Fujica GL690 Scan

Jan,
Yes, there is a plate that must cover the negative. Isn't this supposed to be like this? What can I do here?

Raid
 
Jan,

I went back and read the instructions for the scanner. It refers to the different holders as 35mm film/ 35mm negative/120ans 220 transparencies. There is no mentioning of 120 negatives. Do they mean that "transparencies" also covers the negatives ?

Is this the problem?

Raid
 
This could be part of your problem but not all of it. The rest seems to be issuing from the negative . Read up your scanners capabilities and you should be able to do something to improve the image in the software they provided with the scanner.
 
Lovely shots with that GSW on your linked site, Jens! Even wide open in low light. Now I'm wishing a bit that mine had the 65mm rather than 90mm... :)
 
raid, at what resolution are you scanning? And what bit depth?
It's usually best to scan at higher resolution than your final size would be. Like, these images look like 900x600 pixels... so e.g. you could scan at a resolution giving you 1800x1200 pixels and downsize to 50% in the software you use for postprocessing.
On the bit depth: If possible scan in 16-bit grayscale (or 48-bit colour if it is colour) and do the postprocessing in 16-bit grayscale, NOT 8-bit. Gives smoother transitions between the graytones. I get the idea that you scan/process in 8-bit from the higher contrast images you show.
 
toyotadesigner, thanks for the link . I'm more interested in your last BW shot of the doors to the "Parlament" it's surprisingly free of perspective distortion. Which fuji lens did you use? The 65, 100,150? Or did you do a perspective correction in PS?

These cameras are wonderful. I should use mine more, however it is a 'commitment' to haul it around and it's lenses for an afternoon. I've done it and by day's end... my shoulder is ready for a rest.
 
Pherdinand said:
raid, at what resolution are you scanning? And what bit depth?
It's usually best to scan at higher resolution than your final size would be. Like, these images look like 900x600 pixels... so e.g. you could scan at a resolution giving you 1800x1200 pixels and downsize to 50% in the software you use for postprocessing.
On the bit depth: If possible scan in 16-bit grayscale (or 48-bit colour if it is colour) and do the postprocessing in 16-bit grayscale, NOT 8-bit. Gives smoother transitions between the graytones. I get the idea that you scan/process in 8-bit from the higher contrast images you show.
Click to expand...

Pherdinand: Thanks for the useful tips. I will try them out. I may have "chosen"whatever the scanner was set for.

Raid
 
Raid: I am certainly no expert on scanning, but aside from the questions about the resulting tonal scale, did you do any sharpening on the sample scans? They look soft to me. Maybe that's just the way the negs are due to handholding or slight subject movement.

Jens: Those shots are wonderful! It is SO hard not to love Tri-X. So I don't try. ;)

Earl
 
I used to have with me in my trips to the American Southwest the Fujica BL690 plus a Rolleilfex 2.8D TLR for standard photography, in addition to a Graflex XLW wide angle camera. The transparencies from the Fuji stunned me.I used to think that there is no camera with sharper lens than the Rolleiflex TLR,but seeing images taken with the Fuji showed me differently.

When I have a heavy camera, I usually joke that it is great for thorwing at a burglar in self defense, but the Fuji would be too heavy for that!

Raid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom