Frustrated newbie - what am I doing wrong? [Archive]

alfisti

03-11-2011, 19:08

Hi folks. I have determined to "learn film" since I started my photography journey in the digital realm, and I feel like I started in the middle. I am hoping that shooting film can broaden my perspective and make me think more about lighting and contrast.

First, a sample of my "old" work, 5D, 50mm... http://images114.fotki.com/v145/photos/8/242648/9573356/LeavesIMG_1447-vi.jpg http://images114.fotki.com/v145/photos/8/242648/9573356/LeavesIMG_1447-vi.jpg
I show this as an example of what I think a "good" shot is, meaning (in this case) good detail, the eyes are sharp, and I got the exposure I wanted.

So what's the problem? Well, with film, I'm a MESS. Let me start with the equipment:
- Canonet GLIII QL17. Had it for roughly a year, never warmed up to it though ... the rangefinder patch is dim enough I missed focus so much it just wasn't useful to me
-Newly aquired FED-5. Who knows if it's perfect or completely out of whack, or somewhere in between. I adjusted the rangefinder myself (Danger Will Robinson!) and I THINK it's accurate...
-Film is almost exclusively Ilford HP5+ 400. I decided to be consistent with the film to maximize lessons learned. This is the film I picked.
-CanoScan 4200F - to scan the negatives

So on to 2 samples from the FED-5, Industar 61 (53mm, 2.8), and what my frustrations are.

http://images54.fotki.com/v461/photos/8/242648/9573356/Scan20072-vi.jpg

This shot was in broad daylight. Maybe slightly overcast. I am going to guess and say, 1/500th and F/4. Developed in DD-X 1+4 for 7 minutes. This is what I consider to be one of the BEST I've gotten. I shot the roll with (if I'm using the term correctly) a rated ISO of 200. I wanted to tone down the contrast and see if I could get some detail.

Second sample from FED.

http://images107.fotki.com/v84/photos/8/242648/9573356/Scan20081-vi.jpg

For this one, I shot the roll at a rated ISO of 800. I wish I'd written down the exposure settings (what can I say, raised on digital). I think it was something like 1/60th and certainly wide open at 2.8.

To my eye, the detail simply isn't there. I've got stopped down outdoor shots (i.e. f/11 or f/16) with the FED and with this film, the results don't look much different.

Is this merely the amount of detail to be expected from a small-format, B&W film exposed and developed in this manner, or am I doing something wrong?

Sample 2 (the cat, Cookie) actually looks sharp where I want it to be - but barely so. The shot of my daughter on the other hand... doesn't. And I'd expect the DOF to cover any minor focusing error (which is possible).

In looking at these shots, does anything jump out to anyone as to how I can improve, or are these actually not bad?

I'm doing this to learn, but to be honest, some of the shots I've seen posted (er, most of them?) look very sharp to me, and would compete with the digital resutls I get. These don't. It makes me think I must be doing something wrong (which wouldn't surprise me) or the weak link is the equipment (which is also highly possible, but I don't want to blame the equipment before I'm sure it's not my process/technique).

Ideas?

Thanks all!
-Glenn

pbo

03-11-2011, 19:19

Hi Glenn, two suggestions:

1) For dim rangefinder, check this out: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html . Doesn't make rangefinder brighter, but helps with focusing and costs almost nothing.

2) Flatbed scanner results usually turn out pretty soft - but detail should be there, you just have to sharpen the scan to get it... You have to figure out good USM settings for the film and dpi you're scanning at.

That's all I've got, hope it helps!

typhillips

03-11-2011, 19:24

The first shot looks soft, possibly due to focus error or camera shake. The second seems sharp enough.

As pbo said above, you are not going to be able to achieve the same sharpness that you're used to on a digital SLR by scanning 35mm film with a flatbed... not even close. Sharpening does help, though. I sharpen my 6x6 and 6x4.5 flatbed scans pretty significantly. OTOH, my 35mm film scanner scans barely need it.

