Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Film Cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Hmmm... 1st roll ever but don't know what's wrong...
Old 03-13-2013   #1
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
Hmmm... 1st roll ever but don't know what's wrong...

Hey guys - I came from the world of DSLRs and did pretty good. But I realized I took 3,500 photos on a 10 day trip to Europe... I felt I needed to calm down and wanted a better experience taking photos while doing so ~ especially after reducing the 3,500 to 350...

So I took the lunge and bought the Leica M3 & Summarit 1.5 despite some recommendations not to do so - especially bc of the flare. Anyway, I posted some pics - and would like some help.

The vertical/horizontal bars are my crap scanner, but the colors seem true to the prints.
1. Why is the 1st so off color?! (Do I need a filter? Stop down some more?)
2. Why is the 2nd so flarey - when I didn't even have a backlit light?
3. Why is the 3rd so perfect shot at same aperture at 1st one?

Btw the lens is in pretty immaculate condition and seems to have the original coating in tact.

Thanks in advance guys...

#1[IMG][/IMG]


#2[IMG][/IMG]


#3
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #2
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃıɹq looɟɹəʇƃıɹq
 
philipus's Avatar
 
philipus is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: '(,,,,)l
Posts: 1,034
Which scanner and what settings did you use in the software (which)?
__________________
philipus.com

Camera position: In general as shown in Fig. H and J, but according to requirements other positions are also possible or more practical.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #3
Lund
Registered User
 
Lund's Avatar
 
Lund is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 103
To my eye is looks mostly like the scanning process is what messes things up. The colors seem off in a strange way that I only achieved by using the wrong white balance when scanning.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #4
Noll
Registered User
 
Noll's Avatar
 
Noll is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 493
Not an expert here, but to my eye the banding might be the result of poor processing and the first two shots look underexposed. Check the negatives. Does the image barely register on the negs? Can you see faint streaks on them? This should get you closer to pinpointing the source of the problem
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #5
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
unfortunately it's accurate to my eye - the first pic is really really red... should I use a 80a or 80b for the light under the first one?

The scanner is a hp6310 and I used the preset for photos - but it really does look like that...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #6
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
Well the streaks are not the problem - they are from my crap scanner. The prints look like the above without the banding. Also, I had them developed at a lab and they just printed them out on to photos - I'm assuming they used their pro scanner for this job and printed from there...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #7
Spicy
Registered User
 
Spicy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: DC
Age: 32
Posts: 671
what kind of lab? if you're in the US, the difference between a pro lab and going to CVS is astonishing. i had figured the drugstores that still do 1-hr photo would at least have decent machines (surely not the most up to date, but still competent), but everything i had done at walgreens and CVS was absolutely awful. i'm sure it varies considerably based on location and also the tech doing the dev/scan, so i'm sure it's not all of them that are like that.
__________________
ID7P0M2F854Ior+50PdV3MSFcC05MNC00
[:] [']
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #8
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,480
The first picture is red because it is shot under tungsten light and underexposed, second is OK just blue and the third is what I would expect.

Your scanner is poor and I'm not sure it even has a basic film holder or film hood (film needs to be backlit by a special unit) and seems to compress tones.
To evaluate get the lab to scan them or better still by a half decent scanner like a V500 and learn to scan flat (low contrast) and adjust curves in PSCS.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #9
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
I think I need a 80a filter right? I wonder why the 2nd is blue-it was using daylight-do I need an orange filter for daylight? ...film is getting more complicated than I thought^^
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #10
pakeha
Registered User
 
pakeha is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 901
3rd looks alright, 1 and 2 the possible reasons have already been listed.
What film is this?
Put another roll in the camera and get outside with no other light source,early morning /late afternoon. Then see what happens.
Dump that scanner, even an old epson v300 will do a better job.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #11
anjoca76
Registered User
 
anjoca76's Avatar
 
anjoca76 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 611
I don't think a filter is going to help much. Filters won't help underexposure, which is what's causing, in part, the weird low-light colors. Are your shutter speeds accurate? Has the camera had a CLA? The scanning problems make it tough to really know where the true problem lies.
__________________
Andy

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #12
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblader View Post
I think I need a 80a filter right? I wonder why the 2nd is blue-it was using daylight-do I need an orange filter for daylight? ...film is getting more complicated than I thought^^
Have you considered starting with black and white?
I found that I *really* hate messing with filters.
My true love with film is B&W.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #13
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃıɹq looɟɹəʇƃıɹq
 
philipus's Avatar
 
philipus is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: '(,,,,)l
Posts: 1,034
Maybe the first one could have been helped by a filter, I don't know. But simple post-processing helps. Here's an attempt with ColorPerfect. Setting the grey point with curves/levels didn't really work. It could certainly be better than this.

The second one doesn't look flarey to me. It looks blue. Setting the gray point helped I think.

