Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,564   Posts: 1,545,304   Online: 808
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,541
    Images
    1
    could it be that the white door frame on the right fooled the camera meter and causedunderexposure and poor midtone contrast?
    Regards

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

  2. #12
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    623
    Images
    7
    The scan job definitely isn't great. Look at all the "aliasing" clearly visible in the ceiling....that doesn't look like film grain at all. Have the lab do what they consider a quality scan of a few frames and see if there is a huge difference.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,015
    Looks perfectly fine to me. Maybe a little over sharpened, but what the hey.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,032
    You can't be too picky about image structure issues when you are looking at a JPG file.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    514
    The Epson V600 is, I'm sure, a fine scanner, but it won't compare to a dedicate film scanner with 35mm. It's pushing it with 35mm, but for web/small prints use it will get you by fine. I have a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED and 35mm is at it's limit on it also. Now, if we're talking 6x6 or larger the Nikon is fantastic and it makes me wonder why I mess with 35mm at all. Your V600 should very nicely with medium format also. I personally think your image looks darn good for what you're working on, but if you want better you might think about moving up in format or dedicated film scanner might help.

  6. #16
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,043
    It looks fine to me too. The scanning artifacts are there, but the picture itself is ok. Now I'm sure I could NOT do better, I'm not good at taking pictures, but the exposure does look like it needs a little work. Still, it's not bad.
    Truzi

  7. #17
    Ricardo Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    644
    This is obviously an analog site, but we all scan to share work... right?
    No, not everybody is a narcissist or a exhibitionist in need of praise. There's plenty of "Vivian Maier" photographers still around.

    BTW, you go to all the trouble to shoot film and then have it reduced to low quality pixels? There's no logic in that.
    For a scan, your image is fine.
    My cameras:
    Fed 2
    Zenit 11, 12XP
    Nikon F4, F4S, F401S, F601, F801, F801S, F50, F55, F60, F65, F70, F75, F80, F90, F90X, EL2, FE, FM, FG, FG-20, EM

  8. #18
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,987
    Images
    1
    For an Epson flatbed scan of 35mm film this is not bad. I'm not sure you had anything very exciting in terms of good lighting or anything else like that, what exactly were you expecting that you don't see here?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  9. #19
    dodphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricardo Miranda View Post
    No, not everybody is a narcissist or a exhibitionist in need of praise. There's plenty of "Vivian Maier" photographers still around.

    BTW, you go to all the trouble to shoot film and then have it reduced to low quality pixels? There's no logic in that.
    For a scan, your image is fine.
    I don't remember asking for praise... But other than that, sure. I'm a visual learner, as many are, so scans help people discuss strengths and weaknesses. Is that blasphemous?

    I shoot film and print for personal work.

    I digitize images for ease of replication. I shoot 365 projects, 52 week project, other thematic projects and I like to create books of this work. Like I said before I normally shoot MF and LF and for this purpose scans from this affordable machine look absolutely fine.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Daniel-Duarte.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    620
    The photos looks OK to me, however I do think 1200dpi is pretty low to scan 35mm film at, my ancient old Canoscan did 4000dpi. For showing on the web, though, 1200dpi is fine fine.

    Bokeh is not an area of interest for me, but it looks fine to me.

    I do think though, that if you normally shoot medium format, I can't see 35mm ever really being good enough for you, unless you change your views on what's an acceptable level of technical quality. I went from 35mm to medium format, I've tried to get back into 35mm, but just can't seem to do it.

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