=Why I love my Pentax ME Super=

Messages
2,622
Name
Javier
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Hi folks.
The more I use my ME Super, the more I love it. Its small size with a small lens makes it easy to toss into the bag and go...It is durable and does not need to to pampered like DSLR's do....Besides, as I was waling through Elysian Park yesterday on my way to Hollywood to shoot a roll, I got to thinking....This ME Super also makes a good weapon...as does the K1000's...Anyway, here are a few of yesterdays images...ME super with Tokina 28mm F/2.8 lens, loaded with Fuji ISO200 speed standard film.


Overlooking downtown Los Angeles and Dodger stadium


Cruising through the park, I came accross this old camper...Looked interesting so I shot it..


I went to the Kodak theature where the ''stars'' walk the red carpet..


Here is inside the Kodak theature..I must admit, I am surprised this shot came out..I was wide open and as slow a shutter as I could stand for hand holding...It is pretty dark in there, or should I say..''bad light''


From up top the Kodak, 5 stories high. Looking down on Hollywood Blvd


Looking up at the famous Manns Chinese theature


Looking across the street to the world famous ''El Capitan''


Looking a brand new billboard that just got put up.
 

Marc

Mucky Rims
Staff member
Messages
42,823
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
As I said in another thread, I bought one of these last christmas but haven't really had a chance to use it properly yet. Impressed with your results though! (y)
 
Messages
8,597
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
#7
It's not usm, its selective exposure compensation (dodge/burn)
It was probably processed by the scan man.
jgredline, you should take a look at your negs, I think I've seen and mentioned this before with some of you're scans, just to make sure you're camera is exposing correctly, it seems on that first one to be under exposed because scan man has had to do a lot of work to it, it could be wildly under exposed, I dunno.
Just have a check, you might need to make some adjustments in camera to compensate or something.
What do you think ?
 
Messages
8,597
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
#9
Shoot film > take to Boots or where ever, who process it > Boots scan man gets it chucks it through the scanner and edits the resulting file as he see's fit.
If the neg is under exposed, he'll try and give his customer something for their money.
Sometimes negs are just too far gone, detail can't be pulled from it without major work.
If my camera was under exposing so much that scan man was putting halos round stuff, I'd want to know and maybe remedy that at the point of capture.
 

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
28,411
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
My first thought on these, apart from the obvious over-sharpening, was that they all exhibit that smoothing and lack of detail typical of noise reduction?
 
OP
OP
jgredline
Messages
2,622
Name
Javier
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
It's not usm, its selective exposure compensation (dodge/burn)
It was probably processed by the scan man.
jgredline, you should take a look at your negs, I think I've seen and mentioned this before with some of you're scans, just to make sure you're camera is exposing correctly, it seems on that first one to be under exposed because scan man has had to do a lot of work to it, it could be wildly under exposed, I dunno.
Just have a check, you might need to make some adjustments in camera to compensate or something.
What do you think ?
I think your right. I just called CVS and they did tell me that the scanner automatically applies noise reduction software and color correction.. EEK..
I will rescan the images and repost. I do have a good scanner and vuescan software. I will give it a go tomorrow. Thanks all for the CC.
 

CT

TPer Emeritus
Messages
28,411
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I think your right. I just called CVS and they did tell me that the scanner automatically applies noise reduction software and color correction.. EEK..
That's just downright scary! You'd think you'd be pretty safe having negs/trannies scanned onto CD. The answer seems to be to just have the film developed and do your own scanning. :shrug:
 
Messages
2,682
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
I don't have any recent negatives and the old ones are from compact film cameras with pretty poor lenses, but I when I scan them in very high resolution, they do look fairly good when I shrink them down again. I use an Epson 3490 Photo for that.
 
Messages
625
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
Off Topic:

I just wanted to post and say how nice it was to see the word "Pentax" on the front page, I got quite excited. :wacky:

On Topic:

I like the pics, the kodak one is my favourite i think. it is a little worrying that these places do unrequested processing to your shots though.
 

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Messages
4,175
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
I cannot see your EXIF data? .....did you upload them properly?








:D
 
Messages
8,597
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
#19
I think your right. I just called CVS and they did tell me that the scanner automatically applies noise reduction software and color correction.. EEK..
I will rescan the images and repost. I do have a good scanner and vuescan software. I will give it a go tomorrow. Thanks all for the CC.

I don't think they're terrible but -
Not so long ago, and maybe still, many people are just happy to get a recognisable image out of their film camera, these days peeps (especially in photo forums) have a much more critical eye and higher expectations, I don't think the mass developers/scanners for jo public have upped their game in that respect for a long time, and why should they, everyone uses digital now....don't they ?
There's nothing wrong with the scanner making edits during a scan, I do it myself, I do very little to them save for a crop/level, the colour balance, sharpening, auto exposure, whatever, I do in scanner.
Anything that saves me time gets my vote, but unless there is someone there to keep an eye on the scanners choices, and indeed the quality of the negs going in it, likely as not, a few will be edited badly and a few negs that really weren't usable will get through.
Scanning is very time consuming, its not for everyone, the mass processors aren't completely useless, I half feel the quality of the negs aren't as good as they should be out of that camera, and the lab is rescuing shots you might not even bother scanning if you saw them yourself....I dunno :thinking:

edit...look at you're last lot, with that kodak 400, not a hint of halos, exposure looks dead right, maybe moderate-heavy USM but on the whole, pretty damn good.
Could it be naff film, not the camera ?
 
Messages
8,597
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
#27
Well, its not the film, and its not the camera, its scan man on auto pilot.
I don't see a lot of grain, maybe in the darker areas of number 2, the other two are less grainy, its a small price to pay for such big improvement.
I though the old number 1 was just a bit ropey, but seeing a proper scan of it really puts it into perspective, old 1 was extremely ropey.(y)

I think this film is negative, not slide..
 
Messages
8,597
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
#34
Y'know what, before I got this minolta, I scanned for the web @ 72dpi, couldn't come close to telling the difference on screen in a shrunk to 600x800 pix image.
Soon as I get a few more brain cells, I'm gonna figure out how to drop it from 300dpi.
 
Top