Doc Henry Posted November 23, 2019 Share #21 Posted November 23, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 11/21/2019 at 9:20 AM, miguelmolez said: Most were yes, A couple turned out actually OK. 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! Thanks for the photos Miguel . You have apparently exposure problem with your M6 ? Best H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 Hi Doc Henry, Take a look here Where did i go wrong? Ektar 100. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
otto.f Posted November 23, 2019 Share #22 Posted November 23, 2019 Who did the scanning of this film, was this a 24 hours service with Jpeg’s of 1 Mb sent to you by mail or something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 23, 2019 Share #23 Posted November 23, 2019 Most of those photos don't look very underexposed, there's clearly details in the shadow areas. I suspect it's more down to the scanning. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 23, 2019 Share #24 Posted November 23, 2019 47 minutes ago, earleygallery said: Most of those photos don't look very underexposed, there's clearly details in the shadow areas. I suspect it's more down to the scanning. The sky isn’t too dark either, it’s a normal zone vii Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2019 Share #25 Posted November 24, 2019 On 11/22/2019 at 9:21 PM, 105012 said: Ektar 100 is an amazing film, I love its results for portraits. Looking over my Ektar portraits I really don’t know why people struggle with it? Beautiful, delicate skin tones. If that was directed at my post #15, I did not say I struggle with Ektar. I use Ektar frequently for landscape photography, where it excels for a C41 film and produces good scans and prints. I would not use it for portraits, but if it pleases you and others, that's fine.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
105012 Posted November 26, 2019 Share #26 Posted November 26, 2019 I just would not want to see casually perpetuated the notion that Ektar is bad for portraits. I get consistently great results with Ektar for this genre and there are plenty of similar views around. Here is one as an example: https://www.wendylaurel.com/shoot-kodak-ektar-100-film-tutorial/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted November 26, 2019 Share #27 Posted November 26, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used to like Ektar too. But now occassionally shoot print film Kodak 200 iso..not the coolest film but i like it. Ektar was fun with blues. ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
105012 Posted November 26, 2019 Share #28 Posted November 26, 2019 Hi David, agree Kodak ColorPlus 200 is a charming film, plenty of old school grain, great colours... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguelmolez Posted November 26, 2019 Author Share #29 Posted November 26, 2019 On 11/23/2019 at 12:19 PM, otto.f said: Who did the scanning of this film, was this a 24 hours service with Jpeg’s of 1 Mb sent to you by mail or something? Hi, Appologies for the late reply. It was https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk who done the dev/scanning. I opted for their 18mb (medium res) option. Anyone else used these before? I went with these for dev and scan due to the fact they could send my images via the web, without waiting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguelmolez Posted November 26, 2019 Author Share #30 Posted November 26, 2019 (edited) On 11/23/2019 at 8:33 AM, Doc Henry said: Thanks for the photos Miguel . You have apparently exposure problem with your M6 ? Best H Hi doc H. Nope, all other rolls (portra 400) turned out OK Edited November 26, 2019 by miguelmolez 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 26, 2019 Share #31 Posted November 26, 2019 4 hours ago, miguelmolez said: Hi, Appologies for the late reply. It was https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk who done the dev/scanning. I opted for their 18mb (medium res) option. Anyone else used these before? I went with these for dev and scan due to the fact they could send my images via the web, without waiting. 4 hours ago, miguelmolez said: Hi doc H. Nope, all other rolls (portra 400) turned out OK Well, that seems to lead to the lab practices. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 26, 2019 Share #32 Posted November 26, 2019 (edited) I think the trick with Ektar is to shoot it at box speed as though it was transparency/slide film. I over exposed a roll of it once and the greens and reds went crazy. I think this just looks drastically under exposed. There looks to be one shot that looks not so bad - the girls back lit on the 2nd row. Pete Edited November 26, 2019 by Stealth3kpl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted November 26, 2019 Share #33 Posted November 26, 2019 (edited) This is really hard to diagnose without seeing the negatives. Is there poor contrast in the film numbers and does the fogging extend past the picture frame? Then it is probably fogging in the roll, or poor chemistry. If the numbers are crisp and the area around the film is clear and clean, then it is likely an exposure issue. The green cast could be from the baseline noise of the scanner trying to recover the images from extremely underexposed negatives. But as others said, you seem to have a more or less normal amount of detail hidden behind the fogging. I think the most important step here is to see the actual negatives...by the way, did you ask the lab? They should at least get a chance to say what they think...maybe they have a clue. Edited November 26, 2019 by Stuart Richardson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 26, 2019 Share #34 Posted November 26, 2019 19 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said: poor chemistry. I go for that until proven the opposite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted November 26, 2019 Share #35 Posted November 26, 2019 Although I never had underexposed scans (I suspect it is lab scan issue in this case), I was never happy with colors from lab scans. I compared with any own scans from Plustek. My lesson is not to trust labs for good scanning. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguelmolez Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share #36 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/26/2019 at 6:30 PM, Stuart Richardson said: This is really hard to diagnose without seeing the negatives. Is there poor contrast in the film numbers and does the fogging extend past the picture frame? Then it is probably fogging in the roll, or poor chemistry. If the numbers are crisp and the area around the film is clear and clean, then it is likely an exposure issue. The green cast could be from the baseline noise of the scanner trying to recover the images from extremely underexposed negatives. But as others said, you seem to have a more or less normal amount of detail hidden behind the fogging. I think the most important step here is to see the actual negatives...by the way, did you ask the lab? They should at least get a chance to say what they think...maybe they have a clue. I did ask them. Still waiting for a reply! Will ask again tomorrow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 27, 2019 Share #37 Posted November 27, 2019 1 minute ago, miguelmolez said: I did ask them. Still waiting for a reply! Will ask again tomorrow. Huh? Does this mean you do not have the negatives? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted November 27, 2019 Share #38 Posted November 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, otto.f said: Huh? Does this mean you do not have the negatives? My lab has an option to send the negative back immediately or get it back in batches at later time. This saves mailing cost and works for people who just want scans. I am not sure what is the situation with OP. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 28, 2019 Share #39 Posted November 28, 2019 Strange workflow 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguelmolez Posted November 28, 2019 Author Share #40 Posted November 28, 2019 12 hours ago, otto.f said: Huh? Does this mean you do not have the negatives? Sorry yes I have the negatives back, I'm waiting for them to reply with the regards to what happened with the scans. I'm debating whether to get my own scanner now, to see what sort of results I get with them. Probably a good decision cost wise as well for the long term. I sent off a roll of Portra 400 to the same lab yesterday, so the scans should be available for download at some point this morning. Will be interesting to see what results I get back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now