peewee
Established
Hello
..
I am a beginner with film photography..Sold the M9 and got a used M7..
I developed my first rolls last night and scanned them today on my Epson V700..
Scanning is tricky, and obviously I'm learning the ropes with developing too.
I also have a Rolleiflex tlr and am quite pleased with the results but my M7 results are very disappointing.
This is one of the first shots I made with the M7 (and 50mm Summilux asph) of a long bank of cow parsley..I metered carefully and the aperture was at about F4, the light was nice, not too bright..I was interested in seeing the detail in the dof.
Most of the shots are rubbish that I took, I know I have a lot to learn with film but any tips about what I could be doing wrong here would be helpful..
Many Thanks.
..I am a beginner with film photography..Sold the M9 and got a used M7..
I developed my first rolls last night and scanned them today on my Epson V700..
Scanning is tricky, and obviously I'm learning the ropes with developing too.
I also have a Rolleiflex tlr and am quite pleased with the results but my M7 results are very disappointing.
This is one of the first shots I made with the M7 (and 50mm Summilux asph) of a long bank of cow parsley..I metered carefully and the aperture was at about F4, the light was nice, not too bright..I was interested in seeing the detail in the dof.
Most of the shots are rubbish that I took, I know I have a lot to learn with film but any tips about what I could be doing wrong here would be helpful..
Many Thanks.
Attachments
gilpen123
Gil
Just to check, are you sure you scanned the right side of the film? Was that a fresh film? What software was used and the settings?
zauhar
Veteran
What scanning software? Did you do any adjustment of levels? In general, you need to adjust levels using your scanning software (or in photoshop), analogous to adjusting exposure on the enlarger when making a print in the darkroom.
The dof looks really shallow, was that really f/4? What shutter speed?
Randy
The dof looks really shallow, was that really f/4? What shutter speed?
Randy
FrankS
Registered User
Looks like you missed focus. The closest flowers on the left are getting sharper.
stratcat
Well-known
Aside from the focus issue pointed out by FrankS, it also looks like you have quite a bit of flare; in the upper right hand corner it looks as if it even 'overflowed' the frame.
Naturally scanning technique affects the focus and contrast of the image but the flare might be a primary cause of diminished contrast.
Naturally scanning technique affects the focus and contrast of the image but the flare might be a primary cause of diminished contrast.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I think that it might be helpful to know what, in particular, you dislike about this shot. I know of ways that I could edit it to give it more "pop", but they may not suit what you wish to accomplish. Can you explain what you dislike about the shot?
kanzlr
Hexaneur
that and it actually looks nice to my eye
peewee
Established
What I don't like about the shot is the lack of dof, as I did set it at F4, or F5, I was intentionally trying to get more dof, focus was on the nearest plants.
I'm using the Epson software at 2400 dpi..I have Vuescan pro but there is so much there I don't understand, the Epson scan is simpler until I find someone to sit next to me and show me what to do..I suppose I am worried about the camera a bit..If it's ok then I will persevere...I'm surprised the Lux has flared..I going out tonight to take the same shot taking care to shield the lens, also I must swat up more on scanning, I'm the worst at technology and like to be shown what to do rather than sitting at the computer with back ache trying to concentrate!
...I scanned emulsion side down I think thats ok?
Thanks a lot for your replies.
Lucy
I'm using the Epson software at 2400 dpi..I have Vuescan pro but there is so much there I don't understand, the Epson scan is simpler until I find someone to sit next to me and show me what to do..I suppose I am worried about the camera a bit..If it's ok then I will persevere...I'm surprised the Lux has flared..I going out tonight to take the same shot taking care to shield the lens, also I must swat up more on scanning, I'm the worst at technology and like to be shown what to do rather than sitting at the computer with back ache trying to concentrate!
...I scanned emulsion side down I think thats ok?
Thanks a lot for your replies.
Lucy
robklurfield
eclipse
more DOF = smaller aperture. bright sunny day, maybe try something between f8 and f16.
FrankS
Registered User
DOF is also less at closer focused distances.
peewee
Established
I'll try again..Thankyou.
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
As for DOF it varies pretty greatly with the distance. At 1m with a 50mm at f4 it's something like 5cm. At f5.6 it's 8cm. At 2m and f4 it's about 23cm and at f5.6 it's about 33cm. These are approx. numbers from my iphone DOF calculator.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
venchka
Veteran
When I began my second life with film, I had to use a scanner. I have no space nor is it light proof for a wet darkroom. I went nowhere with scanning for about 6 months. Then I discovered Ken Lee's procedure for scanning with EpsonScan software. Eureka! The Lightbulb went on.
http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php
Are you working in 16 bit greyscale????????????? Scan at a maximum of 2,400 dpi and 100% output scale. In other words, the file produced will be approximately 1.5" long and 1" wide at 2400 dpi. You will hear lots of advice to the contrary.
As for the example above, I would question the black border around 3 sides of your 35mm frame. What happened? My Epson 35mm film holders don't show any of the unexposed frame. You also need to place the film in the holders with the emulsion side oriented correctly for scanning. I can never remember if it is up or down relative to the glass on the lower portion of the scanner. What I do remember is that text should read correctly in the scanner preview window.
Are you setting the scan rectangle to the edges of the image? Are you then telling EpsonScan to give you it's guess at exposure based on your window? If you include the black border the exposure will be off. Way off.
After setting the auto exposure, you then need to set the output scale from 0 to 255. The software will ALWAYS clip both ends of the scale. After that, it's easy to set the black and white points relative to the histogram. Then play with the Gamma slider until the preview looks good for that particular image. Gamma varies.
A good negative and a good scan will produce a TIFF file that requires little or no adjustment in Lightroom.