Krosya

03-11-2011, 19:29

alfisti

03-11-2011, 19:31

thanks to both of you. I might look into a better film scanner, but that woudl depend on how much I decide to shoot film in the future. For now I've got 10 more rolls to burn through.

And regarding the shot of my daughter - I dunno, at 1/500th of a second, I'd be surprised if it were camera shake. But I guess it's possible.

Thanks

alfisti

03-11-2011, 19:34

Krosya, you are making sense - but my logic is it SEEMS that the I-61 lens is generally regarded to be very good, and it's the lens that's doing the heavy lifting here (I think).

In any case, the thought has occurred to me :-)

Thanks
-Glenn

typhillips

03-11-2011, 19:38

I have no personal experience with the I-61, but from what I've read of it, I doubt this is the weak link in your system. That would definitely be the scanner.

I wonder if it's possible there is some focus shift going on with that camera/lens combo? That might explain the in focus cat photo and out of focus photo of your daughter.

pbo

03-11-2011, 19:39

I might look into a better film scanner, but that woudl depend on how much I decide to shoot film in the future. For now I've got 10 more rolls to burn through.

Don't think you need to invest in a new film scanner right now - since you don't really have that much film left, you might as well try to "figure out" your scanner. It certainly took quite a bit of time for me to make my Epson 4490 work as I wanted it to - still not fully satisfied, but good enough... for now. After that, you will have a better idea whether to keep shooting film.

Creagerj

03-11-2011, 19:42

What I am going to say may shock you, but RF's are very difficult to work with. No internal metering, no aperture priority or AF (both very useful IMO). To make matters worse you can't actually see the image as it will look on the frame, and of course there is parallax error.

On to your photos. The shot of your daughter is in focus, just not where you want it. It looks to me like her jacket is in focus and her face is slightly soft. The cat seems fine. With a little post processing your could help this photo a lot.

The photo you took with your DSLR looks like it has been sharpened, so that may part of the deal with the discrepancy you are seeing. I'm pretty sure that when you shoot jpeg mode your digi auto sharpens along with a lot of other adjustments.

My advice is to not shoot BW, try fuji supera 400. Its dirt cheap and very nice. HP5, although it is my favorite film, is very contrasty. Its for composition minded, not detail minded. Both of your photos lack compelling composition, which is why they pale in comparison to your digi shot that you have shared.

Also, it looks like you are showing your best digi work along side your first attempt at BW. BW and color are two different animals, like apples and oranges. Digital is a banana or an avocado. The three can't be compared in a tactile sense. In a technical sense sure, but they all have different emotions.

You just haven't hit your groove yet. If you really want to shoot film, don't screw with RFs, especially not cheap ones. Get an EOS body and shoot film, you'll be happy with what you get. An Elan II goes for nothing these days.

Shooting film and working with RFs are two completely different arts. You just don't have a lot of experience with either. Give it time and you will learn to love the results you get. Its not like Michael Jordan could slam dunk the first time he picked up a basketball.

Keith

03-11-2011, 19:42

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself ... that photo of your daughter looks fine to me with a little sharpening applied.

andredossantos

03-11-2011, 19:52

Re: The I-61. The Russian lenses can deliver nice quality IF you get a good copy. The quality control was spotty back in the USSR!

You don't have to buy a crazy expensive lens but perhaps grab a Voigtlander. The 50mm Color Skopar can be had relatively cheaply and is very sharp. You can test it out vs the I-61 and always sell it for no loss later on.

Richard G

03-11-2011, 19:53

Keep at it, and I agree that you should not rush to a better scanner. I get superb results from a flatbed with B&W, admittedly the Epson V700. Good advice regarding Superia too. Makes life much easier.

aad

03-11-2011, 20:19

A little unsharp mask would fix a world of problems. Even a film scanner can use some help. Try this before spending any money on equipment.

alfisti

03-11-2011, 20:45

Thanks, everyone.

typhillips - interesting you mention focus shift. I didn't think that was possible with a rangefinder, as the lens is focused and the aperture is set before I hit the shutter button?