Bottom line though, try finding a better scanner and perhaps a better lab.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Photo1_zps4fc285c1.jpg (34.3 KB, 18 views)
File Type: jpg Photo3_zps96c82542.jpg (33.5 KB, 23 views)
__________________
philipus.com

Camera position: In general as shown in Fig. H and J, but according to requirements other positions are also possible or more practical.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #14
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
Thank you all for the great responses! Im guess that the exposures were off - I've been using my iPhone(i know i know...) as a light meter. My M3 had a CLA last year by Lazzari. Also, yes, the lab was horrible... although I found a really good one in Seoul.

Thanks for that extremely kind offer goodtimes.

I will try B&W as well - since I have a developing kit at home I just got to get around to it^^

anjoc76 - would a 80a filter help with the 1st? I shot it under tungsten light
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #15
magicianhisoka
Registered User
 
magicianhisoka is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 244
Don't beat on the iPhone meter too much. It is pretty decent for outdoor usage in low light it is much more inaccurate
__________________
Mobile gallery for not so mobile pictures

instagram: @2ndhandphotog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #16
ShinX414
camera geek
 
ShinX414 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 29
Posts: 83
since i only own digital cameras/rangefinders i can't really contribue to the processing or scanning, but if you want to fix the colour cast in the first 2 pictures it then try this out in photoshop:
1. use the dropper tool to get the colour of the cast
2. insert a new layer and fill it with the selected colour
3. invert the layer with the colour
4. set your opacity to what you see fit (usually it's around 40-60%)
  Reply With Quote

M3 and iPhone light Meter app
Old 03-14-2013   #17
candidcameraman
Registered User
 
candidcameraman's Avatar
 
candidcameraman is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tripping the light fantastic
Posts: 44
M3 and iPhone light Meter app

and the lens you have... overexposure seems to be your biggest issue (aside from a bad lab)

Film is extremely forgiving, with your set up ... under expose

I have the same set up you have, I used to over exposed then I ... learned how to get better results, by bracketing - you will learn too.

What ever your meter tells you, take the shot and then take a second shot one stop down...

i.e., f/1.5 at 1/30 of a second, take the second (same image) at f/1.5 1/60 of a second... you'll be surprised
__________________
To paraphrase Vernon Trent, amateurs worry about equipment, professionals about money, masters worry about the light... I just make pictures
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #18
baisao
Registered User
 
baisao's Avatar
 
baisao is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo_Smith View Post
The first picture is red because it is shot under tungsten light and underexposed, second is OK just blue and the third is what I would expect..
I agree with this advice. I don't know that you can compare the first and third shots because it is not obvious, to me, if the lighting conditions were exactly the same for both photos.

Also, and I may have missed this, what film are you using? How are you metering?

Remember that for B&W you meter for the shadows you want to see as middle gray and for color meter you want to meter for the highlights. But this is just the beginning.
__________________
Leica IIIc
M6 Classic 'Wetzlar'
Mamiya 7ii
Nikon F
Olympus OM-4Ti
Canon TL-QL
some digi camera simulator

Flickr

Last edited by baisao : 03-14-2013 at 21:58. Reason: added content
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #19
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
 
sc_rufctr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,202
Sorry but... How can anyone make a proper assessment when this is the situation. "my crap scanner"?

You need to shoot a new roll and get the negatives scanned with a known working scanner.
Surely you can get decent proccessing in China! I would imagine the film market would be huge there.

Apologies in advance if I have offended you.
__________________
Peter

Adelaide, South Australia
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #20
jim_jm
Registered User
 
jim_jm's Avatar
 
jim_jm is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 266
I think your main problem with the first 2 shots are underexposure. If you look at the negs the images may be very thin. These shots also have very bright areas in the background/periphery which may have affected your meter reading, especially #2 with the difference in brightness outside. When scanning or printing an underexposed negative, you're trying to get the midtones and highlights to look reasonable, but the shadows or dark areas will often be flat and washed-out and the image will look muddy. Labs will usually try to give you the best possible print from your underexposed negative, which looks a lot like your first two images. The 3rd exposure looks good - nice contrast, good shadow and highlight detail and color balance - you could easily print this one a bit darker to give it a nice dark "pool-room" mood, but the negative has all the information you need to print it to suit your style. Sometimes underexposure with color film will also exaggerate the color cast you have in the first 2 shots.

Using daylight-balanced film under incandescent lighting will give you a much warmer look, but a blue filter will help bring the colors back to neutral. The 2nd shot is the opposite - indirect light from outside, especially on a clear day with blue skies this can give the image a cold cast. Reflected light from buildings, colored walls, etc. can also change the color balance of your image. Our eyes/brains adjust to these lighting conditions, but film will show the true color of the light hitting your subject. For the second shot I'd try an 81A or 81B warming filter.