As for flare, DOF, etc., those are all part of photography regardless of the process.
Sample of an uncropped scan and minimal work in Lightroom. Black. White. A lot of grey in between.
Wayne
http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php
Are you working in 16 bit greyscale????????????? Scan at a maximum of 2,400 dpi and 100% output scale. In other words, the file produced will be approximately 1.5" long and 1" wide at 2400 dpi. You will hear lots of advice to the contrary.
As for the example above, I would question the black border around 3 sides of your 35mm frame. What happened? My Epson 35mm film holders don't show any of the unexposed frame. You also need to place the film in the holders with the emulsion side oriented correctly for scanning. I can never remember if it is up or down relative to the glass on the lower portion of the scanner. What I do remember is that text should read correctly in the scanner preview window.
Are you setting the scan rectangle to the edges of the image? Are you then telling EpsonScan to give you it's guess at exposure based on your window? If you include the black border the exposure will be off. Way off.
After setting the auto exposure, you then need to set the output scale from 0 to 255. The software will ALWAYS clip both ends of the scale. After that, it's easy to set the black and white points relative to the histogram. Then play with the Gamma slider until the preview looks good for that particular image. Gamma varies.
A good negative and a good scan will produce a TIFF file that requires little or no adjustment in Lightroom.
As for flare, DOF, etc., those are all part of photography regardless of the process.
Sample of an uncropped scan and minimal work in Lightroom. Black. White. A lot of grey in between.
Wayne
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
I use Vuescan since several years and like it a lot, though the interface is pretty rubbish. Have a look at this guide which helped me to get good scans. Btw a good scan is "flat"-looking, just like yours because they contain the most image information.
http://www.photoshop-tutorials-plus.com/support-files/vuescan.pdf
I don't see flare in the photo. The far-away highlights in the sky are, however, blown. But that's to be expected since you exposed for the flowers.
Here's a simple edit of the photo in CS5 (curves, levels and unsharp mask).
http://www.photoshop-tutorials-plus.com/support-files/vuescan.pdf
I don't see flare in the photo. The far-away highlights in the sky are, however, blown. But that's to be expected since you exposed for the flowers.
Here's a simple edit of the photo in CS5 (curves, levels and unsharp mask).
Attachments
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
+1 valuable comment. The scales on the lens tell you a lot. Take the camera out, focus and frame, don't take a shot but instead see what the lens says with regards to the scales.
Different distances, different DOF. Different apertures, different DOF yet again.
There's a nice app on the internet with a website (which one? Anybody chime in?) that shows DOF with a selected film format, aperture and focus distance. I think it's called 'DOF viewer'.
thegman
Veteran
Hi there,
I use a V700 also. For MF like your Rolleiflex, you can get amazing results, as much resolution as just about anyone needs. For 35mm, it's really sub-optimal, and I'd suggest you drop $300 on a dedicated 35mm scanner. I use a Canoscan, which is good, but they're getting on years, and you're probably better off with a brand new Plustek.
Garry
I use a V700 also. For MF like your Rolleiflex, you can get amazing results, as much resolution as just about anyone needs. For 35mm, it's really sub-optimal, and I'd suggest you drop $300 on a dedicated 35mm scanner. I use a Canoscan, which is good, but they're getting on years, and you're probably better off with a brand new Plustek.
Garry
venchka
Veteran
Depth of Field Calculator. They are everywhere on the net. GOOGLE knows.
I disagree with most of the above. Epson Scan software is fine and FREE! I have an Epson from about 2000-2001. It scans everything from 35mm to 4x5. I could probably scan 8x10 if I made those negatives. It works just fine for prints from 5x7 to 16x20. Cost me $200. Most of that was shipping. Epson publishes new drivers for the latest operating systems. A HUGE plus. The latest v700-v750 might scan a little better. But they don't scan 4 4x5 negatives at a time. Nice feature of my relic scanner.
Scanned Kodachrome. Published in the LUG Yearbook. Leitz & Konica optics. Click the small picture for the full size version.
Wayne
I disagree with most of the above. Epson Scan software is fine and FREE! I have an Epson from about 2000-2001. It scans everything from 35mm to 4x5. I could probably scan 8x10 if I made those negatives. It works just fine for prints from 5x7 to 16x20. Cost me $200. Most of that was shipping. Epson publishes new drivers for the latest operating systems. A HUGE plus. The latest v700-v750 might scan a little better. But they don't scan 4 4x5 negatives at a time. Nice feature of my relic scanner.
Scanned Kodachrome. Published in the LUG Yearbook. Leitz & Konica optics. Click the small picture for the full size version.
Wayne
peewee
Established
There's so much valuable help here thankyou very much for your time, info and links..
I was a lazy digital shooter with a fluffy knowledge of the practical side of things, now more relevant in film photography especially as more time will given to producing results, in my case.
Very nice to see my picture transformed..
My scan settings have been way off..
If a 35mm dedicated scanner is quicker, less of a fiddle to load it may be a good option as after hours within heavy books my 35 negs are curved.
I'm very grateful.
Lucy
I was a lazy digital shooter with a fluffy knowledge of the practical side of things, now more relevant in film photography especially as more time will given to producing results, in my case.
Very nice to see my picture transformed..
My scan settings have been way off..
If a 35mm dedicated scanner is quicker, less of a fiddle to load it may be a good option as after hours within heavy books my 35 negs are curved.
I'm very grateful.
Lucy
elude
Some photographer
Hey,
It's alright to be a beginner. We're all helping each others here.
Scanners are tricky and so are the softwares.
Try not to meter the area outside the picture (the black part surrounding the picture), otherwise it will unbalance the contrast.
I use NikonScan but I guess that it's the same... (I hope I'm clear, my french is way better than my english
)