That said - I DO see the rangefinder patch move when I hear the shutter "thunk". I don't have a clue what might cause that.

And to the others - you are of course correct. I'm comfortable enough with my digital gear that I can go out and shoot what I want and focus on composition, lighting, etc. With this equipment, I'm only at the start, where I'm shooting test rolls under conditions where I'd expect to get certain results. And I'm learning from it, which is all good :-)

Thanks

setyotomo

03-11-2011, 21:28

just make your benchmarking easier... go to a lab with, maybe a noritsu scanner or fuji.. scan your neg, see the difference... if it still the same you might have a problem with your tools...

this is my industar on canon 7 a while back, scanned with noritsu scanner
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4343550736_ed47822e50.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/setyotomo/4343550736/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/setyotomo/4343550736/) by Dion Setyotomo (http://www.flickr.com/people/setyotomo/), on Flickr

setyotomo

03-11-2011, 21:33

sorry double post

alfisti

03-12-2011, 05:55

Thanks, Dion. I think yours looks better than mine. Then again, now that I've gotten a good night's rest and looked at mine again - maybe they are not that bad?

I will shoot a roll of color film and have it processed/scanned, as a comparison. I think that's a great idea.

Thanks
-Glenn

Proteus617

03-12-2011, 06:12

Glenn-mind if I do a little post processing on one of your photos?

alfisti

03-12-2011, 06:28

Not at all. Please do!

jcrutcher

03-12-2011, 12:44

Glenn, your story sounds the same as what happened to me. I used a Canon Mark 3 1Ds for a couple of years then switched last year to Leica both film and digital. I'm still learning but the process of learning is fun and rewarding. My observations.

Compared to Canon's best Film is soft, that's ok because it's more realistic of what your eye sees.

The second shot would be a keeper for me, I think it's very good.

Maybe you should take it in stages and master each step before you move to the next. Learn the camera and lens first, all manual and use a light meter.

Stick with one film which you're doing.

Send the film to a lab that can do Tiff scanning. This way you can judge the camera and you're technique.

Once satisfied with the shots move on to scanning your own but still have a lab develop.

Have a lab do some prints for you to compare.

Once all above is dialed in then move to developing.

Once you've mastered developing (I'm not at this point yet) try a couple of other films.

At this point you may also want to add another camera or two and different focal length lenses.

The problem with full frame DSLR's is they give such good results we forget how to master the art of photography. I think in about 10 years I'll be a good photographer.

lastly be active on RFF, you will learn a lot from the members, they are either professional photographers or have a few years head start on you and I.

Jim

Greyscale

03-12-2011, 13:12

... My advice is to not shoot BW, try fuji supera 400. Its dirt cheap and very nice. HP5, although it is my favorite film, is very contrasty. Its for composition minded, not detail minded. Both of your photos lack compelling composition, which is why they pale in comparison to your digi shot that you have shared. ...

I agree with this. Try color film, and lab processing/scanning for a roll or few; this will at least make it more clear if your perceived sharpness issues are camera/lens related, or something in the processing/scanning/post-processing chain. Eliminate as many variables as possible while you get more comfortable with your equipment.

gb hill

03-12-2011, 14:04

Are you 100% positive this is HP-5? Looks more like C-41 processed B&W. This has that distinct sepia or pinkish cast I sometimes get on my BW400CN or XP-2. I never get this with traditional b&w film. Anyhow this is a good shot & when changed to 8 bit grayscale looks even better.

alfisti

03-12-2011, 16:34

Jim, grayscale - you guys are making a lot of sense. Thanks!

Gbhill... It is definitely hp5+ :-) I would live to know why I an getting the magenta tint..

charjohncarter

03-12-2011, 16:46

batterytypehah!

