Tried a roll of XP2. The scans look terrible--yellow and green tint. I desaturated them in C1, but then they look okay but no character. So I went back and partially desaturated to leave a sepia tone look. Better, but I either need to find a different B&W film or another source for developing and scanning. I don't remember Kodak's C-41 B&W film looking this bad years ago when I used it.--Eric.
gel685 wrote:
Tried a roll of XP2. The scans look terrible--yellow and green tint. I desaturated them in C1, but then they look okay but no character. So I went back and partially desaturated to leave a sepia tone look. Better, but I either need to find a different B&W film or another source for developing and scanning. I don't remember Kodak's C-41 B&W film looking this bad years ago when I used it.--Eric.
Desmolicious wrote:
Who scanned these? I've never had this issue with XP2.
How were they converted from neg image to positive (if you scanned them)?
Developed and scanned at Mpix. I've always had good experiences with their prints. Four color rolls of Gold and Fuji 400 turned out alright, but with some blown highlights in the scans. That could be my fault. I haven't received the negatives back yet. I'll share more when I get them. Not sure where the problem is.
Huss, you make this one of the most welcoming corners of the internet. Thank you,--Eric.
lifeandmylens wrote:
Arca Swiss 4x5 + Zeiss 135 + Portra 160 (converted to bw due to terrible florescent lighting). Speaking of which, can someone recommend a bw film in 4x5 for me to try for situations like this?
Thats a great shot! Really nice.
I think if I wanted to shoot stuff like this in black & white I'd use Kodak Tri-X.
gel685 wrote:
Tried a roll of XP2. The scans look terrible--yellow and green tint. I desaturated them in C1, but then they look okay but no character. So I went back and partially desaturated to leave a sepia tone look. Better, but I either need to find a different B&W film or another source for developing and scanning. I don't remember Kodak's C-41 B&W film looking this bad years ago when I used it.--Eric.
That's how XP2 looks when scanned as colour film, not B&W. I've done it myself as an experiment since I saw that some people do this intentionally. It's possible they accidentally used the same scanner settings on it as the other C-41 films since it's developed in C-41. Most scanner software has a preset for XP2, because it's a unique film nowadays in that you can use digital ICE to clean the dust spots and hairs off the negatives, unlike any true B&W film, but it still needs to be rendered in B&W.
I think they just made a mistake with this roll; if you send it/bring it back to them they should re-scan with the normal settings for XP2.
Desmolicious wrote:
1st pic is so good! Iso 400 film?
I’d still get the Reto Pano @$35 over the Snapic at $100 but I love these shots!
Thanks, buddy. I shot one roll of Kodacolor 200 and one roll of 400, and I don't really know which is which. But I trust your more experienced eye. It's probably 400.
madNbad wrote:
Seems to work a lot better than the $500 Lomo MC-A and a whole lot better than the $300 LC-W!
Having used the Snapic A1 and MC-A back-to-back I prefer the MC-A but there's a lot to be said for the simplicity of the Snapic (and "instant" cameras in general).
deadwolfbones wrote:
Having used the Snapic A1 and MC-A back-to-back I prefer the MC-A but there's a lot to be said for the simplicity of the Snapic (and "instant" cameras in general).
Last month I bought a new LC-W from B&H. I was using it with a finder and about halfway through the first rolll the camera felt like it was jamming when advancing the film. Turned out to be the rewind lever was flopping around and wouldn’t stay latched in place and a piece of tape was necessary to keep it down. The camera also liked to over expose by two stops. It certainly didn’t feel like a three hundred dollar camera. If it had been a hundred dollar camera, I would have kept it. I returned it for a refund.
The Snapic is the right price.
gel685 wrote:
Developed and scanned at Mpix. I've always had good experiences with their prints. Four color rolls of Gold and Fuji 400 turned out alright, but with some blown highlights in the scans. That could be my fault. I haven't received the negatives back yet. I'll share more when I get them. Not sure where the problem is.
Huss, you make this one of the most welcoming corners of the internet. Thank you,--Eric.
Aww thanks!
But this is due to everyone here - there is no one-upmanship. We all use and welcome the use of anything film related!
It's a really fun group posting all sorts of stuff with some killer images on display.
W/re to your scans, neg film (B&W and colour) really holds onto highlights well so it may be a scanning issue. Unless the image is way overexposed or the contrast range is too crazy.
If you want, take a photo of one of your XP2 negs that you have shown the positive image of. Post it here unedited and we can copy and convert it to see what we make of it. That green color is just too weird for a simple B&W conversion.
madNbad wrote:
Did your LC-W come with a signed Quality Control card?
Asking for a friend.
This needs more than a ‘like’ button, too. Excellent.
(And please observe my restraint in not using the ‘s’ word. It’s only Wednesday, after all. I presume that thinking it is allowed, so long as one doesn’t say it out loud?)
gel685 wrote:
Tried a roll of XP2. The scans look terrible--yellow and green tint. I desaturated them in C1, but then they look okay but no character. So I went back and partially desaturated to leave a sepia tone look. Better, but I either need to find a different B&W film or another source for developing and scanning. I don't remember Kodak's C-41 B&W film looking this bad years ago when I used it.--Eric.
My bet is that these are a bit underexposed. Let us know how the negatives look when you get them. An easy way to tell if development is okay is to check that the markings along the borders have good contrast. If they're not faded/thin like the exposed area, development was fine.
This is a sample from the only roll of XP2 I've shot in recent years. It was just a backyard test roll for a new-to-me lens, so not a variety of situations, but it came out looking pretty much like any other B&W film. Just maybe less grain in the highlights.