I've never used an iPhone as a meter, but some traditional meters will also give less-accurate readings indoors or in dim light. I find I have better success by overexposing a bit in these situations. The built-in meters in some newer electronic cameras are designed to compensate in these situations, but with handheld or older meters you have to think about your lighting situations to get the best exposures possible. This is what makes film and older cameras a fun challenge - you learn from your mistakes and develop your skills to master the medium.

It's hard to tell if lens flare is an issue in your first 2 shots, but keep in mind that any bright light source in your frame or just outside has the potential to cause flare with any lens. This is where modern multicoated lenses tend to do better, but lens hoods are always a good idea.

Dude, this is only your first roll of film, so don't get discouraged! Negative film is generally forgiving so you have some room for exposure error. If I only had a nickel for every exposure I'd screwed-up in the past 35 years...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #21
jim_jm
Registered User
 
jim_jm's Avatar
 
jim_jm is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 266
Sorry, I assume these shots were all on color print film. If these are color slides, then some of what I previously said would be... the opposite.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #22
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim_jm View Post
Sorry, I assume these shots were all on color print film. If these are color slides, then some of what I previously said would be... the opposite.
Many kind responses and helpful thoughts. Jim Jim you really gave me an invaluable tip there to speed my learning process- look at the negative! If its thin its underexposed right? Great tip and thanks for the advice and encouragement.
Just to clarify I had these sent to a lab-obviously not a great lab looking at the number if scratches and they didn't scan them they just printed them out. The pictures above are scans of the actual prints not the negatives. Anyway looks like ill have to invest in some filters. Thanks again guys and no I don't take offense to anything said online^^
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #23
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,463
Hi,

There's a program available called "FilterSim" that imitates a correction filter on digital images. You can get it here:

http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/filtersim.htm

Play around with it and you'll be able to correct things fairly well after the event.

I tried a No 3 Kodak Wratten on the second picture (it was the one it opened at) and was pleased with the result but she is an attractive young lady ;-)

By the way, you ought to be able to pick up a decent enlarger for a very nice price and then do B&W films the old fashioned way. Scanners can be too complicated, especially when they go wrong.

Hope this helps.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #24
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
Wow David! That programs awesome!!! Thanks a lot! Guess I really need that 80B!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #25
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
Also - ppl keep saying underexposed - quick question - doesn't underexposed film come out dark - blackish - at least that what always happened with my DSLR. Maybe two different behaviors?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #26
jim_jm
Registered User
 
jim_jm's Avatar
 
jim_jm is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 266
That's why they're called negatives - an underexposed negative, color or B/W, will appear "thin" meaning not much detail visible. Severe underexposure will begin to look like clear unexposed film. When you print the negative in a enlarger, the light passes easily through to the printing paper, making your print too dark very quickly. With slide film and digital images, you go straight to the positive image. An underexposed slide will look very dark, as will a digital image. Slide film also tends to be less forgiving of exposure errors than print film, but the colors can be spectacular. Fuji Velvia is a favorite for many photographers and it was a big deal when Kodak stopped making Kodachrome.

I shoot and print mostly B/W negative film, and many folks on this forum develop their own B/W film and then scan the negatives to produce their own prints or digital images. The cost and equipment needed to develop B/W film at home is minimal, and you can really fine-tune your materials and process to suit your style. That way you can get the unique look of film, without needing an enlarger or dedicated darkroom space.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2013   #27
gblader
Registered User
 
gblader's Avatar
 
gblader is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: S. Korea
Posts: 39
That makes a lot of sense Jim. Thanks for the education! I am in trouble as I am starting to like this film thing too much...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2013   #28
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 59
Posts: 5,871
You got a great camera & lens & it deserves a good film scanner. Get one! I have a Epson V500 & I am quite satisified with it. There are better ones out there, buy what you can afford. Don't beat yourself up or become discouraged. It's a learning process & isn't all that difficult to get good scans. I second the idea to shoot b&w & develop at home. You do this & I believe you will fall in love with your M3. Patience my friend, patience.
__________________
Greg
flickr
Bessa R & L
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2013   #29
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,617
Until you get a better scanner, perhaps you should leave the scanning to the lab that does your processing. Most (all?) labs, pro or mini, will scan your negatives to a CD for you at a minimal cost. I usually have them just process and scan mine, and only print the ones I want after doing my own post-processing, as almost always some image manipulation is desired.
__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2013   #30
varjag
Eugene Zaikonnikov
 
varjag's Avatar
 
varjag is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 42
Posts: 2,959
The problem is not so much a scanner but underexposure. The shots are under at least 3 stops. That's what causes banding, the negs are too thin for the scanner CCD.

It is pointless to prescribe any filters until base exposure is gotten correctly.
__________________
Eugene

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2013   #31
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblader View Post
Wow David! That programs awesome!!! Thanks a lot! Guess I really need that 80B!!
Thanks, it's all part of the service...

Regards, David

PS Did any one else look at FilterSim and try it?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.