I just shot my first roll of film in 18 years

Hey Sabbath - congrats on the film camera. keith204 just got one too, and I picked up an F100 the other week. First results are here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127071

Considering I was just testing out the camera, I was ecstatic to actually get a couple of keepers and I really liked the look! Can't wait to try more! I used COSTCO for printing and scanning and was pretty pleased. I may get a film scanner as well.
 
OK... well I got the film back, and the shots are overexposed... the camera's meter is obviously off by about a stop, so there is a lot of stuff that is blown out.

I have not read the rest yet but no....labs like CVS and walmart print a stop over, they would likely scan to proper on your scanner.

I can provide proof of this what I mean

*EDIT*
That is a double edged sword, sharp enough to the point of saying it's a bad idea. Most places that offer the Photo CD only offer it in the higher processing options (I.E. Kodak Perfect Touch and what not). With these processes the processors literally go threw and compensate and/or correct issues in exposure. Wile yes they will provide a very good digitalization of ones photo the corrections that have been done completely negate the possibility of finding and correcting the issues the one behind the camera is making.

In other words you can't fix it if you don't know it's broken. If one just wants nice prints for family memories that is fine, but for anyone wanting to learn the camera and the facets of photography for internet display, their best bet is to go with standard prints and digitalize the images them selves and learn from some bad looking prints.




Oh dear, I've never even heard of it, let alone using it. Not knowing the software I can't be of much help in that department.


But as promised here is the picture I said I would bring.

One was scanned with a Canon dedicated film scanner and the other the print placed in my HP all in one and scanned. Both images have been left as they came out of the scanner with the exception of the resize, That was done by PB's autoresizer (in other words I never opened them in editing software).

Film scan
017.jpg

Print scan
017_2.jpg

Digital pic of print
100_2920.jpg



These demonstrate the difference between the two types of scanning, as you can see there is no way for me to make this one hundred percent accurate to what I actually captured but I can try to get it very close to the print itself with some saturation and maybe some unsharp masking, atleast for the subject. Knowing the drawback to a consumer grade flatbed scanner is going to be of great use to you at the time being though. Now that you know there is a difference basically you are going to have to hold the print up to the monitor and work the image as close as possible to it by visual comparison. You can get by this way until you are ready, serious enough or have the money to spend the money on a scanner equipped with a negative and slide scanning device or even a dedicated film/slide scanner.

This image also shows something you are going to want to know, commercial print labs tend to print to a medium grey instead of black at times, thoroughly blowing out the sky, but not always, it depends on who is running the machine.




As That One Guy, SierraBravo and Happy Hour all said Pick up that book and don't let these minor setbacks get you down, we have all gone threw the process of incorrect exposures....any one who says otherwise is a lying pile of auto settings.

OK... well I got the film back, and the shots are overexposed... the camera's meter is obviously off by about a stop, so there is a lot of stuff that is blown out.

I had Walgreens do quick/cheap CD's and the shots look pretty bad (which is a shame because I had a few decent shots otherwise). I set my scanner up last night but I am still learning how to use it (I think it will be good when using properly exposed film).

The scanner certainly isn't very intuitive. I got a Plustek OpticFilm 7200) with SilverFast 6.5 SE software, it is windows ONLY (no Parallels desktop) so I have to reboot into windows, which stinks, but I think it will be fine... certainly a lot better than paying for those CRUDDY CD's with their low res scans.

Unfortunately, some of the negatives were SCRATCHED by the idiot who ran the machine... I have learned never to use that photolab again, that is for sure.

On the bright side, the shots were so badly exposed that the scratching isn't any big loss.

I have to have the scanner on during boot up as well, you'll get used to it. ;)

I get scratched negs all the time, unless uber deastic the scratches can be cloned out relitivly easily. I suck at cloning and even I can eliminate a scratch that makes it threw scanning.

I don't know the scanner you are using but mine has an exposure adjustment that will vary the exposure reading the scanner recieves, I would imagine yours will have one somewhere, just waiting to be found.
 
I have not read the rest yet but no....labs like CVS and walmart print a stop over, they would likely scan to proper on your scanner.

I'm going to have to agree.. i've compared 1hr. prints with my own scans too and the difference made me forsake any 1hr prints for all time.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top