Fujica GL690 Scan

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
1:22 PM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,563
This is my first scan from a Fujica GL690 negative (Ilford XP2 Super). Is it any good?

Raid


danamf1.jpg
 
Nice picture from a nice rig, Raid.

Usually, I get more contrast from my XP2 negs, maybe you need to tweak your scanner software. Which scanner and software do you use?

Cheers,

Abbazz
 
Pete and Abbazz,
I am using an Epson 3170 Photo flatbed scanner with PS Limited software. I am also not satisfied with this scan.

Raid
 
Shutterflower: I am not an expert in scanning. I am sure this shows. I will play with this one scan until I get something better. It's good to know that you have used the same scanner.

Raid

danamf4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Raid, I've always found XP2 to have a lack of punch but a wider range. I think George has read your scan correctly. Have you made any adjustments for contrast in the scan. This could bring more 'out' of the shot. You might also try some Fuji or Kodak you will see differences obviously. Keep shooting that Fuji! I love 'em.

Right now mine is in for repairs on the transport and a CLA, I'm not unloading, I'm holding.
 
Jan: I have made all kind of changes. Maybe I should post the original untouched scan so that you can see how bad it looks.

Raid
 
Raid, did your lab do something and the neg itself didn't get all the definition possible? Does the scan look like the neg or can you tell. I'd try some Kodak C41 BW 400 ISO . I find it amazing for MF , I have images in my gallery from it. I just don't seem to like what I get from Ilford as much as Kodak or Fuji. Give them a try and see. It may not be the scanner.. thats all I can figure out from here.
 
Raid-
Nice picture, would make a good entry into the family album.
Here is a quickly adjusted version. I simply ran 'curves' on it with photoshop, adjusted tonality to my taste.
My experience with scanning has been mixed at best; invariably the output from the machine will be very different from a straight print on paper. I've just dealt with it via photoshop, maybe there's a better way.
That said, have you access to a wet darkroom? I've found the best way to scan B+W's is to make a good wet print and scan that with the flatbed, then adjust the scanner's output to look most like the wet print on screen. Time consuming and requires a dark room, but beautifully effective.
 

Attachments

  • danamf3.jpg
    danamf3.jpg
    243.4 KB · Views: 1
Bryce said:
Raid-
Nice picture, would make a good entry into the family album.
Here is a quickly adjusted version. I simply ran 'curves' on it with photoshop, adjusted tonality to my taste.
My experience with scanning has been mixed at best; invariably the output from the machine will be very different from a straight print on paper. I've just dealt with it via photoshop, maybe there's a better way.
That said, have you access to a wet darkroom? I've found the best way to scan B+W's is to make a good wet print and scan that with the flatbed, then adjust the scanner's output to look most like the wet print on screen. Time consuming and requires a dark room, but beautifully effective.
Click to expand...

Bryce,

Thanks for your efforts with the image. As for having access to a wet darkroom, I don't. Your suggested approach is rather costly, and I have just started again with MF on an economy "model" by asking only for developed negatives so that I can scan them.


Raid
 
jan normandale said:
Raid, did your lab do something and the neg itself didn't get all the definition possible? Does the scan look like the neg or can you tell. I'd try some Kodak C41 BW 400 ISO . I find it amazing for MF , I have images in my gallery from it. I just don't seem to like what I get from Ilford as much as Kodak or Fuji. Give them a try and see. It may not be the scanner.. thats all I can figure out from here.
Click to expand...


Jan: I will take another look this evening at the negatives. Maybe I can "see" something that sheds some light on the little problem. My XP2 scans from 35mm film look great.

Raid
 
Raid-
Don't underestimate your Fuji.
With a piece of film that size, image quality is guaranteed as long as you do your part and understand the limitations (depth of field...) that come with it.
 
Bryce: I have used this camera for about twenty years now. In the past, it has given me amazing transperancies when using Fujichrome 50 and 100. This is just the first scan.

Raid

edited: Here is another scan:

danamf6.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had two rolls of XP2 Super developed at the same time. The second roll was taken in a Graflex XLW. Same film. Same scanner. Maybe this helps to figure out why ....

graflexxlw1.jpg
 
Jan: Please translate into English please.
I have a carrier that I place in a fixed location,with the negative flat on the scanner.
What are Newton's Rings?

Raid
 
Raid, go to the second last image (you could go to the last) look closely at the section about 2.5cm up from the bottom in the centre of the frame. If you look closely the water seems to have a concentric series of rings ... those are newton rings from a glass plate touching your neg. Either it's in the carrier or on the surface of the scanner bed. This could be causing the scanner to read the neg incorrectly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom