Thanks, again. As I said previously, it is probably time to try the local
private lab once more. I got frustrated with some of his comments and
practices, but had no real concern with his processing to CD. I would like
to find a local solution, and don't really want to bother you guys with
anything except my questions, to which you always have informative answers.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: A Couple of Film Images
> On 1/26/2012 6:45 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Thanks, again, Moose. You have given me a lot of food for thought.
>>
>> This camera has an electronic shutter, and I am shooting in what they
>> term
>> "AE Mode", or aperture-preferred. In looking at the negatives, they all
>> seem to be properly exposed and of similar density, though they cover a
>> wide
>> variety of subjects and lighting conditions. The negatives for "friends"
>> and
>> "self-portrait" seem to be very similar.
>
> As the comments of a couple of others have confirmed my thought that
> underexposure, including dark parts of overall
> properly exposed images, brings up the grain, I would still experiment
> with greater exposure in situations without
> direct sunlight.
>
>> I see what you call "grain" in the reflection of the blade, but I had not
>> even noticed it.
>
> LOL! What would you call it?
>
>> In fact, I dusted off my light box and got out my loupe, and I can find
>> no
>> problem with the negatives. My judgement on the exposure compensation
>> was
>> based on the images on the CD, which appear lighter than normal. So, do
>> I
>> decrease the exposure, in order to get a darker CD? After all, that is
>> what
>> I work from in the long term, since I gave my old scanner to my son.
>
> As you have chosen a crippled scanning process, with which I am
> unfamiliar, I really don't know. As the scanner is part
> of the scan=>print cycle of an automated processor, it is almost certain
> that the brightness of the scans, and prints,
> If you were to order them, is automated.
>
> If so, greater exposure won't affect scan brightness at all. You aren't
> dealing with a black box with output
> proportional to input. But because the film is exposed differently, and
> possibly because the light through it is
> amplified less, the grain/noise may be different. Since long before
> digital, drug store film processing has had as a
> primary goal producing bright, colorful prints from film mis-exposed, both
> over and under, in simple cameras. I very
> much doubt if that has changed, other than getting 'smarter'.
>
> As an experiment, I once took the same film, exposed in the same camera in
> the same place, to two different places to be
> processed. At the drug store, I got Kodak processing that gave almost
> painfully bright colorful prints. Highlights and
> shadows were just gone. At the serious camera store, I got Kodak Royal
> processing, with far subtler, truer colors and
> contrast, and far more shadow and highlight detail. It was just an
> experiment, as I was going to scan any good frames
> myself anyway.
>
> You are still dealing with the same issues.
>
> There must be a competent, reasonably priced lab you could send the film
> to?
>
> Send a strip of film to AG, to run through his Nikon and one to me, for my
> Canon scanner. Then you can get some
> references to how the film actually performs and what scans should look
> like. Even if you don't do that, do try
> bracketed 'over exposures' on the Walgreen's machine. Hey, double up;
> shoot a test roll, run it through Walgreen's, then
> send a bit to each of us. :-)
>
> "There they stood, on the dusty main street of Deadwood, facing each other
> warily, the solid Midwesterner, the flake
> from the edge of the Continent, scanners at the ready ..."
>
>> ...
>>
>> Anyway, I'm trying to get my arms around all this. And, I may try to
>> locate
>> a source of Portra 400, which everyone seems to rave about.
>
> You still may have a less than ideal experience with the Walgreen's
> process/scans, but a better film may help. If you
> order form a smart place like B&H, etc. they will be sure to ship by some
> means other than USPS, to avoid ionizing
> radiation.
>
> Radiant Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|