the focus.

  2. #22
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    Like I said, before buying drugstore film or going to costco for development, shoot at least one pro film and send it to Blue Moon or Richard Photo Lab, that way you have a quality standard to compare to if you decide to go with cheaper alternatives in the future. Also, if the photos come back still looking a bit funky you'll know that it is either the camera or user error on your part.

  3. #23
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Sarile View Post
    The EXIF of the images you posted lists Syntek USB Camera and you say the scanner is an "image lab scanner that is a film scanner..definitely as consumer model" but I am only familiar with Noritsu, Fuji Frontier or Agfa minilab scanners. Clearly, the scan leaves much to be desired and can likely distort the colors, contrast and quite possibly the focus.
    I tried to google "Syntek USB Camera" but couldn't find any specific product, an image search however did reveal similarly awful photos. My guess it's some low-res cheapo digital camera they use to just photograph the negative.

    http://my.opera.com/theroxy2/albums/...6714702#bigimg
    http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/1397744
    http://6nojoum-amazigh.skyrock.com/p...ticle_media=-1

  4. #24
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    That does sound rather dire, especially if it's a photo lab using one.

  5. #25
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by cepwin View Post
    I got the negatives back from the first roll of film I shot with the FG....I did a mixed workflow...getting it developed and scanning them into my computer and finishing with lightroom. The one thing I noticed is there
    is a noticeable difference between film and digital results. It also looks like there was a bit of a blue cast...I need to check the white balance. My next rolls will be B+W and after I get my package from B+H I should have all
    I need to process the next roll.

    Attachment 52487Attachment 52488Attachment 52489Attachment 52486
    Get a good Scanner (not too expensive) like an Epson Perfection PHOTO 4499 and try again. Learn to set it first.
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

  6. #26
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Nielsen View Post
    That does sound rather dire, especially if it's a photo lab using one.
    I went to a local 1-hour lab the other week and not only did they overdevelop and scratch my film, they scanned it on an epson V300 that they didn't even know how to use. The files were completely overexposed and blue in color. Nothing surprises me anymore.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    620
    Images
    25
    The color looks like cross-processed slide film. The scans are horrible, I would want my money back, and never get film scanned there again. The FG with (I'm guessing) the Series E 50/1.8 is capable of outstanding results. Use slower film in daylight (100/200 ASA) and you can get stellar results.

    Nikon FG, E 50/1.8, Fuji Reala 100, Noritsu scan to cd
    Wide open:

    013_19A by Greyscale3, on Flickr

    Stepped down, probably f8 or f11

    Hydro-electric dam by Greyscale3, on Flickr

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    From this and Amsp's experience it sounds like if you don't develop it yourself sending it out to a lab with a known reputation is the best bet. Oh...let me be clear...the scans I did ...problem is I bought a not up to snuff scanner. And yes, I to think there might have been some x-processing as I said last night...it appears so. Oh, I should add Elca they are stunning pix.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    820
    I would suspect the scanning first and the C41 lab processing second. BTW, is the "scanner" one that is essentially a camera as opposed to either a flatbed type or dedicated film scanner type?

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,361
    Do you have an operators manual for the camera? If not, get one and study it.

    edit - The scans are horrible indeed, but it looks like they are scans of tremendously overexposed negatives. If you were shooting wide open in full dalyight with 400 ISO film, your shutter speed should have been something like 1/32000 of a second.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 06-16-2012 at 09:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 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