philipotto Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #21 Posted February 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Last 8. 38 exposures per roll. I have heard that it can vary, what are the variables in this? 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=176945'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Hi philipotto, Take a look here Poor photos or poor scans?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
philipotto Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #22 Posted February 19, 2007 My film seems to have been processed on a Noritsu Koki QS-32. 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=176949'>More sharing options...
arminw Posted February 20, 2007 Share #23 Posted February 20, 2007 Philip - some of your pics are fine and in focus others are not ... I am sure the next roll of film will be better and the one after ever more. I think it must have been the low lighting condition in the hall , which caused camera shake by low shutter speed. One tip , try to process your B/W Film yourself and then scan it if you have a scanner. I do it all the time and it's easy to learn. Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 20, 2007 Share #24 Posted February 20, 2007 Philip, how did the color rolls turn out? Doing the detective work to isolate the problems is a process of elimination, and starts with inspecting the negs. Don't be fooled by small proofs that seem to look okay. The automated proofing machines will adjust print exposure the best that can be done, and the proofs being small will mask a host of sharpness and blur problems. So, look to the negs first. When you hold your negs from the posted images up to a light box (or your computer screen with a white box filling the screen), what do they look like? Are they uniformly dark, or are they uniformly thin? This will reveal if there is an exposure issue. Look at the strips outside the image area (with the film sprockets), are they clear film base or are they partially exposed (greyish)? This can help reveal if there is a film processing issue (like exhaused developer), or light leak in the camera. As to some of the other issues like focus. Actually, yes, they can ALL be off IF the rangefinder is out of adjustment. Some images may appear sharp because a smaller lens aperture like f/5.6 or f/8 was used and masked the problem with the greater depth of field. Some blurry images are just due to technique, a slow hand held shutter speed that causes general image blur compounded by subject movement blur to a greater degree. The hand-holding aspect can be mitigated by selecting a shutter speed similar to the focal length of the lens being used ( 50mm = 1/50th shutter speed). While a rangefinder can often be handheld at lower speeds doesn't mean you have that ability... yet. When using slow shutter speeds and there is movement by the subject, they will blur ... which is okay if you want that, but if you do not, then you have to perfect your timing of shots to avoid subject blur. If after taking all that into consideration, you don't find the answer, look to the scans themselves. If the negs seem fine, then have the lab rescan. Simply not using the right film profile can often result in flat scans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 20, 2007 Share #25 Posted February 20, 2007 What is the latitude like on TMax400? I dont know how forgiving it is because I dont use it. Would it be worth going back to 100iso till you get the hang of what is going on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 20, 2007 Share #26 Posted February 20, 2007 Rob, it's ages since I tried T-Max 400, but I'd go for Tri-X. If a lab can't get that right they should be shut down :-). There seems to be quite wide latitude in processing and development with Tri-X. I always prefered FP4 to T-Max 100 for the same reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 20, 2007 Share #27 Posted February 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was under the impression that you had to nail TMax exposure. So if you are a bit out you lose the lot on the sort of stuff Phillip is photographing. I dont know though. Ive only shot a few rolls of the stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 20, 2007 Share #28 Posted February 20, 2007 Rob, I think that your comment about T-Max is probably correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.