Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #1Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Yogifi wrote:
Appreciate letting me know, thank you. Good to have expectations in check.
Too high resolution?That and the ultra smooth falloff. Getting a "vintage" bokeh type lens like the CV 55 or even 58 won't give you that.Okay thank you. Yes, I love it. Was hoping the 55mm f1.2 stopped down a little, but yeah it's ridiculously nice.Time to research an RZ67ii and 110mm 
Literally watching mr leica's review on it as we speak
I very nearly couldn't give that combo away...I ended up donating it to my local film lab for their medium format workshops.
RoamingScott wrote
Yogifi wrote
RoamingScott wrote
Yogifi wrote
RoamingScott wrote
The above is not a look you're going to get on a 35mm film camera any time soon.Too high resolution?
I very nearly couldn't give that combo away...I ended up donating it to my local film lab for their medium format workshops.
Nov 10, 2025 at 06:02 PM
p.3 #2Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Thanks, RoamingScott.
Nov 10, 2025 at 06:13 PM
p.3 #3Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
I got the FM2n a short while ago.
First thing I noticed - the camera is sexy! It's so much smaller than I thought and it looks brilliant!
It's cute sized! Was worried it was going to be closer to my Nikon D200 or something ridiculous.
Shutter sounds okay after a quick run through - not going to rely on 1/4000 though.
Metering seems okay, frame counter advances. No black fakey things from the light seals.
It's comparable in size to the x-e5, it's actually a little thinner.
I'll just stick with the 1.4 AFd for now, doesn't seem so bad to focus and kind of don't want to put a bigger lens on this little thing but let's see how it goes.
Really happy but just want to take a look at clearing the viewfinder, not sure if that's the mirror or it need some clean off a bit of dust and small hairs I see there. Maybe adding some rubber to the outside of the viewfinder or something like that.
Thank you everyone! Just waiting on the film as it came with batteries already although they put in LR44 instead of the silver oxide ones. Might pop into town and pick up some kodak gold.
First thing I noticed - the camera is sexy! It's so much smaller than I thought and it looks brilliant!
It's cute sized! Was worried it was going to be closer to my Nikon D200 or something ridiculous.
Shutter sounds okay after a quick run through - not going to rely on 1/4000 though.
Metering seems okay, frame counter advances. No black fakey things from the light seals.
It's comparable in size to the x-e5, it's actually a little thinner.
I'll just stick with the 1.4 AFd for now, doesn't seem so bad to focus and kind of don't want to put a bigger lens on this little thing but let's see how it goes.
Really happy but just want to take a look at clearing the viewfinder, not sure if that's the mirror or it need some clean off a bit of dust and small hairs I see there. Maybe adding some rubber to the outside of the viewfinder or something like that.
Thank you everyone! Just waiting on the film as it came with batteries already although they put in LR44 instead of the silver oxide ones. Might pop into town and pick up some kodak gold.
Nov 11, 2025 at 07:35 AM
p.3 #4Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Do NOT use alkaline batteries. They leak very very quickly. Get the silver oxide or lithium cells.
Nov 11, 2025 at 11:17 AM
p.3 #5Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Yogifi wrote:
I got the FM2n a short while ago.
First thing I noticed - the camera is sexy! It's so much smaller than I thought and it looks brilliant!
It's cute sized! Was worried it was going to be closer to my Nikon D200 or something ridiculous.
Shutter sounds okay after a quick run through - not going to rely on 1/4000 though.
Metering seems okay, frame counter advances. No black fakey things from the light seals.
It's comparable in size to the x-e5, it's actually a little thinner.
I'll just stick with the 1.4 AFd for now, doesn't seem so bad to focus and...Show more →
Congratulations! If you decide to move on from the 50D, have a look at either of the Zeiss 50/1.4, Nikon 50/1.2 or Voigtlander 40/2. All great lenses and a great pair with the FM2n.
Nov 11, 2025 at 11:47 AM
p.3 #6Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
I even really liked the v2 Nikon 50 1.8 Series E lens. Much better built than the first version.
Nov 11, 2025 at 01:50 PM
p.3 #7Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Desmolicious wrote:
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is...Show more →
I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is...Show more →
I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.
Nov 14, 2025 at 11:25 AM
p.3 #8Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
ottokbre wrote:
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.
I mostly use the CV 40 f2 on my F3. It’s just a super lens with silky smooth focusing. Being small is a bonus (that’s not what she said etc)
Desmolicious wrote
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.
I mostly use the CV 40 f2 on my F3. It’s just a super lens with silky smooth focusing. Being small is a bonus (that’s not what she said etc)
Nov 14, 2025 at 11:49 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #9Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
ottokbre wrote:
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.
You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard
Desmolicious wrote
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.
