Yashica Lynx 5000e result: is this normal?

[eliemarga]

Hi, this is the example shot from the first roll of my Lynx 5000e, scanned using Epson V350 flat bed scanner... (no edit)

is this the problem of my Lynx or normal? I mean, the image kinda hazy here and there, or this is happen because of scanner?

My lynx lens is clear and there's no fog and fungus, but it has one problem the light seal which is very thin...some of the my shot is damaged by light leaks but I doubt that the problem in this image is caused by the light leaks, or is it? I decide the exposure using the internal lynx's meter

The above shot was taken inside the restaurant, I'm using Fuji Superia ISO 200 though...

 

[oftheherd]

My first thought is that you underexposed. ISO 200 inside a restaurant may not have had enough light. It is possible this was from scanning, but I doubt it. It doesn't look like a scanning problem, but an exposure problem. For inside a restaurant, especially with night time light, I would suggest ISO 400 or even better, ISO 800. You get better DOF that way, and better saturation, therefore better to compensate for lighting that isn't sun light. Also, you have the film in upside down. You should be able to just flip it in software. I seldom rescan when I do that.

 

[sevo]

What problem? The mirroring could be mended by scanning the film the other side up. The lousy colour, contrast and sharpness could be due to a combination of inept scanning and the cheap fluorescent lighting so popular in oriental shops. Or they might be caused by strong under- or overexposure, so check the meter and shutter accuracy!

Whatever there is wrong, it is no camera seal leak, a broken light seal would cause partial fogging or "ghosts" - bright white, yellow, red or blue areas to and beyond the borders of the images.

Tip: Do not try a new camera/lens and scanner/film/lab at the same time - always change one variable only.

 

[ZeissFan]

Always hard to say, because there are so many variables.

Does the camera have its original foam seals, or were they replaced?

Also, how did other photos on that roll look? Is the fog in the same location in each photo? If so, that would indicate a light leak (likely bad foam seals).

Looking at just one photo, it might be a combination of scanning, light leak and poor lighting. Or it might be a one-off -- that is, just an unusual occurrence that only affects one photo.

Any Japanese camera from 1985 or earlier should undergo replacement of the foam seals, no matter how good they might look.

 

[eliemarga]

no the light seal is at it's very thin based, or maybe just like you just said that I scanned it upside down, I'll try to scan it again and post it right away.

If it's the case of underexposed, there's a shoot where I shoot at a very bright condition (mid day) and the condition isn't much different, still has the haze and blueish

I'll try to rescan it again now 🙂

 

[eliemarga]

I did rescan it at the other side, no difference, just like oftheherd said that I can easily flipped that on the software but I'm just curious on doing rescan again and the result isn't much different, bellow I also attach another shoot from the same roll at mid day

 

[ZeissFan]

I think that the inside shot has a light source outside the right side of the photo. And it looks a bit like flare.

The second shot needs to be retoned.

Regardless, replace those foam seals.

 

[eliemarga]

I think that the inside shot has a light source outside the right side of the photo. And it looks a bit like flare.

The second shot needs to be retoned.

Regardless, replace those foam seals.

hmm...for the second shoot? any chance of over exposed? as second thought...I guess the problem might be light seal and the meter...

 

[sevo]

Both are horribly scanned - you really have to work on your scan practice first, perhaps with some known properly exposed negatives. Hence it is hard to tell what's going on there - if I adjust both to get rid of the most obvious scan/postprocessing errors, the restaurant image looks as if it had suffered poor lighting and flare, the other looks almost as if it had been lying about in the heat for a year or two.

 

[eliemarga]

Both are horribly scanned - you really have to work on your scan practice first, perhaps with some known properly exposed negatives. Hence it is hard to tell what's going on there - if I adjust both to get rid of the most obvious scan/postprocessing errors, the restaurant image looks as if it had suffered poor lighting and flare, the other looks almost as if it had been lying about in the heat for a year or two.

the second shoot has just taken 2 weeks ago...

hmmm talking about horrible scanning skills, well this is my first time 😀

...perhaps with some known properly exposed negatives. ....

what do you mean by this? hmmm, this is the first time I'm using negative (not the very first time tho) and this is the first time I work with negative, usually I shoot, and go to the shop for print...