Well My Camera Works! (om2n)

Forkbeard

Forkbeard

Messages
475
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Just got a test roll back from the developers and it all seems fine. One thing I'm a bit curious is the amount of contrast. Some shots look really contrasty and backing it off a little bit seems to make a massive difference; I'm wondering if it's the developing, the film or just me (overexposed highlights)

Here's an example:

Before:

r001-023

After editing contrast:

r001-023b
 
Last edited:
Looks fine to me. It will almost certainly be the scanner settings. Your negatives will be fine, with plenty of highlight detail. Which lab did you use? Some of the cheaper labs will just run the film through the scanner with default settings, with minimal or zero human intervention to properly balance the images.
 
FujiLove said:
Looks fine to me. It will almost certainly be the scanner settings. Your negatives will be fine, with plenty of highlight detail. Which lab did you use? Some of the cheaper labs will just run the film through the scanner with default settings, with minimal or zero human intervention to properly balance the images.
Click to expand...

Oh that's OK then. I paid for the bog standard, cheapest CD just to make sure the camera worked. So would prints straight from the negative look different (or would they just be scans anyway)? Although I'm thinking about getting a scanner so it might be irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I quite like the first Image. The darker parts of the photo are the things that draw my eye so I don't tend to notice the sky line and for me it makes them a little sharper looking. In the second it does seem to have darkened the brighter parts but has lost some of the clarity. That said both are really sharp what was the film by the way. The images could be of loads of places local to me (Dudley) but I guess many of estates are very similar across the country!
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
I quite like the first Image the darker parts of the photo are the things that draw my eye so I don't tend to notice the sky line and for me it makes them a little sharper looking. In the second it does seem to have darkened the brighter parts but has lost some of the clarity. That said both are really sharp what was the film by the way. The images could be of loads of places local to me (Dudley) but I guess many of estates are very similar across the country!
Click to expand...

I'm probably just being overly critical because it's the first film through the camera. It was a pretty overcast day. I'm really happy with the camera and the manual focusing system is a joy to use.

The film was Fujicolour c200.

The estate in question is in Sheffield.
 
Last edited:
In the good old days (ha) a contrasty film & settings was often prefered for consumer stuff because it made everything look a bit more exciting - you may have been given that treatment.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In the good old days (ha) a contrasty film & settings was often prefered for consumer stuff because it made everything look a bit more exciting - you may have been given that treatment.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what happened. I've just bitten the bullet and bought a scanner and redone them - totally different look.
 
You can see some detail in the sky now but I agree there is a slight tint to it. Who did the original processing and scanning ? I must admit in the past I have just sent my film off to who will develop it the cheapest ( Yes I'm a cheap skate !) I may have to rethink this method in the future !
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
You can see some detail in the sky now but I agree there is a slight tint to it. Who did the original processing and scanning ? I must admit in the past I have just sent my film off to who will develop it the cheapest ( Yes I'm a cheap skate !) I may have to rethink this method in the future !
Click to expand...

Having the scanner for two days has been a learning curve for me already. The amount of control the processer has over the ultimate output of your negative was a big surprise. I scanned some old Kodak negatives and the difference between those and the prints they were with was massive.
 
Forkbeard said:
Having the scanner for two days has been a learning curve for me already. The amount of control the processer has over the ultimate output of your negative was a big surprise. I scanned some old Kodak negatives and the difference between those and the prints they were with was massive.
Click to expand...

Prints can fade quite a lot, and I reckon a lot of my older prints were done in relatively shoddy labs with poor quality control. Results from negatives are almost always better... apart from the delicate issue of getting the colours right!
 
Glad you're getting to grips with film again, just out of interest, which scanner did you get?
 
Mr Badger said:
Glad you're getting to grips with film again, just out of interest, which scanner did you get?
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm enjoying it. I ended up going for the Epson v550. It doesn't match the detail of the scans from the lab (which is no surprise) but it's definitely good enough.
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
You can see some detail in the sky now but I agree there is a slight tint to it. Who did the original processing and scanning ? I must admit in the past I have just sent my film off to who will develop it the cheapest ( Yes I'm a cheap skate !) I may have to rethink this method in the future !
Click to expand...

Harrison Cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top