Rhodes
Time Lord
Color photos with my jupiter 8. Kodak (can not remember, but possibly color photo plus) ISO 200. My light meter was set to ISO 100, forgot to set it to this film speed, but the photos come out brighter. I thought that should have come out darker.
Also, the scanner has spots in the glass, so the photos get with somethings that are not in the paper! Time for a new scanner!
This one (and the next 2) were taken in the universaty city of portugal, coimbra. On what we call it the old square. It was to get the detail of the gutters of the building. I think it was f11, speed 1/100.
The next 2 are from the S.Tiago (St. James) church.
This one was to show the cross, but now I see that I cut the main window.
The church door.
Now some that I have taken of my father dogs. Can' remember the aperture and speed.
Trying to get her, I manage to cut the head of the dog and the legs of her!
Still cuting the legs...
and the little one (the craziest of them all)!
Also, the scanner has spots in the glass, so the photos get with somethings that are not in the paper! Time for a new scanner!
This one (and the next 2) were taken in the universaty city of portugal, coimbra. On what we call it the old square. It was to get the detail of the gutters of the building. I think it was f11, speed 1/100.
The next 2 are from the S.Tiago (St. James) church.
This one was to show the cross, but now I see that I cut the main window.
The church door.
Now some that I have taken of my father dogs. Can' remember the aperture and speed.
Trying to get her, I manage to cut the head of the dog and the legs of her!
Still cuting the legs...
and the little one (the craziest of them all)!
Rhodes
Time Lord
Comments are welcome!
wallace
Well-known
Did you use a flatbed? The J8 should give you sharper results.
Thomas
Thomas
philipp.leser
Established
I'm not sure what happened here, but it must have been something awful. Did you use a really low-quality, maybe expired film? What scanner did you use?
jke
Well-known
I think he indicated that he shot 200ISO film at 100ISO without adjusting development and then scanned the prints (i.e. the paper) which are thus slightly over-exposed. That would account for softness and color shift.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
I think the over-exposure makes the images look a little "soft" and the colours muted - the lens should be picking up the detail though 
try some Reala or similar slow film
try some Reala or similar slow film
Rhodes
Time Lord
Sorry from the question, what is flatbed?Or what do you mean by that?
Low quality film, i don't know, it was the normal kodak 200 iso film that they have on the market, and it was not expired! My scanner is a HP scanjet 3570c.
The development was by a local photographer shop.
The photos look better on paper, I still don't know how to do proper scan and what size I should give the files to put here.
I have a few portrait to post also, but only the persons give me permitions to do so.
Low quality film, i don't know, it was the normal kodak 200 iso film that they have on the market, and it was not expired! My scanner is a HP scanjet 3570c.
The development was by a local photographer shop.
The photos look better on paper, I still don't know how to do proper scan and what size I should give the files to put here.
I have a few portrait to post also, but only the persons give me permitions to do so.
oscroft
Veteran
ISO 200 film is more sensitive and so needs less light for the same result. So if you shoot it at ISO 100 you give it twice the light it needs, and you get results that are too bright.
40oz
...
I'm sure they look better on the prints, but they're not bad here. The film was over-exposed by one stop, which isn't major with negatives even if it isn't ideal. But that and the slightly soft negatives from scanning are what triggers the "poor film" comments.
Different Kodak films look different. I am guessing these shots are Kodak Gold 200. I use Gold 100 for color, and yours look just like mine when I over-expose too much. Not bad, but there is something that looks better when exposed right.
Anyway, I like the shots. I've been to Porturgal, but not Coimbra, and the dogs are pretty
Different Kodak films look different. I am guessing these shots are Kodak Gold 200. I use Gold 100 for color, and yours look just like mine when I over-expose too much. Not bad, but there is something that looks better when exposed right.
Anyway, I like the shots. I've been to Porturgal, but not Coimbra, and the dogs are pretty
Rhodes
Time Lord
You're right oscroft, I was thinking the other way around! 40oz, I do not mind mind the "poor films" comments, since I want to learn how to get good resaults. The best of Coimbra would be the Universaty, the old town (uptown as we call it and downtown)!