how come my pictures look so bad ! ?

Juan Valdenebro said:
Every shot shows focused areas and sharpness: the limit was camera shake and selective focus.

Color is the biggest problem there: a part of it came from no filtering and slight underexposure, and another part came from scanning, which also limits sharpness....
Click to expand...

The color is less worrisome in my mind. A slow daylight film shot indoors? Yeah that's a recipe for bad color. Same with underexposure, particularly with Ektar.

However, I don't see where shooting a 35/1.2 somewhat wide open during the day should give you camera shake. Even at f/16 on a sunny day, an appropriate shutter speed would be 1/125, which is enough to get rid of camera shake (for the most part) at the image sizes shown here. It looks like he was opened up a lot more than that too.

Regardless, there's something seriously funky in my mind with the sharpness in these images. I do not see a GOOD plane of focus anywhere in any of the shots. Everything is pretty fuzzy. I'm guessing the scanner, but who knows. For $2 of film and 1 hr + $5 at the local target, he can shoot a test and take the scanner out of the equation. If that is good, then great.

What shutter speed were you using?
 
Until you are more confident in your technique, don't use a shutter speed slower than 1/60th, and don't use an f/stop larger (lower in number) than f/2.8. Check your meter against the meters of other cameras, either of friend's cameras or cameras at your local shop. When you have your negatives processed, spend the extra couple bucks to have a set of prints and low-res scans made. Then, before you look at the prints and scans the shop made, scan your negatives as best you can. Once you have done that, compare your scans to the prints and scans the store made.
 
I did not read all of the above posts, so I suspect others have already mentioned that it's hard to get really sharp scans of 35mm film with a flatbed scanner.

Did you have Costco print any frames?
 
When Scanning negative film, you almost always need to color balance.
In fact, with any method, C-print, or scanning you need to color balance.
You also need to adjust levels sharpen and other details when scanning.

I agree with the recommendation to use slide film. Slide film is less forgiving, so you will know if your exposure is off.

Also slide film will have the correct colors, so you have something to color balance against.
The downside is not everywhere can process slide film.

Try getting prints made at a 1 hour photo store. You will be able to tell immediately if your pictures are sharp or not.
 
Veloce said:
Also slide film will have the correct colors, so you have something to color balance against.
Click to expand...

Color correct your scanner, and you will at least get the same colors as are on the slide. I suppose this is only useful if your scanner software uses color profiles, but you can buy standardized transparencies, which come with a profile to compare a scan with. Usually with software to make a correct scanner profile.

I got this along with the scanner, but unfortunately don't remember the vendor.
 
degruyl said:
Color correct your scanner, and you will at least get the same colors as are on the slide. I suppose this is only useful if your scanner software uses color profiles, but you can buy standardized transparencies, which come with a profile to compare a scan with. Usually with software to make a correct scanner profile.

I got this along with the scanner, but unfortunately don't remember the vendor.
Click to expand...

We have a nikon supercool scan 9000. It has the correct profiles for the film I'm using, but the colors and levels are always off compared to a proper C-print with negative film. In order to achieve a simmilar look to the C-print, it seems you have to adjust the levels/curves quite a bit which is why the C-prints always seem punchier.

Scanning slide film will get results very close to the slide, but you end up having to color correct anyways to get the proper balance on an inkjet print.

The equipment does not belong to me, so I cannot tinker with the scanner settings too much.
 
I would try taking some photos in daylight with apertures between f2.8-f11. Also try sticking to subjects that dont move for the time being. If you get the same results then something is wrong with your equipment. If not then there is something wrong with the guy behind the camera. Like everyone else said I would take my time to make sure I am taking the best photos I can. Just because you got a Leica it doesn't mean you will become the best street, candit, low light shooter in a day. It takes practice and patience. Make sure you get some fresh film and also try another place to develop your film.
 
Veloce said:
We have a nikon supercool scan 9000. It has the correct profiles for the film I'm using, but the colors and levels are always off compared to a proper C-print with negative film. In order to achieve a simmilar look to the C-print, it seems you have to adjust the levels/curves quite a bit which is why the C-prints always seem punchier.

Scanning slide film will get results very close to the slide, but you end up having to color correct anyways to get the proper balance on an inkjet print.

The equipment does not belong to me, so I cannot tinker with the scanner settings too much.
Click to expand...

Negative film is a pain. I am slowly moving back to E-6, since I don't have a color darkroom.

Any color correction I do on scanned slides has been for aesthetic purposes, not so much to remove the cyan / magenta cast that is just plain wrong.

You are absolutely correct in your comments, although I suspect that something is not color corrected (profiled) in your workflow. You should have profiles for the scanner, monitor and printer, and you should look at the soft proofs to see what colors your computer thinks you will be getting when you print.

Inkjet does not have the same colors available as slides. Send it out for a cibachrome (ilfochrome) print, if you want to have your socks knocked off.
 
degruyl said:
Negative film is a pain. I am slowly moving back to E-6, since I don't have a color darkroom.

Any color correction I do on scanned slides has been for aesthetic purposes, not so much to remove the cyan / magenta cast that is just plain wrong.

You are absolutely correct in your comments, although I suspect that something is not color corrected (profiled) in your workflow. You should have profiles for the scanner, monitor and printer, and you should look at the soft proofs to see what colors your computer thinks you will be getting when you print.

Inkjet does not have the same colors available as slides. Send it out for a cibachrome (ilfochrome) print, if you want to have your socks knocked off.
Click to expand...

The scanning and printing are done on separate computers but I try to do the editing on the printing computer as it is calibrated to the printer. However I suspect that the profiles are not exact as the prints have slightly more yellow than the soft proofs.

