pburke
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Zichar wrote:
I only have good comments for the 35/2 AI ... but then again I was looking at corner sharpness and least distortion
>
Peter, I send it to a guy I found on a local forum. I mail him my negs (he used to develop too but his day job caught up with him unfortunately), he scans, removes dust and hair, then uploads into google drive. I get the link, transfer him the money and he sends my negs back to me.
Not really sure the specifics of what he does (seems rather knowledgeable on the forums that's why I went with him). Says on the exif that he use a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED?
The files comes back flat and a bit overexposed though I posit that I may have done it myself (I'm always on matrix with my D700 so I'm not used to the 60/40 meter on the FE2. I compensate with -1/3EV ... if I remember). Am very much a newbie with film.
But after all that's said and done, I like the way the files are flat and low contrast. I find them to be much more pliable for processing. Possibly because I tend to shoot scenes of a certain shadowed variety. And the benefits of memory, I can still bring back in my mind's eye the image I pre-visualized before I triggered the shutter.
as long as the full tonal range is in there, flat is ok. I did some additional searching and found out that I need to scan a strip of unexposed negative strip, and then lock the scanner's exposure on that value (=solid black defined). That seems to work better than my original method that used built-in film profiles. I did the processing of that film myself, which means they are all somewhat different. The 9000ED is very similar to my scanner, and shouldn't be the reason for the negs to be any better. It is all about the settings in the software.
I'll post a few of my recent scans later today - all heavily adjusted in curves, but I don't go as far as burning and dodging yet.
Peter
|
). 