03-12-2011, 17:17

alfisti

03-12-2011, 18:04

Being a 'mediocre minus' photographer requires no work: buy a DSLR or a modern SLR: shoot. But to go to 'mediocre plus' you have to go to a manual camera settings (and it doesn't come with buying a film camera, or buying a camera that has manual). You said you started in the middle. Well, you answered you own question: now start from the beginning. Read a book: read a book on photography, real photography theory , then decide; do I want to be a 'mediocre plus' photographer or not.

Thanks for the comment - as a digital shooter, TECHNICALLY (i.e. not CREATIVELY) I'd rate myself as mediocre-plus, or maybe even proficient - I shoot manual all the time, and I understand my equipment very well. Then again it is modern equipment (5D mark I, EOS lenses, plus some older MF lenses I enjoy using with the 5D).

Moving to RF and to film, I have specifically aimed to get out of my comfort zone and take my learning to the next level. I'm a third of the way through "The Negative" and will keep reading. I am happy to have discovered this forum, though, as I've found reading and shooting, and comparing my results to previous results can only take me so far. I need the input from others!

Thanks for helping out. This is all very valuable guidance. :-)

-Glenn

alfisti

03-12-2011, 18:12

Re: Focus shift - This has nothing to do with accidentally moving the focus ring. It refers to a lens being focus optimized for one particular f-stop. When you stop down or open up, the actual focus point moves slightly, even though the distance setting remains the same. On a DSLR, or film SLR with preview, you can correct for that. On a rangefinder, you can't.

Anyway, I don't think that's what's going on here. The photo of your daughter seems to have areas of sharpness at the same distance from the lens than some of the soft areas - compare the two cuffs, for example. This hints at film flatness being the problem. In the scanner, one hopes (no idea how good the Canon film holder is), not in the camera.

Second, when you say you adjusted the rangefinder, exactly what did you do? Do you mean adjusted so that the patch lines up at infinity? Or adjusted with ground glass at the film gate, for various distances?

Ahhh. That makes sense about focus shift. I suppose that could be happening - but that's so far out of my control, I can't worry about it :-)

Film flatness in the scanner... well that's an interesting thought. In fact I can tell you for certain, it doesn't LOOK flat to me. It looks like it's bowing at the edges. The film holder doesn't seem to do anything to keep that from happening. Now that you mention it, I guess I was expecting some kind of Canon wizard-black magic kind of thing to fix that.... that is starting to make sense.

In fact I've been scanning more negatives, and just found one (shot yesterday, I think) and found it scanned perfectly and is actually what I'd call pretty sharp (especially after adding some sharpening). I just printed this at 8x10 and it's a print (of course, if it were of a real subject, not a test shot!) that I'd be very happy with.... see below.
http://images56.fotki.com/v127/photos/8/242648/9573356/Scan20105-vi.jpg

in this shot the point of focus was the nearest metal "flower" on the bird feeder. I also noted that this particular negative was pretty flat... so that could support the theory that the scanner is partly to blame. Unfortunately this shot was at the end of the roll and was the only one on the strip of negatives...

Regarding calibrating the rangefinder - I adjusted for infinity, and for close focusing. I got it as accurate as I could at 1M, but since the vertical alignment is so far off (check out the thread on "Did I break my FED-5" on the FSU board) I expect I could be getting parallax error if I'm not holding the camera level :-( I cannot for the life of me get the vertical back in alignment. I may send it somewhere for a CLA.

Thanks
-Glenn

alfisti

03-12-2011, 18:16

And p.s. - I have no idea why some of these negs look magenta and some don't.... I suspect the scanner driver (which is not very advanced) is making some decisions for me....

Vics

03-12-2011, 18:26

Why not get a better camera with a better lens? Bessa R3A or similar and lets say Nokton 40/1.4 will deliver great results. I dont get you - you used Canon 5D, - one of the best Canon DSLRs, but when it comes to RF you get the cheapest stuff possible? Not to say that good results cant be achieved with the cameras that you used, but lets be reasoable.

