2wenty
Well-known
I'm hoping someone might be able to help.
I just bought a mint black T3 off of ebay. I just got frist roll developed and I'm highly disappointed. I shot a new roll of Kodak Portra 400. None of the photos were sharp and moslty looked under exposed. Which is weird since I know portra 400 has a lot of wiggle room. Even a photo that was taken in bright day light looked under exposed and no where in the photo did it look sharp. Could there be a problem with the lens? Could this be bad developing? Even the roll of portra 800 I put through my gr1v looked underexposed and I know that camera shoots well. Both the roll from the t3 and the grv1 were developed at the same time.
I just bought a mint black T3 off of ebay. I just got frist roll developed and I'm highly disappointed. I shot a new roll of Kodak Portra 400. None of the photos were sharp and moslty looked under exposed. Which is weird since I know portra 400 has a lot of wiggle room. Even a photo that was taken in bright day light looked under exposed and no where in the photo did it look sharp. Could there be a problem with the lens? Could this be bad developing? Even the roll of portra 800 I put through my gr1v looked underexposed and I know that camera shoots well. Both the roll from the t3 and the grv1 were developed at the same time.
Maiku
Maiku
If the photos look out of focus perhaps the camera`s auto-focus is not functioning correctly. I returned a Contax G2. When I realized the camera was improperly focusing from 12 meters to infinity I understood why my photos were not sharp. You can check the Contax G2 focus distance in the viewfinder and on a digital read-out on the top of the camera to the left-hand side. Perhaps you can do the same with the Contax T3 to confirm focus is accurate.
2wenty
Well-known
The distance seem to read accurate on the display. Ill check it against my g1. Ill up load a photo. I mean the shoots are in focus for the most part just not sharp at all. I can find the focus in shallow dof it's just not sharp.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I think you've answered your own question. Given those facts the developing would have to be the primary suspect.
...Mike
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Sorry about your problems. It would be sensible to go back and tell the seller that it isn't performing as you'd expect but you'll put another film through it (and go to another lab?) to double check. They, ebay, look after their buyers, so things should turn out for the best. Please let us know how it gets resolved.
Regards, David
Sorry about your problems. It would be sensible to go back and tell the seller that it isn't performing as you'd expect but you'll put another film through it (and go to another lab?) to double check. They, ebay, look after their buyers, so things should turn out for the best. Please let us know how it gets resolved.
Regards, David
Lflex
Lflex
Expired - removed
2wenty
Well-known
Ill upload some photos so you can see what I'm taking about. I shoot a lot of portra 400 and its never comes out like this.
2wenty
Well-known
Here are some samples. Keep in mind they aren't the greatest photos. I was just burning through film to see if the camera worked. Also, the last photos on the roll shows a blue scratch across the middle of the shots. Dont know if this is the camera or developing/scanning. I just know that this camera has to be better than this. The shots look really grainy to me which I have yet to experience with new portra 400. I wonder if it could be noise from scanning. I have developed about 12 rolls at this place and so far everything has been good until now.
This was taken in bright sun.
5046000_5046000-R1-007-2 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
5046000_5046000-R1-015-6 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
You can see the black table looks noisy and grainy. It was well lit.
5046000_5046000-R1-019-8 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
This was taken in bright sun.
5046000_5046000-R1-007-2 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
5046000_5046000-R1-015-6 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
You can see the black table looks noisy and grainy. It was well lit.
5046000_5046000-R1-019-8 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
2wenty
Well-known
The bottom long exposure shows a scratch across the middle and also looks like crap too. Look how much grain or noise is in the last shot. Most of my shooting is long exposure with a bunch of different cameras and portra 400. I never get noise or grain like this.
5046000_5046000-R1-039-18 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
Was taken on a tripod.
5046000_5046000-R1-055-26 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
5046000_5046000-R1-039-18 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
Was taken on a tripod.
5046000_5046000-R1-055-26 by Art by 2wenty, on Flickr
2wenty
Well-known
Im working on shooting another roll. New Portra 160. Hoping those shots have nothing to do with the camera. They look just awful. I have a contax g1 so I have a fairly good idea how the photos should come out and this doesn't seem right. I also tested the Auto focus on the t3 against my g1 and they read the same distance. So it doesn't seem like its missing focus.
burancap
Veteran
That "scratch" looks electronic. Bad scans?
Have you louped the negatives?
Have you louped the negatives?
2wenty
Well-known
I dont have loupe. Im still new to film (been shooting it lens than a year). Still trying to figure things out as I run across them. I guess Ill buy a loupe. Im hoping its not the camera and just crap developing or scanning.
I think Im going to change the place I get my film developed to a pro place and just buy myself a scanner.
