Yashica FX-2 with a generic (no name brand) ASA100 film

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Here are the results....Not very happy with them I have boosted contrast and PP'd all of these.I used the sunny 16 rule so the exposures are off.The lenses were the Yashica ML 1.7/50 and the Tamron 103A 80-210.
#1 My budding photographer..ML1.7/50 F5.6/250

#2 Unfortunately I forgot the notebook for these images so no F stops or which lens I used....some I am sure you may be able to work out.
Note the red cast in this cup... Sad

#3

#4

#5

#6

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

I find this is the usual state of most snapshot scans - the machines seem to over expose, probably due to the needs of the print making process.

Anyway, the fix is usually simple: duplicate the layer, and blend it back in 'multiply' mode in photoshop/elements or similar. Adjust the opacity to what looks good, and try the top layer with and without 'auto color'. I took the liberty of taking one of yours and doing just that: I did auto color on the layer and blended it at around 76%

Nice shooting by the way

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Wow what a difference,sadly my skill with layering is not up to scratch...I need to get my young helper to show me how.Thanks for the explanation and showing me how it should look.
After seeing these results it is hard to want to shoot in film as the development service is a let down.I mean it may not all be their fault,ie my lack of skill etc...but to pay out $30 plus dollars for 4 rolls of film just for the negs and to be put on a PITA kodak disc.
I may persevere every so often but not as much as I would want to. Sad

Katastrofo · Expire: 2013-11-19

Moira, getting a scanner would maybe save you a little, although processing
has gone up considerably in my area. Paradoxically, processing 120 color
is only 84c plus tax, but you wait two weeks for the negs.

Nice processing, Jussi!

Yebisu · Joined: 13 Feb 2011 Posts: 1299

Hi Moira

I've just started using film. It is probably even more expensive here in Japan. The scans made for me at the camera shop were over exposed too but Jussi's solution works really well. I'm going to persevere with film but will definitely get a scanner. The dedicated film scanners are too expensive for me so I'm looking for a general purpose scanner that can do 35mm negatives. Does anyone on here have any recommendations?

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

The Epsons, usually. Although I think Canon has made some inroads of late.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I agree with Nesstor. The older Epsons work pretty well, so you don't necessarily have to buy new. And the Canons, like the 8600F and up do a good job as well. I have an Epson 4990 and I'm reasonably satisfied with its performance.

Even though the places where I have my film develop really do a good job with their prints, nowadays, I just have them develop the negatives, then I'll scan them myself, and select which images I want to have printed, if any.

Yebisu · Joined: 13 Feb 2011 Posts: 1299

Thanks Jussi and Michael. Now I know where to start looking.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Just to add to this -- if all you'll be scanning is 35mm, you can get used dedicated film scanners for pretty cheap that will have somewhat better resolution than you can expect from a flatbed. Even your best flatbed scanners -- like the Epson V7xx models -- top out at around a true 2400 ppi or so. And they are expensive. While you can pick up dedicated scanners like the HP S20 or the Minolta Scan Dual I for pretty cheap and both those units put out a true 2400 ppi. You can probably even find dedicated scanners that will put out around 2800 ppi for not much more than what I paid for my Epson 4990 ($200). So I would not rule them out. Be aware, however, that a lot of these older dedicated film scanners are SCSI and will require a SCSI card if they don't come with one. If you're running Win 7, it doesn't support SCSI natively anymore, so you'll be dependent on the card manufacturer having written drivers to support Win 7. So usage with Win 7 can be spotty. I have my computer set up to dual boot between Win 7 and XP just for reasons of compatibility like this.

Yebisu · Joined: 13 Feb 2011 Posts: 1299

Thanks for the info Michael.