You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard
Nov 14, 2025 at 12:24 PM
p.3 #10Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
RoamingScott wrote:
You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard
They love to add scalloped brass despite that my favorite Nikon aesthetic era is Ais.
You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard
They love to add scalloped brass despite that my favorite Nikon aesthetic era is Ais.
Nov 14, 2025 at 01:26 PM
|
p.3 #11Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
RoamingScott wrote:
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard
Optically it is the exact same lens. They just made it bigger. And I get that from an aesthetic POV - it looks better balanced on an F3, F2 etc.
ottokbre wrote
Desmolicious wrote
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.
Optically it is the exact same lens. They just made it bigger. And I get that from an aesthetic POV - it looks better balanced on an F3, F2 etc.
Nov 14, 2025 at 02:26 PM
p.3 #12Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
ottokbre wrote:
They love to add scalloped brass despite that my favorite Nikon aesthetic era is Ais.
Who doesn't like a scalloped bra?
RoamingScott wrote
You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regardWho doesn't like a scalloped bra?
Nov 14, 2025 at 02:27 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #13Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
It’s not the exact same since you need a close focus filter with the old one to achieve the same MFD as the new one.
Desmolicious wrote:
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard Optically it is the exact same lens. They just made it bigger. And I get that from an aesthetic POV - it looks better balanced on an F3, F2 etc.
Desmolicious wrote:
RoamingScott wrote
ottokbre wrote
Desmolicious wrote
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.
Nov 14, 2025 at 02:33 PM
p.3 #14Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
RoamingScott wrote:
It’s not the exact same since you need a close focus filter with the old one to achieve the same MFD as the new one.
For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.I was going to post a thread about this very thing. Apart from the micro lenses I have never been happy with a Nikon 50 which is wild to me. The two on my list at the CV 40 and the old 50/2. Since no Nikon body I have is small I dont see the point in the CV 40. I've got Olympus OM for small.You are free to buy the chonkier newest CV40 that isn't small in any regard Optically it is the exact same lens. They just made it bigger. And I get that from an aesthetic POV - it looks better balanced on an F3, F2 etc.
It is the exact same lens from 30cm -> infinity….
It’s not the exact same since you need a close focus filter with the old one to achieve the same MFD as the new one.
Desmolicious wrote
RoamingScott wrote
ottokbre wrote
Desmolicious wrote
I own the 50 1.4 D AF, rhe 50 1.8g AF and the manual focus is terrible because the focus throw is so short, and frankly the very loose feel because they are meant to be used in AF. Also on the D lenses, the aperture rings are nasty to use with a plasticky stiction feeling.For my manual focus Nikon cameras I use the superb Voigtlander 40mm f2, the Nikon 45mm 2.8 AI-P, the Zeiss ZF 50 1.4 (great feel, results and size), the ZF 50 f2 MakroPlanar and the old 55 1.2.
As madNbad mentioned, the nikkor 50 f2 is a superb choice w the bonus of being cheap. I also like the 50 1.8 ‘long nose’ as the design recesses the front element giving it more protection and acting as a de facto lens hood.
The funny thing about this is if you went the Leica route, a Summicron 50 f2 is about $1k give or take, while a Nikon 50 f2 is under $100. And your pics will look the same.
It is the exact same lens from 30cm -> infinity….
Nov 14, 2025 at 10:20 PM
p.3 #15Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Thank you the recommendations all, I've been having fun with it.
Still haven't gotten the roll developed but I did get the lens diopter correction after doing an eye test
Not entirely sure I trust the light meter but let's see... I hear it's better to over-expose rather than under expose with film, sort of the opposite to the sony full-frame. But I'm not sure that matters unless you're developing it yourself ... ?
You know with the CV 40mm f2 lens, is it like the e-mount voigtlander lenses where infinity focus isn't at a hard stop?
I picked it up anyway but will be a while before it gets here, just wanting to avoid a surprise.
I like with my nikon 50mm f1.4 AFD, it's just straight to the hard stop, focussing has been okay with it. But I liked the size of the 40mm SL IIn and 40 would be nicer for single lens walkabout which is really what I want with this.
Considering the CV 55mm f1.2 as my film portrait lightweight setup but want to see how the 50mm f1.4 does first. Thinking just about 40mm for walkabout and 55 for the portraits and calling it a day.
Bit scared with the focus shift with the 55mm, I'm used to mirrorless. Does the FM2n focus wide open on the FM2n (with the split-type screen)?
Still haven't gotten the roll developed but I did get the lens diopter correction after doing an eye test
Not entirely sure I trust the light meter but let's see... I hear it's better to over-expose rather than under expose with film, sort of the opposite to the sony full-frame. But I'm not sure that matters unless you're developing it yourself ... ?