If you guys had to guess would you think its the camera or processing and or scanning?
I think Im going to change the place I get my film developed to a pro place and just buy myself a scanner.
If you guys had to guess would you think its the camera or processing and or scanning?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Have you thought about getting a decent (say 8" x 10" or bigger) print from some of the negatives? The table one and the fridge one f'instance? But get them done by a different lab, even if it costs serious money.
Or use slide film but that means a projector and screen and good lenses for them are expensive. Although Leica projectors turn up cheaply on ebay from time to time. Often the acid test is a slide because it will have been processed by the makers or else a lab checked by the makers.
Regards, David
PS the fridge one was probably done with the lens wide open and so might not show the lens at its best.
Have you thought about getting a decent (say 8" x 10" or bigger) print from some of the negatives? The table one and the fridge one f'instance? But get them done by a different lab, even if it costs serious money.
Or use slide film but that means a projector and screen and good lenses for them are expensive. Although Leica projectors turn up cheaply on ebay from time to time. Often the acid test is a slide because it will have been processed by the makers or else a lab checked by the makers.
Regards, David
PS the fridge one was probably done with the lens wide open and so might not show the lens at its best.
j j
Well-known
The photos look to me like they were not flat in the scanner. They look to be in focus yet not sharp (if that makes sense).
Grain is often a sign of bad scanning. I think what has happened with the storm picture is the scanner looking to bring up detail where there is none; you wanted it dark and the scanner tried to make it light. I agree burancap that the blue line looks electronic. I have had plenty of scratches but I have never noticed a clean and tightly defined blue scratch in my own pics.
If it is convenient for you I would ask them to rescan.
Grain is often a sign of bad scanning. I think what has happened with the storm picture is the scanner looking to bring up detail where there is none; you wanted it dark and the scanner tried to make it light. I agree burancap that the blue line looks electronic. I have had plenty of scratches but I have never noticed a clean and tightly defined blue scratch in my own pics.
If it is convenient for you I would ask them to rescan.
2wenty
Well-known
New roll being developed at a pro lab. Will have results on Thursday.
Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, i can see your camera is OK, there are a few shots that are not steady and this might look not sharp.
The best resutls i culd get from the t3 were shooting ilford xp2 i was never impressed shooting colour film, so left it very soon.
Anyway the best performance of the sonnar 35mm is not 2.8, so try using 4 or 5.6
Check these ones, all at a fast speed and below 5.6 as i recall.
As i´m writing this answer i remember i had to learn a little to hold it...
The best resutls i culd get from the t3 were shooting ilford xp2 i was never impressed shooting colour film, so left it very soon.
Anyway the best performance of the sonnar 35mm is not 2.8, so try using 4 or 5.6
Check these ones, all at a fast speed and below 5.6 as i recall.
As i´m writing this answer i remember i had to learn a little to hold it...
David_Manning
Well-known
It looks like bad scanning.
Here's what T3 shots with any film should look like with a decent scan, any aperture:
Here's what T3 shots with any film should look like with a decent scan, any aperture:
awilder
Alan Wilder
David's post is correct, the camera is capable of producing amazingly sharp images, the best of any Contax T series and easily the equal of any high end 35 from Leica or Zeiss. The OP shots don't really look out of focus, just a poor choice of film that doesn't take advantage of the camera's IQ. To do a good test, shoot using fine grain 100 ISO film on a tripod and examine the negs with a 10x Hastings magnifier or loupe (can be purchased from any decent jewelry store).
2wenty
Well-known
Thanks. That's what I was expecting. I've been looking at picture galleries from this camera for a long time. I'm excited to see how the results are tomorrow. I shot portra 160 so there really shouldn't be much grain.
David_Manning
Well-known
Grain might be exaggerated by the default sharpening used by the scanner. I'd make sure the negatives (NOT the scans) look properly exposed.
Here's another idea...google and download a T3 owners manual (I have a copy if you don't...email me) and make sure the previous owner hasn't dialed in -2EV or something easy and silly. If everything you shoot looks underexposed, muddy, and the negatives are thin, I'd try that before returning the camera.
One last thing...make sure there is nothing on the ISO sensors inside the back, where the film canister loads. You can trick the system to underexpose and "push" film using methods like covering certain contacts with tape.
Let us know what you find out.
Here's another idea...google and download a T3 owners manual (I have a copy if you don't...email me) and make sure the previous owner hasn't dialed in -2EV or something easy and silly. If everything you shoot looks underexposed, muddy, and the negatives are thin, I'd try that before returning the camera.
One last thing...make sure there is nothing on the ISO sensors inside the back, where the film canister loads. You can trick the system to underexpose and "push" film using methods like covering certain contacts with tape.
Let us know what you find out.