Tina Kino wrote:
Dang, do you know what they're scanning with?
They sure do have a nice machine (and a skilled / motivated operator) - those colors look really really nice 👍
(and some cool shots in the first place! the phone booth one is my favourite)
Thanks I appreciate the compliments!
So the first image in that set is from Bedford Camera, their website doesn't mention what they use so I called and asked, I was curious too, after getting sent to someone that works in the lab, they said it was a Fuji scanner. I asked what model it was since "Fuji" seemed a bit vague to me. They put me on hold and after 15m I gave up. Both people I talked to there seemed very confused on why I'd even be asking. It was kind of odd. The image files have no EXIF data.
The other 3 images were from Aperture's Photo and on their website it says they use a Noritsu V30 and the files I get from them have "NORITSU KOKI" in the EXIF data for the camera.
I am working to get a home scanning setup going, I hope I can do at least as good as they're doing, maybe better if I'm lucky.
Bruce Marriner wrote:
So the first image in that set is from Bedford Camera, their website doesn't mention what they use so I called and asked, I was curious too, after getting sent to someone that works in the lab, they said it was a Fuji scanner. I asked what model it was since "Fuji" seemed a bit vague to me. They put me on hold and after 15m I gave up. Both people I talked to there seemed very confused on why I'd even be asking. It was kind of odd. The image files have no EXIF data.
The other 3 images were from Aperture's Photo and on their website it says they use a Noritsu V30 and the files I get from them have "NORITSU KOKI" in the EXIF data for the camera.
..thank you for checking with your labs, I appreciate it!
The Fuji at Bedford Camera is most likely one of the "Frontier" models (pretty much the industry standard from Fuji), although usually those note someling like "SP-3000" in the EXIF.
I am working to get a home scanning setup going, I hope I can do at least as good as they're doing, maybe better if I'm lucky.
..I wish you luck! Not saying it can't be done, but truth be told the vast majority of people I know are finding that getting proper colors from color negative film consistently really is a pain in the ass.
If I had a lab that gave me results like yours on a regular basis, for an ok price, I'd be happy to pay it instead of scanning myself.
Tina Kino wrote:
..I wish you luck! Not saying it can't be done, but truth be told the vast majority of people I know are finding that getting proper colors from color negative film consistently really is a pain in the ass.
If I had a lab that gave me results like yours on a regular basis, for an ok price, I'd be happy to pay it instead of scanning myself.
I hope it works out! Paying for the lab scans isn't terrible but it sure adds up quickly and since I already have some great digital cameras I thought, why not give it a try. Plus, I feel like it'll be fun to at least explore the idea a bit.
Bruce Marriner wrote:
I hope it works out! Paying for the lab scans isn't terrible but it sure adds up quickly and since I already have some great digital cameras I thought, why not give it a try. Plus, I feel like it'll be fun to at least explore the idea a bit.
Try Negative Lab Pro (especially using Roll Analysis) - it’s a game changer.
corposant wrote:
Try Negative Lab Pro (especially using Roll Analysis) - it’s a game changer.
I'll look into that too, but I plan to start of trying to work with Capture One's new negative film conversion workflow they added recently - since I'm already using C1 for everything else.
Bruce Marriner wrote:
I hope it works out! Paying for the lab scans isn't terrible but it sure adds up quickly and since I already have some great digital cameras I thought, why not give it a try. Plus, I feel like it'll be fun to at least explore the idea a bit.
Those scans from your labs are really good, though, much nicer than the ones from my lab that uses the same two scanners (Fuji Frontier and Noritsu). My lab does "flat" scans on purpose, though, to give customers as much leeway as possible for adjusting contrast and colours to taste in post. The scans you posted look more finished to me; maybe they did a bit of work on them. I always order the lowest-resolution JPEGs as they are cheap ($5 CAD per roll) and usually work well enough for my purposes; if I ever need higher resolution scans I can do them myself at home.
I had the Plymouth Satellite version of that car. The 400 ci engine was shot - so i dropped in a souped up 383 from 1967 Chrysler Newport. Bored 60 thousandths out of each cylinder, domed pistons, high compression rings, dual 4 barrel Hoily carburetors. etc - When you punched it you could literally watch the gas gauge go down on the 20+ gallon tank. Put 100k on the rebuild and sold it for $40 to a kid.
EDIT: Meant 100k miles on the rebuild. The context implied something else.
James Markus wrote:
I had the Plymouth Satellite version of that car. The 400 ci engine was shot - so i dropped in a souped up 383 from 1967 Chrysler Newport. Bored 60 thousandths out of each cylinder, domed pistons, high compression rings, dual 4 barrel Hoily carburetors. etc - When you punched it you could literally watch the gas gauge go down on the 20+ gallon tank. Put 100k on the rebuild and sold it for $40 to a kid.
Unfortunately, I don't think this one is running anymore... I stumbled upon the dodge on a bit of a photo walk and it was looking pretty neglected... But what a sweet looking ride.
Bruce Marriner wrote:
For what it's worth, I like the photos.
lol…thanks. I just struggle so much with film, but it doesn’t help that I don’t develop and rely on labs for scanning. I don’t shoot enough and don’t have the time to do film right. I feel my comps on film aren’t anywhere they should be and I don’t have the freedom like I do in a 60mp file. Without a doubt skill issue
rsolti13 wrote:
lol…thanks. I just struggle so much with film, but it doesn’t help that I don’t develop and rely on labs for scanning. I don’t shoot enough and don’t have the time to do film right. I feel my comps on film aren’t anywhere they should be and I don’t have the freedom like I do in a 60mp file. Without a doubt skill issue
Honestly, those first three are lighting nightmares. Film just doesn’t have the dynamic range of digital. Considering that - I thought you did well to get what you did. It isn't skill or the lab - it is the media - imo
If the file name is any indication of the scanner that was used, then the lab used an X3 which has a very high dynamic range. If you do not set your black and white points, then the files will look flat. A simple auto-level will make some of these pop.
Edit: I hope you do not mind my edit, and please keep in mind that I was working off a jpg.
theHUN wrote:
If the file name is any indication of the scanner that was used, then the lab used an X3 which has a very high dynamic range. If you do not set your black and white points, then the files will look flat. A simple auto-level will make some of these pop.
Edit: I hope you do not mind my edit, and please keep in mind that I was working off a jpg.
I don’t mind, I do like the levels/higher contrast. Unfortunately this time I thought I possibly screwed up the entire roll because I opened the back thinking I was done rewinding…when I wasn’t. Didn’t want to spend the extra for the tiffs thinking it was trash, but I only lost 5/6 photos lol. All part of learning, but damn film can be frustrating. I will admit, some of my prior results make me think its all worth it and that’s why I keep trying
I appreciate the compliments!