You know with the CV 40mm f2 lens, is it like the e-mount voigtlander lenses where infinity focus isn't at a hard stop?
I picked it up anyway but will be a while before it gets here, just wanting to avoid a surprise.
I like with my nikon 50mm f1.4 AFD, it's just straight to the hard stop, focussing has been okay with it. But I liked the size of the 40mm SL IIn and 40 would be nicer for single lens walkabout which is really what I want with this.
Considering the CV 55mm f1.2 as my film portrait lightweight setup but want to see how the 50mm f1.4 does first. Thinking just about 40mm for walkabout and 55 for the portraits and calling it a day.
Bit scared with the focus shift with the 55mm, I'm used to mirrorless. Does the FM2n focus wide open on the FM2n (with the split-type screen)?
Nov 19, 2025 at 12:27 PM
p.3 #16Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
The manual focus specific lenses have infinity hard stops.
And yes, the FM2n focuses wide open (as do almost all 'modern' film SLRs), they stop down to shooting aperture the moment you push the shutter button.
You can push in the DOF button to see how it looks stopped down which may help judge focus shift (if there is any) but the screen of course darkens.
I haven't found focus shift to be a big deal on film, as the resolution is not like a high MP digital sensor.
And yes, the FM2n focuses wide open (as do almost all 'modern' film SLRs), they stop down to shooting aperture the moment you push the shutter button.
You can push in the DOF button to see how it looks stopped down which may help judge focus shift (if there is any) but the screen of course darkens.
I haven't found focus shift to be a big deal on film, as the resolution is not like a high MP digital sensor.
Nov 19, 2025 at 01:48 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #17Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
I've not used a single nikon mount MF lens that had true infinity at the hard stop, you need to shoot Leica for that, or just 2 brain cells to back it off a smidge.
Nov 19, 2025 at 02:06 PM
p.3 #18Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Yogifi wrote:
I hear it's better to over-expose rather than under expose with film, sort of the opposite to the sony full-frame. But I'm not sure that matters unless you're developing it yourself ... ?
While digital is prone to lose the highlights, with film its the shadows. Lab or not, development can't recover them.
With digital you place your highlights somewhere say below +3 stops to be safe (depending on the camera), and recover the shadows in post.
With film you do a similar yet reverse process. Place your shadows that you want detail in somewhere -3 stops or higher (mostly depending on how honest the ISO rating is, and slightly on the developer formula) and deal with the highlights in development and post.
For this reason it is not uncommon to rate negative films at half the box ISO.
I hear it's better to over-expose rather than under expose with film, sort of the opposite to the sony full-frame. But I'm not sure that matters unless you're developing it yourself ... ?
While digital is prone to lose the highlights, with film its the shadows. Lab or not, development can't recover them.
With digital you place your highlights somewhere say below +3 stops to be safe (depending on the camera), and recover the shadows in post.
With film you do a similar yet reverse process. Place your shadows that you want detail in somewhere -3 stops or higher (mostly depending on how honest the ISO rating is, and slightly on the developer formula) and deal with the highlights in development and post.
For this reason it is not uncommon to rate negative films at half the box ISO.
Nov 19, 2025 at 04:35 PM
p.3 #19Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Yogifi wrote:
Thank you the recommendations all, I've been having fun with it.
Still haven't gotten the roll developed but I did get the lens diopter correction after doing an eye test
Not entirely sure I trust the light meter but let's see... I hear it's better to over-expose rather than under expose with film, sort of the opposite to the sony full-frame. But I'm not sure that matters unless you're developing it yourself ... ?
Worth noting that negative film handles overexposure better, reversal (slide) film is the opposite and behaves more like digital.
Thank you the recommendations all, I've been having fun with it.
Still haven't gotten the roll developed but I did get the lens diopter correction after doing an eye test
Not entirely sure I trust the light meter but let's see... I hear it's better to over-expose rather than under expose with film, sort of the opposite to the sony full-frame. But I'm not sure that matters unless you're developing it yourself ... ?
Worth noting that negative film handles overexposure better, reversal (slide) film is the opposite and behaves more like digital.
Nov 19, 2025 at 04:46 PM
p.3 #20Your thoughts on qualtiy+compact film camera vs x100vi/Fuji apsc digital
Thank you but if I overexpose by 2 stops so the shadows have detail, does the person developing the film have to do anything special to bring those highlights back?
If they just develop as normal, say it's an automatic machine... what brings the highlights back? Just after the scan I can bring it back in post, or I need to tell the dude, hey whenever you see overexposed highlights bring those back..
If they just develop as normal, say it's an automatic machine... what brings the highlights back? Just after the scan I can bring it back in post, or I need to tell the dude, hey whenever you see overexposed highlights bring those back..
Nov 19, 2025 at 05:22 PM