Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,301   Online: 947
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11

    First roll from Nikon FG!

    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firstfilm-2.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	192.6 KB 
ID:	52487Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firstfilm-4.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	191.2 KB 
ID:	52488Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firstfilm-1.jpg 
Views:	113 
Size:	245.2 KB 
ID:	52489Click image for larger version. 

Name:	firstfilm-7.jpg 
Views:	103 
Size:	260.5 KB 
ID:	52486

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    These are awful scans.

  3. #3
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,846
    Look, I had nikon FG, problem is in your scanner. Any lens with any film will provide way better results.
    I think this shot is made with FG (not sure any more, it was long time ago):

    http://darkosaric.deviantart.com/art/vienna-2-47687298


    edit: these shots are with FG + 50mm E series:

    http://darkosaric.deviantart.com/art/ozalj-1-61649507
    http://darkosaric.deviantart.com/art/ozalj-2-61649660
    http://darkosaric.deviantart.com/art/ozalj-3-63394069


    regards

  4. #4
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    These are probably the worst scans I've ever seen, not even the cheapest consumer film scanner on the market would give you this kind of quality. I'm curious, how did you manage to get results like this?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    I'm not sure if it's the scanner (which is a consumer model) as here's another pix I scanned in with it
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	petsbm-3.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	278.0 KB 
ID:	52501
    I'm thinking it could be that something went wrong with the film or I did something wrong (actually, I thought it was a roll of 36 and kept shooting over the last pix.)

    And I should add this pix is from probably more than 10 years ago with a cheap camera. The original pix look like something I've seen when people have developed way-old film

  6. #6
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,846
    Cepwin - which lens is on your FG?

  7. #7
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    They all look out of focus too.

  8. #8
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    Tell us what scanner you are using, software and workflow. What film did you use? Was it expired? Was the place you developed it at a proper lab? The more info you can give us the easier it is to see where the problem is. Just looking at the scans I would almost guess you're using some cheapo document scanner that is not made for film scanning and just laying the negs directly on the glass.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    I'm using a 50mm 1.8 lens...I might have missed the focus as it is manual focus but also I have a tendency to shoot wide open so the DOF could be too small. The scanner is an image lab scanner that is a film scanner..definitely as consumer model. I think the rub is the film...it was kodak 400 ISO that I bought from the 1hr foto type store but I don't have the canister or box to check the date. Like I said, it looks like pix I've seen of expired film.

  10. #10
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    Yes those scans are awful, i would almost bet my left testicle the problem is not the film or processing but the scans, maybe they punched in the wrong film type? Some weird color issues there

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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