Plus one for that. Why are so many folks on here looking to get world-class results with the cheapest camera/lens/film/fill in the blank? Photography, whether digital or film. is expensive. Always has been.
Having ranted, I would say shoot Tri-x, develop in Kodak D-76, and to get the best IQ, print in a wet darkroom. I think you'll start to love the results. Oh, and get a Leica.

alfisti

03-12-2011, 18:36

well the reason for me using inexpensive gear is simple - it's an experiment. I can't say I'll be shooting film for any period of time, so I need to keep the investment small.

I am also interested in the rangefinder experience, and I can't spend thousands of dollars (and sell my thousands of dollars of DSLR gear to fund it) without knowing if I enjoy it or find it valuable.

I figure the only way to know is to shoot a bunch of rolls through an inexpensive rangefinder and see if I enjoy this method of composing and focusing.

Additionally I want to fill in my knowledge with what I missed with film "at the beginning" and have a better understanding of contrast and subject tonality/range, and digital is too distracting for too familiar for that.

Plus - my experience has shown that the best equipment is not always necessary to get good results. Case in point - the picture at the beginning of this thread (the color one) was taken with the humble 50mm 1.8... cheapest lens in the Canon lineup. The 5D was bought with 127k shots on the clock, used.

If I can determine that I can get what I'm looking for ("keeper" shots) with this equipment, even if it's not 5D quality, then I can make further determinations on what I should buy or sell.

Thanks
-Glenn

shadowfox

03-12-2011, 18:53

Glenn.

It is a matter of broadening your expectation. I came from digital also, but I soon learned that I can immediately adjust my expectation to what film is about. It's tacky to describe, but I *love* film, with its softness, imperfection, and texture (grain). Don't get me wrong, I *can* produce images as sharp as digital, but most of the time, I like the opposite look.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5213/5388330117_f7b8a72c7e_z.jpg

Some people can't or won't understand film. That's why we have people who throw their hands in disgust after giving film a try. Or sell their film cameras in a hurry after ecstatically switching to digital. For them, digital is the right tool and medium.

Don't feel that you have to force yourself to like film. You've given film a fair trial, that is more than some will ever do.

alfisti

03-12-2011, 19:46

Thanks, Will. Well stated. Only time will tell. I have a lot more shooting to do before I make any decisions. The journey is fun of it :-)

Vics

03-12-2011, 19:50

"Plus - my experience has shown that the best equipment is not always necessary to get good results. Case in point - the picture at the beginning of this thread (the color one) was taken with the humble 50mm 1.8... cheapest lens in the Canon lineup."

The 50mm SLR lenses are cheap because it's the easiest FL to design, correct and build. 1.8 is like F2. Not really fast, but probably sharper and better corrected that its faster sisters. You'll ALMOST always find that slower lenses offer better IQ. Not always, but almost always.
On your other comments, I'd only say that if you buy good gear and still don't like it, you can always get your money back (if you bought it right.) My Leica M3 w/'cron 50 was about $1100. I think I could get that and more for it now, 5 years later. Best of luck in your adventure in film.

FrankS

03-12-2011, 20:14

I'm not at all surprised that you are having some difficulty in going from top end digital gear to the film gear you have chosen. Film isn't easy. With film one has to commit the whole roll and at least 1/2 hour to process and dry negs compared to the individual frame instant feedback of digital.

batterytypehah!

03-13-2011, 06:08

I don't understand why some guys here still want to talk the OP into more expensive cameras. That is not the solution. The gear he has, if properly used and adjusted, should be capable of much better quality.

@alfisti - The earlier suggestion to get pro scans is a good one. You could also check your film strips with a loupe, though it might be easier to shoot a roll of slide film for that. Which incidentally will also give you a better idea about the shutter speed accuracy of that FED than B&W or color print film does.

Also, it sounds like you're running the scanner on auto? No experience with the Canon software (I use an Epson) but you will have to get more acquainted with it than that. Auto is barely good enough for identifying the keeper shots on the roll.

batterytypehah!