I'll have to keep the cibachrome prints in mind when I have a slide that I like enough. The inkjet prints from slide film seem to have quite a bit more vibrant colors than the negative film, so I can't begin to imagine how a cibachrome print would look.
 
I bought the lens new, I think the owner of the store used it a few times though
Most shots are made 1/15 sec and faster
I think I know how to focus a rangefinder, I always try to find something high contrast, it really helps
I have a 200 iso roll inside the camera, I'll shoot it in day light at f/8 and infinity and see how the shots look like
I bought a hoya filter ND3 to shoot at 1.2 in daylight, I don't have any other filter yet, I'll consider cooling & warming filters later on

I did took some ok shots with it
3988946431_f2ec807a30_b.jpg

3988944009_2233275207_b.jpg

3989699818_f66d3c7013_b.jpg

3988942125_7875ab211b_b.jpg

3937593131_2f3ca2abd1_b.jpg

3938380368_d7f294322e_b.jpg

I think most of those were provia 160
 
Veloce said:
The scanning and printing are done on separate computers but I try to do the editing on the printing computer as it is calibrated to the printer. However I suspect that the profiles are not exact as the prints have slightly more yellow than the soft proofs.
Click to expand...

You could ask about when the profile was updated. I understand that color profiles on ink jet printers are something of a moving target, though.

Also, check that you are not crossing over the adobe RGB - sRGB line in either direction at any point, and make sure that the colorspace is listed in the final file. If photoshop asks to convert the file colorspace something could be very wrong.

I send my work out for printing, and have had both good and bad experiences in relation to the print matching the screen. I also print small until I am happy and then print large. That can be accomplished two ways: either a reduction or a crop. Either way, I always send the printing resolution and do not have the printer/printing computer play with the number of pixels.
 
Depth of field is definitely something you need to work on. It's a function of the working aperture. Those landscape shots look like they were taken at fairly wide apertures when they should have been taken (with the 35mm lens) around f/11. Look at your lens barrel. You've got DoF markings right there. For landscape, forget the focus patch for now: Set to f/11, set the infinity marker on the barrel to the far f/11 point, and shoot happily.

The indoor shots in the restaurant is where you might select wider apertures -- they look nicely composed and it's clear where you were focusing, although in the first one, focusing would be much easier for you if you stopped down just a bit more. The colour casts result from using daylight-balanced film under incandescent lighting and are totally acceptable in my opinion. If you want natural colours with indoor light, you need to switch to tungsten-balanced film, or move the subject closer to the window, or pop some fill-flash in there.

Scanning could be trouble, but you should start with the basics of getting nice DoF and focus before looking at the digitizing aspects.
 
It might be a good idea to waste a roll on something like a test chart. For instance:

http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

The relevant instructions start on page 13 of the pdf download. (The autofocus stuff is really not all that important to you). The only difference from the procedure shown is that you might want to take the picture in portrait layout, so the focusing is easier.

Use that, and a loupe or print, to determine if the problem is in the camera / lens combination or the scanner or the user.

Another thing you can do is shoot a brick wall at an angle, but picking the correct focus on a wall is non-trivial with a rangefinder. Maybe if there is writing or graffiti. Or you could tape a piece of paper to that wall, which would be easy to focus on, assuming you are far enough away that it does not take up the whole frame. You should be guaranteed to get something in focus with this test.
 
I kinda like the effect you're getting, although I accept it would get very very frustrating if you had to use it all the time
 
Some may be trying too hard to provide "the" single solution. Taking pot shots at each other isn't going to help a new person in the forums. Please, cool it in the thread, offer only help to the OP, and take care of anything else in PM's.

To the OP, from looking at your second set of photos, I don't think it is your camera. I think you need to work a little more on holding the camera steady, and on using a smaller f/stop and faster shutter speed. Are you familiar with those terms and how to apply them on your camera? As to the DoF, I will try to find some photos or take some this evening so you can see how to estimate DoF from you lens based on f/stop. Hang in there, it all gets easier as you go. We have all been where you are, and progressed. You will too.
 
Business as usual then! Someone asks for help and it turns into a slanging match. Come on guys, lets just help the man to figure it out so he's happy with his kit! Those last shots look better and I would say with regard to focus issues that just a little more practice would achieve more consistant results. As stated by myself earlier, I never managed to get on with my 1.4 and ended up using as an f2 summilux! As for colour, I get the same sometimes and as others have said, adjust in photoshop levels etc etc.
I would however shoot a test roll at 1.2 and 1.4 at closest focus just to see if your rangefinder is spot on.
 
I still think the easiest thing is to get some minilab scans. I looked at your flickr feed, and you've got some sharp photos in there, some even from this same setup. You have a shot looking up a tree. Was that a minilab scan or a home scan?
 
nobbylon said:
So I figured with a rangefinder, focusing is almost impossible in order to match the exact perfect focus in the mm thin DOf of a 35mm 1.2.
Then there is not point of having a 1.2 lens yet a 1.0 or even 0.95 lens, unless you have an M9 and can take tons of shots until the focus is dead on

that was my thought on using 1.4's, I sold mine in the end and much happier at f2.
Try another roll before you get disheartened though and try the lens at 1.4, 2 and 2.8
Click to expand...

sorry but i have to disagree with that, I used 50 Noctilux f/1 and 75summilux for 6 years and never experienced any problem. always right on target. (on m6, m6ttl and m7).


For the defocused boy:

use a tripod, focus your lens at infinity, open aperture, use speed 1/1000, use a finegrain film like delta 100 ot tmax and shoot!! if the image is still out of focus go change your lens.

IMO i think u dont know how to shoot! why, because ,you scanner seems fine WHY? because all the dust and scratches on your pics are fine. it seems there is a lot of shake in your image and wrong focus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom