First roll with Leica CL + 40mm f/2 rokkor...

[animefx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took 26 shots (I was able to get out of a 24 roll) of Kodak bw400cn film with my "new" Leitz Minolta CL. This was the first time I've ever used a range finder in my life, I also haven't used film for 15+ years. I had Walgreens process them and make a photo cd. I was dissapointed some in the resolution of the JPGs on the CD, so if anyone knows if Walmart or CVS does higher DPI film scans then let me know.

 

I opened up in photoshop and converted to b&w becasue the JPGs had a slight tone to them, I also used a red filter in processing. Any exposure adjustments or sharpening on these JPGs will quickly turn the photo bad looking. I really wish they would offer uncompressed TIFs as an option for photo CDs.

 

Anyway are these photos good? Should I expect better? Be honest, I've take much better with my DSLR. It's hard for me to tell if either of these (especially the photo of the couple) were originally underexposed or overexposed by me and the lab had to push or pull it. If anyone has suggestions let me know, my meter isn't working so I use the sunny 16 rule and estimate or the lightmeter iPhone app.

 

a friend

All sizes | Chris Call | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

couple

All sizes | Couple | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

Firstly, you need practice! To expect perfection from your first roll is a little ambitious.

 

The photo CD's from 1 hour processors are OK for proofs but I re-scan any keepers at home. Sometimes the CD's are great, usually they're OK, and a few have been pretty much useless. Personally I'd advise you to invest in a scanner (I use the top end Epson flatbed which I've been happy enough with although I know a proper film scanner will be better still).

 

Invest in a good lightmeter. Sunny 16 works well but again it needs practice and experience to work consistently.

 

The couple photo appears to be an indoor shot - it's overexposed but not beyond saving with some work in a darkroom or Photoshop! Focus appears to be off or it could be camera shake or subject movement.

 

As you are finding out, shooting film is rather different from shooting digital. Enjoy the learning curve whilst you rediscover film!

[animefx]

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I just loaded my 2nd roll of film in this morning, Portra 400 nc. I found that a lot of my other photos were overexposed by a fair amount, so I'll be sure to watch that more carefully for my 2nd roll. I also noticed that the bw400cn film doesn't do to well with mid day light, but really digital doesn't either.

 

I will look into a flatbed scanner. Are the flatbed scanners with negative film adapters as good as dedicated films scanners? I found a Canoscanner? for $175 or so online but don't know much about it. Can you link me to some of your photos that you have scanned with your Epson?

Firstly, you need practice! To expect perfection from your first roll is a little ambitious.

 

The photo CD's from 1 hour processors are OK for proofs but I re-scan any keepers at home. Sometimes the CD's are great, usually they're OK, and a few have been pretty much useless. Personally I'd advise you to invest in a scanner (I use the top end Epson flatbed which I've been happy enough with although I know a proper film scanner will be better still).

 

Invest in a good lightmeter. Sunny 16 works well but again it needs practice and experience to work consistently.

 

The couple photo appears to be an indoor shot - it's overexposed but not beyond saving with some work in a darkroom or Photoshop! Focus appears to be off or it could be camera shake or subject movement.

 

As you are finding out, shooting film is rather different from shooting digital. Enjoy the learning curve whilst you rediscover film!

[andybarton]

The first one looks fine to me, but my advice would be to lay off the red filter until you have got used to using film naked. I would also recommend getting used to one film, before moving onto another (maybe one b&w and one colour). Don't keep chopping and changing.

 

Flatbeds aren't as good as dedicated film scanners. If you have a look at my website, most of the black and white shots are film and a lot of the colour ones. (especially the "people" sections). The film ones are mostly scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V, except the Hasselblad ones, which are via an Epson v700.

[wblynch]

My local Costco still does 35mm film and gives back a pretty good 3000x2000 scan. They do much better than Walgreens or CVS. Try all your local options to decide who is better and stick with them.

 

My complaint about my Costco is they changed to a laser printer and all my film prints now come out looking like cheap digi's. (time to shop around)

 

I have heard that if you ask the operator to "scan for 8x12 prints" you'll get better files. I haven't yet tried this approach.

 

For my own work I use a dated Pakon F235 minilab scanner that actually gives tremendous results.

 

It proves to me that production labs can do much better but they don't know how, or don't care to. I also know they can just as easily save as TIF instead of JPG.

 

-Bill L.

[Xmas]

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I just loaded my 2nd roll of film in this morning, Portra 400 nc. I found that a lot of my other photos were overexposed by a fair amount, so I'll be sure to watch that more carefully for my 2nd roll. I also noticed that the bw400cn film doesn't do to well with mid day light, but really digital doesn't either.

 

I will look into a flatbed scanner. Are the flatbed scanners with negative film adapters as good as dedicated films scanners? I found a Canoscanner? for $175 or so online but don't know much about it. Can you link me to some of your photos that you have scanned with your Epson?

 

Hi

 

The first shot is ok technically and the second one may be as well, it is not necessarily bad that it is wider range then the screen or the scanners capability

 

As well as a scanner you may chose to look at wet printing where the density in a high light is not such a critical problem. Wet printing kit is being discarded by digital people and can be picked up cheap (or free).

 

BW400 is a large dynamic range film and will capture extremes unless you are way way out in exposure, it is more difficult to wet print from then XP2 though. The prints from the mini lab may look bad but you can only use these for proof, You need to light box for technical merit.

 

Noel