philipotto Posted February 14, 2007 Share #1 Posted February 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just got my first roll of B+W developed. My first roll of film processed! Proofs look decent. Scans do not. Here is a sample of a scan: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Obviously I didn't take it, but I metered and focused it. I can post more later, but alll the scans look somewhat similer. I am wondering wether this simply a case of very poor scans (they were free, but from a reputable lab), or something else im not doing quite right. Hard for me to know for sure. I didnt get any prints, only a 8x10 proof sheet. My concern is that the proof sheet looks okay simply because its small. I am convinced that the scans are poor, for one thing they are exposure corrected, making them look very flat (shadows+highlights=gone), but just how misrepresentative are they? Off to work. I should have a better idea when I pick up my two rolls of colour. Hopefully this afternoon. M6 Summicron 35mm IV Kodak T-Max 400 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Obviously I didn't take it, but I metered and focused it. I can post more later, but alll the scans look somewhat similer. I am wondering wether this simply a case of very poor scans (they were free, but from a reputable lab), or something else im not doing quite right. Hard for me to know for sure. I didnt get any prints, only a 8x10 proof sheet. My concern is that the proof sheet looks okay simply because its small. I am convinced that the scans are poor, for one thing they are exposure corrected, making them look very flat (shadows+highlights=gone), but just how misrepresentative are they? Off to work. I should have a better idea when I pick up my two rolls of colour. Hopefully this afternoon. M6 Summicron 35mm IV Kodak T-Max 400 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=171580'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Hi philipotto, Take a look here Poor photos or poor scans?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
john_r_smith Posted February 14, 2007 Share #2 Posted February 14, 2007 Philip what resolution are your scans (that is, x pixels by y pixels) and are they JPEGs or TIFFS? Really, you need at least 3000 ppi for decent quality from a 35mm negative. The one you have posted does look very flat, but I assume that this is both - * down-ressed for the Forum, and * has no post-processing In many ways, it is a good thing to have initial scans which are pretty flat through the tonal range. Just as with working from a negative in the darkroom, this gives you the most scope for manipulation in PS or whatever. PS Philip I just had a play with this image and it is an absolutely dreadful scan. The histogram is compressed, there is no critical sharpness, and any attempt to correct it results in posterisation. If this is how it came from your lab, they deserve shooting. Perhaps the "free" part should give you the clue John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted February 14, 2007 Share #3 Posted February 14, 2007 Phillip - I took the liberty of hitting this with Photoshop...scan was a bit flat it seems. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=171628'>More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 14, 2007 Share #4 Posted February 14, 2007 Philip, As you say the contacts may appear better because they are smaller, but this does look like a scan and/or processing issue. The image is very soft, assuming that it isn't a focussing error, as well as the lack of contrast and limited tonal range, it really points towards the scan. I would have a good look at the negs (do they appear in focus and contrasty?) but the only way to be sure is to have another scan made or a larger print from the neg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hagen Posted February 14, 2007 Share #5 Posted February 14, 2007 20 seconds in PS Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=171632'>More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted February 14, 2007 Share #6 Posted February 14, 2007 I had exactly the same problem with a lab developed HP5 film (standard silver B&W film). The prints and scans came back flat. I tried two different labs (one professional) and had the same problem. I had no problems and much better results from B&W films such as XP2 and 400CN. Maybe the scanners cannot handle the negatives from a silver based film? Yours Ravi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbaddley Posted February 15, 2007 Share #7 Posted February 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The lack of good shadow detail suggests that the film might be underexposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted February 15, 2007 Share #8 Posted February 15, 2007 Well we really need an update from Philip here. Did he really focus the frame correctly or not? Ravi, there is absolutely no reason standard B/W film like HP5 or Tri-X should not scan well. This is how I work all the time, having my B/W films processed and scanned by a local lab, and the results are great with very little post-processing most of the time.The problem you do tend to get is with emphasised grain, but you can counter this by shooting T-Max or Delta instead. However, there seems to be very little grain in Philip's scan, which again makes me suspicious of whether the scanner focus itself is at fault. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted February 15, 2007 Share #9 Posted February 15, 2007 I am also buffled. I know T-Max is contrasty with a "very fine" grain characteristics. I think I need more information before I can make a conclusion. Cheers, -Ron Creature of Habbits or the Caveman within Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 15, 2007 Share #10 Posted February 15, 2007 Perhaps the lab forgot to switch off their machine's equivalent of ICE? I'm assuming that they normally use some kind of noise reduction to prevent dust spots appearing on the prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 15, 2007 Share #11 Posted February 15, 2007 Dunt have ta sharpen everthin either. Just bits. .... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=172357'>More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 15, 2007 Share #12 Posted February 15, 2007 Photoshop sucks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted February 15, 2007 Share #13 Posted February 15, 2007 Just as an aside to all this - I can't post my pictures here, because they are not Leica, but here is a link to a small portfolio of six photos to give an idea of some film scans - Photos by John R Smith which are all B/W film scans from HP5, Delta 400, and T-Max. There was very little post-processing on any of these, other than the sort of thing you would do in a darkroom anyway. Obviously they are all down-ressed and JPEGed for the Web, but the 10x8 prints look pretty nice. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted February 16, 2007 Share #14 Posted February 16, 2007 Looks more like camera shake than out of focus but it's difficult without seing the negative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 17, 2007 Share #15 Posted February 17, 2007 Probably somewhat underexposed negs that were then poorly scanned, (need to see the negs to tell). Would need more of a custom scan rather than a batch automated one. There is shadow detail even in the web upload, so it has to be in the neg, which a good scanner could pull out. Here are a couple of approaches using some standard PhotoShop techniques as well a few actions I'm testing for a friend that wrote them. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=174600'>More sharing options...
peter55 Posted February 19, 2007 Share #16 Posted February 19, 2007 What lens did you use? Some lenses produce this kind of low contrast image. Aso the scan may have been set to low contrast. I scan at home and I adjust the exposure.In Corel Photo Paint I adjust the contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipotto Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted February 19, 2007 Thanks to all that have replied. Sorry I havn't responded sooner. Lens was 35mm summicron IV. Here is the rest of the roll. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=176800'>More sharing options...
cam2000 Posted February 19, 2007 Share #18 Posted February 19, 2007 First Phillip let me say you have a stunning looking model...... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=176802'>More sharing options...
philipotto Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #19 Posted February 19, 2007 Yes I am new to rangefinder focusing, but I can't have got them all wrong. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=176929'>More sharing options...
philipotto Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #20 Posted February 19, 2007 Each scan is 6.3 megapixels (3089 X 2048) and varies from 2.6mb to 4mb. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16231-poor-photos-or-poor-scans/?do=findComment&comment=176937'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.