03-13-2011, 06:56

By the way, you could also forget the scanner altogether and use a macro setup with your DSLR for "scanning." One very slick version can be found in this old thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=87939 (see posts #13 and 22)

It's charjohncarter's, who also contributed above, so maybe he can share more tips.

For a makeshift rig, you could put one of your negs in a slide frame and tape it to a north-facing window for even lighting.

charjohncarter

03-13-2011, 07:15

It is very difficult to digitalize a negative. Whether my way or using a scanner. There are drawbacks to both (but your own process will be better than any Costco or drugstore scan), but the important thing is to fine tune your process. Really understand a histogram (which sometimes I think I don't). But to start be sure you have all the negative information on the digital version of your negative. I some times spread the histogram arrows out to be sure I have everything (this is during the digitalization process). Then go to levels (now post process) and adjust your black and white points (manually, the way you like them) finally you can move the middle arrow for mid-tone brightness. If it needs a little more do some curves. I don't use photoshop but elements and Easy Curve is a free plugin for curves (I think that is the name, if it isn't PM me and I'll look it up). Good luck.

Gradskater

03-13-2011, 07:49

This picture here is similar to your initial digital picture (focus on eyes, bokeh, color), but shot on film with a Canon QL17 GIII.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/5070043450_bd2a6a8949_z.jpg

To get this picture (which looks as good as any higher iso digital to me), a lot of things have to work.

Everyone's advice is correct, and here are my few cents.

First, your camera has to work correctly. Shutter times and rangefinder alignment need to be spot on, and the older cameras (believe me, I have too many) are hit or miss without a cla.

Second, I used Fuji iso100 film. And even still the negative will never be as "clean" as a digital file. That's just how it goes with film.

Third, the processing (assuming you exposed the image like you wanted) is important. I do all of my processing at home, so I can better control the process and prevent scratches.

Fourth, scanning the image and post processing is an art unto itself. This was scanned on a plustek 7300, and then the curves were played with to get the image to look like I want. This image was not sharpened after scanning.

It's not especially difficult, but the stars kind of have to align, and then each step along the way has to be done correctly. Film is just a longer process with more places to mess up than digital. Keep going at it and you'll get results you like.

Pherdinand

03-13-2011, 08:08

i'm sorry but you are comparing a multi-hundred bucks camera with a modern lens to the cheapest rangefinders ever made 30-40 years ago?
Plus you are using an iso400 film, that you (as beginner, as you say it) don't even use it at 400 but under-and overexpose it (and develop accodringly)- this changes the film properties as well, did you check that such a film/dev combination is ideal for what you want (details/sharpness)?
Finally, as already mentioned, you scan it with a not too good scanner, afaik. This adds an additional step in the process where things might go wrong.

So yes, you are doing something wrong - you are doing the wrong comparison.

By the way there's nothing wrong with not-ultrasharp photos, plenty of great shots are not critically sharp. But if that's what you aim for...

alfisti

03-13-2011, 08:49

All great advice. Gradskater, that's the kind of results I'm looking for :-) I suspect I'm a CLA and a good scanner away from getting decent results. I am beginning to understand about the film I've chosen (contasty, not known for detail) and again, it's all learning. It's all good :-) I have a few rolls of Superia 400 on the way, I'll shoot with those and have them processed. If that doesn't net decent results, I'll look to have one or both cameras CLA'd.

Thanks

alfisti

03-13-2011, 09:16

Also - to clarify one more thing - I'm not always hung up on sharpness. It's just that I'm trying to find out the limitations of the gear (and myself). It's all learning. Thank

mgilbuena

03-13-2011, 09:17

Your journey is similar to mine:

Wow, this Leica. It's magical! There's nothing it can't do! This is a $3k+ ASPH lens! It's got creamy bookeh!

Unfortunately, coming from a DSLR background, stylistically there are simply things I couldn't effectively do with my film (and digital!) Leicas. A rangefinder is a different beast: minimum focus distance, rangefinder focusing method, and of course a lot smaller. It allowed me to travel with lighter equipment, but did not replace my ability to take shots like I did with my DSLR.

