Some photos I took over the past month with the Canonet QL17 GIII on Ektar 100
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:18
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:32
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:35
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:39
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:44
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:49
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:54
last one
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 94 dpcm Vertical Resolution 94 dpcm Image Created 2016:06:02 20:26:12
>muh ektar
*tips magentas*
*tips bluey greens*
now srs, i think you overexposed the whole lot. when you overexpose ektar, weird things happen. faulty meter? i dont like the emulsion too much, in fact might be one of my least favorites ever.
about the photos, the set is formulaic and has no charm, its like a robot took them based in some algorythm. try to put some vision into your photo, even if its about fucking cows.
>>2853834
What is even going on with the colors in this one?
These look really bad for Ektar, are these lab scans?
>>2853896
looks like overexposed slide film. which is weird, because its color neg hence theoretically more headroom, but its been said ektar has this narrow DR.
>>2853899
i got these scanned at a shop yes
i will say im surprised the highlights havent retained as much detail as is claimed for ektar. also are these all really that over-exposed? are you viewing these on an ips panel?
>>2853892
wow awesome ur clever
kys.
>>2853903
take or leave it, little cunt.
>>2853902
I shot 35mm ektar at 200 and still got stuff blowing out when it was correctly exposed. Colour negative film gets overhyped a lot, here;s what my ektar looked like when I scanned it myself
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2103 Image Height 3319 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:06:02 14:57:24 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 634 Image Height 1000
>>2853919
I've found that dslr scanning retains the dynamic range of negative film a lot better than a normal scanner does.
This is a shitty shot I took back in high school that I decided to re-scan years later. The frame was almost completely black even when put under a backlight, but I was surprised that I was able to resolve detail out of something really badly overexposed.
c-41 might not have as much latitude as black and white film, but it still should hold highlights pretty well. Some of that probably depends on how good your scanner is, too.
Good job OP... on wasting a roll of Ektar. You might want to get your camera checked, not only are the pictures awful, but I'd say most of them are slightly out of focus. That, or the scans really are that awful. Which they are.
Also the """""""lab""""""" you went to fucking murdered the colour correction. DIY or find some place that is competent.
>>2853892
Just shit scans m8. I overexpose all my Ektar by 1-2 stops (shadows at -1) and it's fine. I'll double down on the latitude; it's not Portra-tier. Still good though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 664 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:02 11:21:31 Exposure Time 1/200 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 1/3 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Focal Length 5.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2853919
I just vaguely estimated an exposure for this whole roll and it came out fine.
I think you guys must just suck at scanning and colour correction.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment Projection Rectilinear (0) FOV 9 x 6 Ev 13.59 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2854086
Not OP. Yours is shit also, though. Be under no illusion.
Like you should kill yourself, though, not him.
I only shot 1 roll of Ektar but I really liked the pinks. Are they usually that nice?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:19 19:28:56 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2854208
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:19 19:29:03 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2854212
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:19 19:29:10 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2854086
>wasting a roll of Ektar
You really should attach a photo that is not complete garbage when writing shit like this. Get your eyes checked as the attached photo is not only boring as fuck, but also badly composed and exposed
>>2854296
It's not a good photo, it's supposed to show what greens and reds look like under direct winter sunlight. Could be a tad greener though. It's the only photo I have where I'm sure I did overexposure.
>>2854210
These seem soft as fuck. My picture's soft as fuck because I'm using a reversed lens to scan with. It could be that the lab scans are concealing any sort of sharpness to those images. tfw no money for a macro.
>>2853834
>>2853833
>>2853828
>>2853827
>>2854208
L u s h
u
s
h
>>2854308
i might buy a macro adaptor and try cam scanning myself. do you have any tips for editing colour negatives?
>>2854325
http://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/06/02/scanning-and-editing-color-negative-film
Build a shoot through box illuminated by flash with plenty of diffusion, a way to keep the film flat, and to isolate the front of the film from ambient light. And don't pretend it's a fast method if you don't have it down pat.
>>2854210
It can be difficult to color correct at first, but once you do it a few times it's not too bad. You can also save color profiles so that when you shoot the same type of film again it's easy to correct.
>>2854208
this is nice
