Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,976   Posts: 1,523,648   Online: 1107
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    that'g going a hell of a lot further than my right arm!
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    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.
    The max shutter speed of the FG is only 1/1000 so that would only be 5 stops overexposure. Unlike digis most films can handle that comfortably and have room for recovery like Kodak Portra 400.





    For instance I came upon this scene that required 1/60 per the meter but I wanted 1/4 and had no ND filters with me. Knowing how Kodak Ektar 100 handles overexposure, I figure I would have no problem using the results.


  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    Interesting. I didn't think they were way over exposed...I did have some others overexposed on that roll though After reading the comment I checked the histogram and it didn't indicate it either (Although I'm not sure how valid that is for film.) I do have the manual.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    191
    Easier if you could post what exactly is your scanner brand and type. I suspect you used cheap scanner like this :
    http://www.amazon.com/Ion-Photo-Nega...cmu_pg__header
    or maybe cheaper version of that scanner.

  5. #35
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by MFstooges View Post
    Easier if you could post what exactly is your scanner brand and type. I suspect you used cheap scanner like this :
    http://www.amazon.com/Ion-Photo-Nega...cmu_pg__header
    or maybe cheaper version of that scanner.
    That was my guess too, inside is just a cheap low-res camera that photographs your negative.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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