I liked film. I liked it's character. I liked that rangefinders got me back into film. Thus, a natural progression was to get a film SLR body that allowed me to take advantage of my large Nikon lens collection from my DSLR bodies.

I started with a Nikon FM2. Same size as an M body. Totally manual focus. Battery for meter, but all shutter speeds mechanical and not reliant on a battery. This was a great body and I was able to return to my comfort zone (standing closely to my subjects; macro photography, etc) but found I was becoming frustrated with split prism focusing. I didn't find it as easy to focus as with a rangefinder.

Then I picked up an auto-focus SLR body. $40. Equal in functionality to a Nikon D700. Amazing. I now have all the ability that my DSLR cameras had, but with the quality and character of 35mm film. I was and am very happy.

Rangefinder? Day trip. Vacation to another country. Walk-around daily camera.
SLR/DSLR? Modeling. Macro work. Creamy bokeh from closer distance than allowed with a rangefinder.

PS. If you want to be astonished by the quality from a "cheap" camera body, check out an Olympus Stylus Epic point-and-shoot. Much larger "sensor" than a modern digital point and shoot. Full-frame!!

Bobfrance

03-13-2011, 10:11

Your scanner software is worth a look.
I scan on an Epson Perfection flatbed and found the Silverfast software miles better than Epson's own scanning software. A lot of people seem to like Vuescan too. You can download free trial to test them out.

alfisti

03-13-2011, 10:14

Re: scanner software. It's not on "auto", it just doesn't even HAVE options. Basically it is the bare-bones scanning software that came with the scanner. I will look into the others....

Thanks

codester80

03-18-2011, 11:59

As said earlier, pick up a few books and start reading. The problem with digital is that the instant feedback allows you to constantly change things until you happen upon the right combination. You don't learn anything. Film requires you to have all the knowledge before clicking the shutter than having the knowledge after during the workflow to produce the final image. Think of digital as fast food and film as a gourmet meal.
Stick with the film experiment and I'll guarantee you'll see VAST improvements in your photography, both digital and film.

not_in_good_order

03-18-2011, 12:07

If you are used to a 5D, why not pick up a used EOS 3 and use your existing lenses? They are wonderful cameras and can be found quite cheaply. If you want to go even cheaper, an Elan 7 is nice light weight tool. Canon made many excellent SLR cameras that will handle just like what you are used to and you can get them for a song.

ottluuk

03-18-2011, 12:48

Your scanner is definitely a weak link. It simply does not have the effective resolution to get you a file that's worthy of the detail recorded on film. I used to have the Canon 8000F scanner, an older model, but a bit higher end than the 4200, I think. It was really frustrating. I tried a lot of tricks but in the end I decided that the scans would only be good for little images for forum posting. Lab enlargements from those same negatives were just fine. I have several hanging on the walls.

When the 40D came out, I jumped on the digital bandwagon. Used with the same lenses, the 40D files WIPED THE FLOOR with what I was able to get with the flatbed scanner. Mind you, I'm not saying it was dramatically better than my negatives (well, ok, for colour at ISO 400 and beyond it was) but the scanner output... I'd estimate the 8000F's files to have 4MP worth of useful image data at best. Even if your flatbed was twice as good as mine (it's probably more or less the same), it would still fall short of the 5D.

Try to get access to a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon CoolScan V) or get professional scans or prints made from your best negatives.

Steve M.

03-18-2011, 13:04

The whole chain needs to be right. Metering, exposure, subject, development etc. Is the camera focusing correctly? Is the lens a good one? Is the scanner capable of good results? Did you edit the image to it's fullest potential in your editing software?

I have a much older flatbed scanner, and it will give excellent results (for medium format) IF everything is right. I would disagree that film is soft! You just gotta have good glass and have everything else right. Here's a shot from a Leica R lens using just the Walgreens scans and editing in PS, and another from a Rolleiflex using an older flatbed Epson scanner. I would recommend a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. A Minolta Scan Dual II or III won't cost much, but again, you have to confirm that everything else is on the money. If you use good glass, a good film like Tri-X, a properly focused and exposed (and developed) neg, and a good scanner....then the sharpness, tonal range, & detail will blow you away.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1297/5178607894_4201f0b3bd_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4640418962_a626a32721_z.jpg

bronney

03-24-2011, 00:41

Glenn,

I started with a Nikon D40x, ended up selling it when I got my 16th film body. Later got jobs coming in and picked up the D700. Out of all those cameras, the QL17 is the *** *** I hate the most. I like it, I like to collect it, but the *** *** results I don't know what's wrong with it. The photos from it just makes me angry I don't know what it is. Even my Yashica's do better than this quick-loading thing. Here are some samples of my QL17:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bronney/sets/72157618879042511/

To your question of pink scans, I think it's over exposure of negs. I find that if I expose a frame perfectly, the magenta/pinkish is gone with default WB. Alternatively, you can correct it during scan by picking (eye dropping) the correct neutral from the frame. I use silverfast to scan my stuff.

To test out if your camera's meter consistently over exposing your film, stick in a roll of positives and shoot. As positives have way lower tolerance, you can tell if all your highlights are blown, it's over. For me, I think I am the weakest link in terms of exposure and need to -EV my head.

So yeah, try some yashica if you're still on a budget or if you feel naughty, pick up some leica's. Here's a great tip, if you know how to shop your leica's you don't ever lose money when you sell it. The nikon's and canon's will lose you money.

Nikon Bob

03-24-2011, 04:28

I think you are trying to learn too much at once. You are trying to learn how to focus a RF camera/cameras which may or may not be in spec, how to get a proper exposure, how to develop film and how to scan film. How about eliminating some of the variables by shooting colour C41 film and having a lab develop and scan the roll. Then make sure your cameras are up to spec or just get a more modern film SLR body that is easier to use, more likely up to spec and cheap to buy. Once you are getting good results with film, then start to learn how to develop and/or scan.

Bob

atlcruiser

03-24-2011, 06:13

alfisti

03-24-2011, 11:23

Too many variables! I think your results are fine, camera is OK, film is good (would not be my first choice though, scanner is OK........

My suggestion would be to first do a bunch of test shots to figure out focus, then a bunch to figure out exposure/developing times. I would scan them but not worry too much about the scanner or softwear.....just get an image to look at.

Do this for a while and the learning curve will be very quick. You have the knowledge and skills but they need to be adapted to the process

Correct. Thanks for the guidance - all of you. Here's what I've done
* Sent the FED in for a CLA, it should come back calibrated and "known good".
* Been shooting with the Canonet, with color film.

I would wholeheartedly agree that there have been too many variables. Once I feel I'm good enough with RF focusing, I'll go back to B&W and shoot some more.

Having fun learning, either way!

alfisti

03-26-2011, 16:50

Just an update on this.

I sent the FED-5 in for a CLA. I also bought a few rolls of Fujifilm Superia 400. I shot two color rolls yesterday/today, and had them developed at Costco, with scans.

The results are night and day. First of all it's clear from the prints and the scans - I'm nailing the focus, nearly every time. It's also obvious the Costco scans are very good. Also - the lens seems to be performing well :-)

Next step - shoot a roll of film with the CLA'd camera and follow my workflow from before, and see what I get.

One thing I have noticed already, it helps to flatten the negs before scanning them. I will make sure to do that from now on. My scanner has produced good scans, but not consistently. I think the curl of the film is contributing to that. I do have to apply obscene amounts of sharpening, though... Ideally, I get a better scanner.

Thanks all!!

(samples below - these are test shots, sorry for the content)

http://images107.fotki.com/v159/photos/8/242648/9573356/01140019-vi.jpg

http://images54.fotki.com/v461/photos/8/242648/9573356/01140024-vi.jpg

http://images45.fotki.com/v148/photos/8/242648/9573356/01150019-vi.jpg